Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9517878" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Notes as I was reading through:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Intro is fine. States its position speculatively, so later evidence can come in.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">First actual paragraph already hits a snag. "Rather than providing broad, flexible guidelines that empower creative play,"--you've just assumed your own point before doing the first thing to defend it. You've vilified all forms of exception-based design as being inherently and automatically antagonistic to creativity. That's...not really something I can accept, and it's going to be hard to not let this sour my view of the rest of the article. Presuming right out of the gate that exception-based design ruins creativity is just, flat, bad.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"So they’re not just fighting better than everyone else, they’re operating under a complete different set of rules than anyone else. A unique set of exceptions just for them." I disagree with this characterization quite strongly, but I'll cover that later.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I disagree with all three points asserted in the numbered list.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"But they do sometimes conflict in the best of cases, and can sometimes incentivize arguments over rules interpretations in the worse cases." That's a lot of qualifiers. Others have already commented on how much the qualifiers are doing the heavy lifting here, but I'll add my own bits later.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Problem With The Incentive Problem: Or, rather, the two problems. (1) That the game uses exceptions doesn't mean people won't ask for them if the rules aren't designed this way, and (2) you haven't actually shown that the alternative is better, but your argument depends on it being better.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"Rule Zero" has always had different definitions in different contexts. The idea that there is and has always been one, single, universal definition or process of Rule Zero is a recent, and erroneous, invention.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"it fuels the fire of delays and arguments": No it doesn't. I can make bald statements as easily as you can. You have to actually show the connection, not just assert it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"it abandon’s [sic] the idea of making quick rulings to keep the game moving" It really doesn't, because the function of this Rule Zero is completely unrelated to that. You are applying it outside its radius of convergence, and then saying that because it's gibberish there, it must be gibberish everywhere. The conclusion does not follow.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"it firmly enforces the idea that D&D is a game or rules, not rulings" Nope. Instead, it emphasizes that the entirety of the game--rules AND rulings--only exists to serve a higher calling, namely, the positive experience of the participants. The flaw with many of the "rulings, not rules!" arguments is that they completely ignore this in favor of an all-encompassing, absolutely dominant "DM Vision" with no room left for...y'know...actually caring about the players and making a game THEY want to play.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"establishes for the DM to be overruled by the players, which is a powerful and dangerous idea." Initially I had a pretty negative response to this, but unlike any of the other points up to now, you actually explain this. I don't agree with all of that explanation, but you actually make an argument rather than a bald assertion, which is a big improvement.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"This is powerful because player input should be one of the most important things driving the game." Fully agreed! The problem is that critical word: should. The formulation of Rule Zero articulated in 5.0 fails to emphasize how utterly essential this is, and instead positions the DM as absolute auteur-autocrat, which is significantly detrimental to the game for a host of reasons.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"However, it’s also dangerous because pushing this too far in a direction the DM isn’t interested is going to cause them to burn out and games to collapse." Does this (and the following sentence) actually happen that often? Or are you blowing a pretty tiny problem way, way, way, way out of proportion, in the face of the much bigger problem of a single bad autocrat DM ruining the experience of not just one group, but many?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"Finding Balance at Your Table" is overall fine, but I have two important criticisms (which, again, will be more articulated in a full response later.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">As with so many things, your point 2 here ("Embrace The DM’s Role") commits a pretty frustrating bait and switch argument. You begin by presuming malicious player behavior (rules lawyering, "treat[ing] DMs like a low functioning gaming console", "fuel[ing] the fires of delays", etc.), and then follow this up by presuming a total absence of bad DM behavior. This premise is utterly unacceptable. Either we accept that both players and DMs are a spectrum of good, bad, and (mostly) mediocre/uneven, or we accept that bad actors are rare and most participants, players and DMs alike, are just doing their best. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot base your argument on "that set of rules enables player misbehavior" and then pivot to "we will now ignore how this set of rules enables DM misbehavior".</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"The DM should be empowered to make these decisions" I don't see how it is helpful for a DM to enforce decisions nobody else likes or enjoys, but that's the literal and direct result of rejecting the formulation of Rule Zero presented here: you are saying that the DM not only can, not only should, but must sometimes make decisions everyone else dislikes, and all of the others must put on a plastic smile and Deal With It.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Tips for DMs are mostly fine. I'd really prefer that 4 was much softer--genuinely "ruining" the game for even one player is a pretty bad thing that should be avoided, perhaps not at ALL costs, but it should be an extremely high priority.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tips for Players is also okay, though I disagree with how strident 3 is (sometimes, it really, truly is necessary to iron something out when it's run into). Also, 4 is hilarious in the context of the DM being the one who calls all the shots. That explicitly makes D&D not collaborative, but submissive, always defering to one and only one person's vision.</li> </ul>My overall verdict is that you got off to a very bad start, did a whole lot of bare declarations with no actual argument or evidence, but then slowly transitioned to actually decent advice, albeit with some points where you make much too strong advocacy for or against something. I'll respond more properly later, as in actually making arguments of my own rather than simply jotting down notes, after breakfast and caffeine.</blockquote>

Verification