Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9396615" data-attributes="member: 7023840">To be clear, I don't think of the Great Thief Debate as interesting because it's about the thief. As we all know, Gygax then used every opportunity to take the Thief and beat it down, like the Thief was an orange and Gygax wanted pulpless OJ.The &quot;Thief Debate,&quot; in essence, was the first and earliest iteration of a debate that continues to recur in TTRPGs in general, but more specifically in D&amp;D. Every time you codify something into a rule, you reduce the space for something to be accomplished by &quot;not rule.&quot; There is a legal Latin term for this-Expressio unius est exclusio alteriusThe expression of one thing is the exclusion of others. Whenever new rules are introduced into D&amp;D (or other TTRGPs), whether it was the Thief Class, or the codification (for example) of NWPs (non-weapon proficiencies, AKA &quot;skills&quot; as we know them now) or rules for social abilities, we see people manning the same familiar barricade-I don't need a rule to tell me what to do.The flip side of that debate, of course, are those that want these rules. They crave rules to enhance their play. If a Magic User gets to cast spells, why can't a Thief get to ... you know, do Thief-y things? If Duroc the Merciless has rules for hitting the snot out of people, why can't Loring the Charming have rules for convincing the NPC to give up the location of the treasure? Over and over again, it's the same debate- rules, or rulings. Do we need to have a Thief class with thieving abilities, or can I just say I'm hiding?The reason I think the debate is evergreen is because it always keeps happening. It started at the beginning, and it keeps happening today. I don't think that there is some perfect design of &quot;rules&quot; and &quot;not-rules,&quot; just preferences toward the approaches.But the debate? The terms may change. Some people might shout that &quot;You're just button mashing your character sheet,&quot; and the other side might retort, &quot;You just playing the GM,&quot; but the contours have always been there. We've done this before, and we will do this again.<img src="https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMjRzbjhzdTFsOTFrazMwYzd3bWNkdmV4ZTNhaHY2ZmxmYW9pcGxhMSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/4Dy1Btpt0qUZa/giphy.webp" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9396615, member: 7023840"] To be clear, I don't think of the Great Thief Debate as interesting because it's about the thief. As we all know, Gygax then used every opportunity to take the Thief and beat it down, like the Thief was an orange and Gygax wanted pulpless OJ. The "Thief Debate," in essence, was the first and earliest iteration of a debate that continues to recur in TTRPGs in general, but more specifically in D&D. Every time you codify something into a rule, you reduce the space for something to be accomplished by "not rule." There is a legal Latin term for this- [I]Expressio unius est exclusio alterius[/I] The expression of one thing is the exclusion of others. Whenever new rules are introduced into D&D (or other TTRGPs), whether it was the Thief Class, or the codification (for example) of NWPs (non-weapon proficiencies, AKA "skills" as we know them now) or rules for social abilities, we see people manning the same familiar barricade- [I]I don't need a rule to tell me what to do.[/I] The flip side of that debate, of course, are those that want these rules. They crave rules to enhance their play. If a Magic User gets to cast spells, why can't a Thief get to ... you know, do Thief-y things? If Duroc the Merciless has rules for hitting the snot out of people, why can't Loring the Charming have rules for convincing the NPC to give up the location of the treasure? Over and over again, it's the same debate- rules, or rulings. Do we need to have a Thief class with thieving abilities, or can I just say I'm hiding? The reason I think the debate is evergreen is because it always keeps happening. It started at the beginning, and it keeps happening today. I don't think that there is some perfect design of "rules" and "not-rules," just preferences toward the approaches. But the debate? The terms may change. Some people might shout that "You're just button mashing your character sheet," and the other side might retort, "You just playing the GM," but the contours have always been there. We've done this before, and we will do this again. [IMG]https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMjRzbjhzdTFsOTFrazMwYzd3bWNkdmV4ZTNhaHY2ZmxmYW9pcGxhMSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/4Dy1Btpt0qUZa/giphy.webp[/IMG] [/QUOTE]

Verification