Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6205407" data-attributes="member: 2525">No matter how many times you claim it's "because of science", that doesn't make it so. The studies are not on this specific behavior, they're on general ones.  And if there is something special about a particular topic that breaks from the norm (and there is with this one), it's not applicable.  You're making what "Science" calls a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization" target="_blank">hasty generalization</a>.  You've applied the general to the specific with no evidence the specific properly fits in with the general.D&D is a game where one party has clear, and acknowledged, vastly superior ability to opt in or opt out.  It's the rule - the established parameters of the game is the DM decides on all of it.  The books we're talking about, monster books, are specifically for the DM as an aid.  House rules for this game are so common they rules expect them, and even try and give guidelines on how to do it effectively, and publish optional rules and modules to accommodate that expected behavior.  A huge portion of the game, indeed much of the book we're talking about, is intended for use in creating your own adventures which are not related to a published adventure or setting.  None of the standardized generic behavior of "will I or won't I opt in to this thing that does not much matter at the moment" applies to that specific circumstance.  It's the opposite circumstance to the donor card issue - the donor card issue is a position of non-imminent consequence, where lazily defaulting is the norm because it has no immediacy to the individual.  With the DM, everything they do with this sort of issue has immediate and direct consequence on their game.  They are only in the position to opt-in or opt-out because in that moment they need to make the decision (for either game prep for an imminent game, or for the game in-play itself), which has consequences for them at that time.As far as Science can tell, it has no idea, as it hasn't tested against a phenomenon like a role created to make those decisions with an assumption of frequent and immediate opt-out with direct imminent consequences.Or it's totally meaningless and and doesn't account for the thing being debated but pretends all things are equal even when they are obviously not.Untrue.  They've spent zero time playing this game.  You've spent plenty.  You are way up on them.The magnitude of the issue isn't relevant.  It's the nature of the person in the position of making opt-in or opt-out decisions, the immediacy of the issue, and the consequences for the person making the decision (not the person benefiting from it).  Every single version of D&D has made it clear that all rules are opt-in or opt-out in nature, it's inherent in the nature of the DM's duties.  There is no reason to repeat it for every creature or even in every book.  And even if you didn't know this before this thread (and I suspect based on your experience you did), but you for sure knew it as soon as you read this thread.  A whole bunch of people said "meh, I'll just ignore it" and "in my campaign we do X", and "we've always ignored that sort of stuff".  So, at that point you knew the theory was not holding up well for D&D.  It does not.  At least, not for me.  I don't buy the argument at all.  All it tells me is you probably watched the same TED talk I did.But since you raised the issue of magnitude, I am also quite unclear on why you would care if many people followed the color text for monsters in their games (though I do not think they will).  Why do you feel this impacts you? Why would you care if I and many others were to follow the color text instinctively like you theorize? Seems like even if the quantity of people who do it is high, the magnitude of the impact is very low.</blockquote>

Verification