D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Tony Vargas]

We are done here. Bye.

Promises, promises...

It's not immaterial. Cheaters are bad for the game. It's not that their stats break the game. It's that they broke the social contract that says that you get what you roll.

The stats might break the game, but whether it breaks is immaterial - what the cheater has done is /unfair/. Rolling is perfectly fair, even if it delivers a distribution of stats that arguably 'break the game' - but once someone brings in the loaded dice, that fairness is gone. Not cool.

I ... I just can't. Declaring something "even" just because you want it to be ... there's no arguing with that.

Random isn't 'even,' it's simply fair. Fairness is an adequate minimum for a game, especially a competitive one.

 

[Oofta]

Promises, promises...


The stats might break the game, but whether it breaks is immaterial - what the cheater has done is /unfair/. Rolling is perfectly fair, even if it delivers a distribution of stats that arguably 'break the game' - but once someone brings in the loaded dice, that fairness is gone. Not cool.

Random isn't 'even,' it's simply fair. Fairness is an adequate minimum for a game, especially a competitive one.

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Arial Black]

Make up your mind - are my statements false, or are they true and you are trying to deflect blame by claiming the other side does the same thing?

Both can't be true.

But both can be untrue!

The point is that whether or not the arguments put forward by Oofta and me (and everyone on either side) are (or are not) 'spouting propaganda', both sides of the debate are equally guilty (or not guilty) of that behaviour.

So you're wrong either way. If me expressing my opinions is merely 'spouting propaganda', then so is Oofta. If he is not, then neither am I. We are doing the same thing (debating), even though we are on opposite sides of the debate.

I frequently disagree with Oofta about specific claims, but I don't criticise him for having the temerity to engage in the debate! That would be absurd, since I am also engaging in the same debate!

Which brings us to you(!). You witness Oofta and I debating, and conclude that the very act of debating proves that whatever I post is merely 'spouting propaganda', but don't accuse Oofta of the same thing despite the fact that he is doing the same thing! What that 'thing' may be is not the issue; the fact that two people are doing the same thing but only one gets criticised for doing it is the issue.

 

[Caliban]

Which brings us to you(!). You witness Oofta and I debating, and conclude that the very act of debating proves that whatever I post is merely 'spouting propaganda', but don't accuse Oofta of the same thing despite the fact that he is doing the same thing! What that 'thing' may be is not the issue; the fact that two people are doing the same thing but only one gets criticised for doing it is the issue.

*shrug* I don't think it's an issue. In your opinion it may be, but it isn't in my opinion. You'll just have to deal with it.

 

[Arial Black]

This was in response to a a post where you gave the option of punching someone in the face or suck it up like a big boy and still play. You were basically stating that if you were mature enough, rolling is awesome.

I also went on to explain in a later post that I have a lot of options to play, more than I have time. So for me, no it's not "rather have no game at all".

Just like I won't go to any more sushi-only restaurants because there are plenty of other options available, I won't play in a game where rolling is the only option. That doesn't make sushi bad, it just means I don't like raw fish and horseradish.

You like random results, more power to you. But if you're going to quote me, try to keep it in context.

For the record, I don't have a problem with you posting your opinions. I was criticising Oofta for accusing me of something that you and I were both doing when he didn't criticise you. I wasn't criticising you for engaging in the debate or expressing your opinions.

Specifically, he accused me of 'complaining about point-buy'. I was just pointing out that you complained about rolling. I'm totally okay with (both of us) complaining, but Caliban thinks that I am a bad person because I complained about point-buy but makes no mention of you complaining about rolling or being a bad person because you did.

I was criticising Caliban's double standard, not the fact that you complained about rolling. I might disagree with the actual details of the actual complaint, but not your right to complain.

 

[Caliban]

Promises, promises...

I promised nothing. But he is on Ignore now, so it's as final as I can make it.

Random isn't 'even,' it's simply fair. Fairness is an adequate minimum for a game, especially a competitive one.

Maxie was the one declaring it as "even", not Oofta. Oofta was simply pointing out how irrational that particular declaration is. Glad we can all agree on that much at least.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder.

I see that statement as inherently unfair.

 

[Arial Black]

*shrug* I don't think it's an issue. In your opinion it may be, but it isn't in my opinion. You'll just have to deal with it.

It demonstrates that those criticisms are bogus.

Either 'engaging in debate = spouting propaganda', or it doesn't. Whichever it is, since Oofta and I are both engaging in debate then criticising just one of us for doing so is not a rational argument against that side of the debate or for the other side of the debate.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Either 'engaging in debate = spouting propaganda', or it doesn't.

They are definitely two very different things. That does not mean that only one or the other exists, nor that the latter can't masquerade quite effectively as the former - including throwing around accusations of propagandizing!

If y'all want to stick to debate and avoid slipping into propaganda, you'd want to move into the realm of more formal logic...

...good luck with that.

 

[Caliban]

It demonstrates that those criticisms are bogus.

Either 'engaging in debate = spouting propaganda', or it doesn't. Whichever it is, since Oofta and I are both engaging in debate then criticising just one of us for doing so is not a rational argument against that side of the debate or for the other side of the debate.

*shrug* If you say so. I honestly don't care at this point. Whatever makes you stop whinging about it, I'll agree to. Here:

"Arial Black is a stellar example of an adult human being who in no way complains for pages upon pages about inconsequential stuff long after the issue should be settled."

Happy?