D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Maxperson]

Huh. Good.

In my defense, it's about 11 years since I read it...

Sorta. Most spells say things like Fireball here.

"The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."

I don't see the same for dragon breath, though I really didn't look very hard.

 

[Maxperson]

In that fiction the character found runes that were useful but in no way did they decide what the runes would be or do. They had to figure out the puzzle to get open the door, they didn't come across some random runes on a cliff and say "Gee, it sure would be nice if these runes opened into the old dwarven mines." Same with the modules, the runes they came across had predefined meanings, not whatever the player hoped for.

They are not at all the same.

The runic language inside Moria was dwarvish, which Gimli could easily read. It's not is this were some ancient dwarvish language. Languages in Middle Earth didn't change over time and Moria was only abandoned for like 10-12 generations.

The only reason Gandalf needed to be the guide was that unlike the others, he had been through Moria before and was looking for specific guide stones.

 

[Maxperson]

Umm, you missed the part where "and narratively interesting" has been added. Which I pointed out earlier. It is a pretty significant change actually.

No he didn't.

"The DM and the rules often call for an ability check when a creature attempts something other than an attack that has a chance of meaningful failure. When the outcome is uncertain and narratively interesting, the dice determine the result."

Was in his post. But in any case, that doesn't change the fact that ability checks in 5.5e are still skill.

"An ability check represents a creature using talent and training to try to overcome a challenge"

That's skill and constrains the portion that says narratively interesting to only those narratively interesting things that are skill. Magical pixies would not be skill, so would not be an acceptable narration unless the DM was changing the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait wait wait wait.

So now it's okay to use pithy sayings that seem straightforward but have more complicated meaning and actually might diverge quite heavily?

Because, as with my previous post, a whole mess of arguments previously made by folks in this thread are directly opposed by this line of thinking. So--can I proceed on the grounds that sometimes, pithy phrasing is acceptable even if the literal meaning isn't obvious?

I don't know what you are talking about. What pithy sayings?

A power that must not be used doesn't exist. That is, quite literally, a LIMIT ON POWER. That's what it means--something you must not do.

Nobody said must not be used. As I said, I end up having to use it once every 3-4 years. That doesn't mean that it happens often or that the players have to be obedient to something that isn't being used 99.x% of the time, giving them nothing to be obedient to the rest of the time.

 

[Maxperson]

Obedience is submission to authority whenever that authority exists.

Incorrect. It's submission to authority whenever that authority is USED.

Kim Jong Un has absolute authority in North Korea. If you went there tomorrow and he was nice as could be. Made no threats. Didn't tell you that you had to do or not do things and just let you wander around until you wanted to leave, there would be nothing for you to be obedient to. He didn't do anything that you would have to obey.

On the other hand if you told you to dance a ballet for him, you'd have to be obedient and do it.

That's why objecting to a specific law, but otherwise obeying all other laws, is called civil disobedience. You are not objecting to the idea of authority; you are objecting to one specific application thereof, and showing your respect for the system by breaking the one rule you allege to be wrong, but otherwise adhering to the rule of law.

Laws are actively in force against you, though. They are being USED. Laws that don't exist, but that the legislature may enact in the future don't have any force. You don't have to be obedient to them, even though the authority exists to enact them at some time in the future.

Obedience is submission to authority even when that authority is not actively looming over you with the threat of force.

Wrong. In all cases it's active. Laws currently in place are active. Orders given to you are active. Absent anything active, there is nothing for you to be obedient to.

Now, if you want to get down to the brass tacks, the players DO have to be obedient. Not to the DM, but rather to the rules of the PHB. It's not the DM who is being the tyrant and forcing obedience. It's WotC! The wrote the rules you have to follow.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Incorrect. It's submission to authority whenever that authority is USED.

Proof by assertion is not a proof. I've given you the definitions. Your choice to ignore them is not my responsibility.

 

[Maxperson]

Proof by assertion is not a proof. I've given you the definitions. Your choice to ignore them is not my responsibility.

No you haven't. You've only given your assertions. I've given the definitions, none of which say what you are claiming.

Absolute power is only the ability to do what you want and make other do what you want. If it is not exercised, there is no obedience happening.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No you haven't. You've only given your assertions. I've given the definitions, none of which say what you are claiming.

Absolute power is only the ability to do what you want and make other do what you want. If it is not exercised, there is no obedience happening.

I literally quoted dictionaries to you. You did not. You merely declared what you think the definitions are.

And I have no further desire to interact with you on this.

 

[Enrahim]

Wait wait wait wait.

So now it's okay to use pithy sayings that seem straightforward but have more complicated meaning and actually might diverge quite heavily?

Because, as with my previous post, a whole mess of arguments previously made by folks in this thread are directly opposed by this line of thinking. So--can I proceed on the grounds that sometimes, pithy phrasing is acceptable even if the literal meaning isn't obvious?

Otherwise, I'm not gonna be super happy about how a LARGE portion of this conversation has been conducted. As in, most of it would have been extremely disingenuous.

I thought the argument against "Be fan of the PCs" etc wasn't an argument against pithy phrasing itself, but rather a complaint that this was poor phrasing in the context. That is it might have been an attempt at pithy phrasing, but it failed to be communicative for them. I assume it is these kind of objections you have in mind?

I think "GM is reality" phrasing might be open to the same objection. That doesn't mean pithy phrasing as a concept is bad. It just means that care must be used when using them. Using them in a context where the meaning is likely to be not understood should generally be attempted avoided. Recognising when you are in such a context might be really hard.

Edit: Recognising exactly what a complaint is about might be hard though, especially when it is compounded by someone strongly against the meaning (actual, misunderstood or both) of the phrase. I seem to tend to use most generous interpretation unconsciously when interpreting text - sometimes to the point of not really seeing the right words.

 

[Enrahim]

Obedience is submission to authority when that person is using the authority on you. Your assertion that absolute authority passively causes everyone to be obedient to you at all times is where you go wrong

I think you might be confusing "to obey" and "obedience" ref:

obedient: "obeying or willing to obey; complying with or submissive to authority."

"Willing to obey" indicate obedience can be found even in a situation someone doesn't actually obey anyone. How would you envision such a situation?