D&D General Why the Great Thief Debate Will Always Be With Us

[Maxperson]

Except it isn't. As I've said repeatedly. There are plenty of situations where explicitly saying that "If you have X, you can do Y" does not mean that that is the one and only way to do Y. "If you have cash, you can buy that item" DOES NOT mean "If you don't have cash, you can't buy that item."

Try going into a department store to buy something with a cow. If you don't have cash(and credit is cash), you aren't buying the item.

Or are you sincerely claiming that "If you want to go from Rome to Paris, you can take the train" means "The one and only way to get from Rome to Paris is by train"?

So first, I said "strongly implies," not "explicitly says." Second, travel is not nearly the same as tabletop game rules. Those are apples and oranges.

If anyone could just do it, there wouldn't be exceptions carved out. That would be piss poor game rules design.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Try going into a department store to buy something with a cow. If you don't have cash(and credit is cash), you aren't buying the item.

Credit is not cash. That was the whole point.

So first, I said "strongly implies," not "explicitly says." Second, travel is not nearly the same as tabletop game rules. Those are apples and oranges.

It absolutely is not some radically different thing. That's the whole point of my message here: there are many different routes to the same destination. Hell, just consider this, from 5e itself: "If you have the Sentinel feat, you can shove as a bonus action."

GUESS WHAT? There are also OTHER ways to shove as a bonus action! In the rules themselves!

Your position is literally contradicted by the rules as they exist--and best practices are, and always have been, that a responsive, attentive DM works with their players to try to realize what they wish to achieve. The rules act as extremely useful riffing points for that purpose, regardless of system. The example of the Actor feat shows what someone with extensive training and practice can do. If you don't have the Actor feat, you don't have that extensive training and practice--so you might be able to achieve something usable...or not, but either way you'll be taking a risk or expending a meaningful resource or otherwise doing something difficult, whereas having the feat would be sweet and simple etc.

And do you really think that, in a party where someone already has the Actor feat, someone else is going to say, "I'm going to try to fake someone's voice!"? Like, for real, is this ACTUALLY an issue, or is this a strawman invented to complain about a non-issue?

If anyone could just do it, there wouldn't be exceptions carved out. That would be piss poor game rules design.

They.

Aren't.

Carved.

Out.

THAT IS THE POINT.

You keep doing this! You keep assuming that there is a carve-out. That's circular reasoning!

 

[Maxperson]

Credit is not cash. That was the whole point.

Does the merchant receive cash? Does the purchaser pay cash for the credit extended?

Credit is cash. You are borrowing cash from the credit card company to pay for the item. Just because you borrowed the cash, doesn't make it not cash.

It absolutely is not some radically different thing. That's the whole point of my message here: there are many different routes to the same destination. Hell, just consider this, from 5e itself: "If you have the Sentinel feat, you can shove as a bonus action."

GUESS WHAT? There are also OTHER ways to shove as a bonus action! In the rules themselves!

Yep. The general written rule is that you can shove as an attack action. And then there are carve outs for doing it differently. As a bonus action for example.

When it comes to things where there aren't rules allowing, but there are exceptions provided that do allow it, the default general rule is that it isn't allowed. If it were allowed, it would be written like the shove rules. Good find! It supports what we are saying completely.

And do you really think that, in a party where someone already has the Actor feat, someone else is going to say, "I'm going to try to fake someone's voice!"? Like, for real, is this ACTUALLY an issue, or is this a strawman invented to complain about a non-issue?

That doesn't matter. That you would opt not to be a jerk isn't proof that the rule is that you are allowed to try and fake someone's voice.

They.

Aren't.

Carved.

Out.

THAT IS THE POINT.

You keep doing this! You keep assuming that there is a carve-out. That's circular reasoning!

They exist as exceptions to the general state of the rules. Exceptions are by definition carve outs.

 

[M_Natas]

Let's make it more simple ... and create a TTRPG from Scratch.


It is very simple. At character creation you choose 2 Feats from ten Feats.

Feat 1: You can shove other creatures.

Feat 2: You can hit other creatures with your fist.

Feat 3: You can kick other creatures with your legs.

Feat 4: You can headbutt other creatures.

Feat 5: You can throw objects at other creatures.

Feat 6: You can block or parry attacks from other creatures.

Feat 7: You can grab and restrain other creatures.

Feat 8: You can dodge incoming attacks.

Feat 9: You can taunt other creatures, distracting or angering them.

Feat 10: You can intimidate creatures, making them hesitate or flee.

Can a player character without feat 3 kick other creatures? Yes or no?

 

[TwoSix]

They exist as exceptions to the general state of the rules. Exceptions are by definition carve outs.

Any granted feature in a game based around exception-based design (like 5e) must be an exception to something. But what it might be an exception to is going to be based primarily on world-building.

If I take a feat that says "As an action, you can teleport to any spot you've seen within a 50 mile radius.", what does that tell us about the world and possible restrictions to the rest of the populace that doesn't have that feat?

1) Other people can't teleport normally. The most likely scenario, with most D&D worlds being basically an "Earth++".

2) Other people can normally teleport, but for more limited distances. Theoretically, normal characters could teleport for longer distances and the feat is actually an explicit nerf, but that seems like very poor game design.

3) Other people can teleport, but it takes longer than a single action.

4) All of the above, but maybe only for certain subsets of the population.

Any of these could be true, but that doesn't mean there might not be spells or magic items or some other abilities that also grant the ability to teleport. This is A way to teleport, not THE way.

 

[Emerikol]

Well push back on some of you might be this:

In some games, you can attempt anything using your attributes and having skill just increases your likelihood of success. So the skill existing in the game doesn't preclude someone doing something using their attribute.

So it depends on the game design. I'd say a fireball spell definitely does indicate people can't just toss around fireballs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well push back on some of you might be this:

In some games, you can attempt anything using your attributes and having skill just increases your likelihood of success. So the skill existing in the game doesn't preclude someone doing something using their attribute.

So it depends on the game design. I'd say a fireball spell definitely does indicate people can't just toss around fireballs.

Yes, but a Fireball doesn't describe anything most people would expect (barring a setting conceit that changes this) everyone to be able to do anyway.

Where the sticky comes in is the interpretation of feats and similar structures clearly intended to make certain operations of things most people would expect everyone to potentially be able to do.

Of course this isn't always tidy either since you can get things that aren't grossly superhuman but still seem to exceed our understanding of human capability.

 

[Minigiant]

Any granted feature in a game based around exception-based design (like 5e) must be an exception to something. But what it might be an exception to is going to be based primarily on world-building.

If I take a feat that says "As an action, you can teleport to any spot you've seen within a 50 mile radius.", what does that tell us about the world and possible restrictions to the rest of the populace that doesn't have that feat?

1) Other people can't teleport normally. The most likely scenario, with most D&D worlds being basically an "Earth++".

2) Other people can normally teleport, but for more limited distances. Theoretically, normal characters could teleport for longer distances and the feat is actually an explicit nerf, but that seems like very poor game design.

3) Other people can teleport, but it takes longer than a single action.

4) All of the above, but maybe only for certain subsets of the population.

Any of these could be true, but that doesn't mean there might not be spells or magic items or some other abilities that also grant the ability to teleport. This is A way to teleport, not THE way.

This is why the source referred to is so important.

Because in a world like Dragon Ball anybody can get fast enough that they can practically teleport or leave after images even at "low levels".

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

So I wanted to address this because I think that it is a very good articulation of why the Great Thief Debate will always be with us.

You have made a good case for rules. Or, as I put it in the essay, putting as much as possible in the Gygaxian Space. To you, rules are liberating, because you know what you can do!

From the OP, with certain parts in BOLD:



I think what you are not quite understanding is that I am not trying to set up a dichotomy about roleplaying and rules. This essay was never about blah blah blah Stormwind fallacy blah blah blah.

It's about the very nature of expressed rules in and of themselves.

So to look at what you are saying-
To you, a rule that provides an ability gives you freedom, because you know you can do that.
The counterpoint is that this rules takes away the freedom of anyone else to do that who doesn't have that specific ability.

And the more that we see rules as the sole means to express the way a character interacts with a fictional world, the more players are forces to interact with that world only by specific rules mechanisms.

That's a little abstract- so more concretely, the more that rules define how the character interacts with the fictional world (the more that is in Gygaxian space), the more you can get to the point where it's not just that a specific rule (like an ability) for a specific ability excludes the use by others, it also means that the lack of a rule will mean that something cannot be done.

In other words, with too much in the Gygaxian space ... trying to do something new without a rule?
View attachment 382355

@Minigiant just expressed a similar concern that I touched on and we often see- that without rules, you can't predict things (as you put it, you have to negotiate, or as people put it in pejorative terms, "Mother May I").

Thing is- that's a fine opinion to have! And one that dates back ... oh, to the beginning. Just like the idea that rules restrict freedom is also a fine idea, and people argue for that ... which also dates back to the beginning.

I mean, I've heard it said that this debate has even further antecedents. People even say blah blah The Great Kriegsspiel and Free Kriegsspiel Debate blah blah ...

So what does this mean? I guess... blame the Germans?

Sorry for the mistake about accusing you of arguing rules run counter to roleplaying. I am pretty sure it wasn't you doing that, but I am too lazy to scan the thread again for that particular post.

Mother may I. It's a term I myself have often used derisively in the context of D&D, but it's because it's something I really really dislike when it is unevenly applied. That is: It's not a problem for me when a system is fuzzy and loose, but it's a problem when some classes have to rely on this, and other classes have lists of actionable rules.

 

[Minigiant]

Sorry for the mistake about accusing you of arguing rules run counter to roleplaying. I am pretty sure it wasn't you doing that, but I am too lazy to scan the thread again for that particular post.

Mother may I. It's a term I myself have often used derisively in the context of D&D, but it's because it's something I really really dislike when it is unevenly applied. That is: It's not a problem for me when a system is fuzzy and loose, but it's a problem when some classes have to rely on this, and other classes have lists of actionable rules.

It's not it even that.

The problem only exists when the source of media refered too isn't clear.

D&D's problem is that the spell clusters have a clear inspiration of clear idea what their abilities are encapsulated as spells.

However from some classes the reference changes from DM to DM or session to session.

However if a class is giving a clear reference that the class is based on then you, even if it's adjudicated, can point to the source and say "this is what the character can do in this media so my character should be able to do this also."