Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6867220" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Try this one on for size, Maxperson. You said...Meaning these things cannot even in principle be exploitative. Ever. It's flat-out impossible; you explicitly said &quot;it can't be.&quot; I then responded that, actually, yes it can be exploitative, and gave an example I had personally seen (spouse/SO plying the DM). You then responded with:Moved goalposts. I was saying that something can be used exploitatively. Things that can be exploited do not have to be--exploitation is a choice, not an automatic event, just like (say) abuse of political power is a choice that doesn't have to be made (but oh-so-often does get made). Your response was, &quot;Well just because you INSERTED exploitation into it doesn't make it ALWAYS exploitative.&quot; But I wasn't saying that. I was saying that the ability to ply the DM to override the rules &quot;is exploitative&quot; because it ENABLES exploitation. Whether that be pushing the DM's known buttons (&quot;I know he loves mounts...I bet I could get him to let me have the Find Steed spell as a Ranger...&quot;), leveraging external social connections (spouse/SO/best friend), bribery (food, alcohol, money, favors), or whatever other means of exploitation.I ollied outy because I saw no point in arguing when you were going to make shifts like that. But if you're going to throw around accusations at [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] or [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] maybe you should remove the plank from your own eye before addressing the speck in your neighbor's.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6867220, member: 6790260"] Try this one on for size, Maxperson. You said... Meaning these things [I]cannot even in principle[/I] be exploitative. Ever. It's flat-out impossible; you [I]explicitly said[/I] "it can't be." I then responded that, actually, yes it [I]can[/I] be exploitative, and gave an example I had personally seen (spouse/SO plying the DM). You then responded with: Moved goalposts. I was saying that something [I]can[/I] be used exploitatively. Things that can be exploited do not [I]have[/I] to be--exploitation is a choice, not an automatic event, just like (say) abuse of political power is a choice that doesn't [I]have[/I] to be made (but oh-so-often does get made). Your response was, "Well just because you INSERTED exploitation into it doesn't make it ALWAYS exploitative." But I wasn't saying that. I was saying that the ability to ply the DM to override the rules "is exploitative" because it ENABLES exploitation. Whether that be pushing the DM's known buttons ("I know he loves mounts...I bet I could get him to let me have the Find Steed spell as a Ranger..."), leveraging external social connections (spouse/SO/best friend), bribery (food, alcohol, money, favors), or whatever other means of exploitation. I ollied outy because I saw no point in arguing when you were going to make shifts like that. But if you're going to throw around accusations at [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] or [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] maybe you should remove the plank from your own eye before addressing the speck in your neighbor's. [/QUOTE]

Verification