Explain yourselves Rules Lawyers
>>44513476
Rules exist for a reason.
>>44514153
But clearly some things were misrepresented in the rules
Explain THIS!
>>44514395
Two nukes changes a man
>>44513476
Er, I want to make sure that I play completely by the rules, because I'm the damn GM 99% of the time. If I cheat or wheedle or half-ass on a PC, then I'm inviting my players to cheat.
>>44514395
Who is the blue haired...girl?
Batman doesn't really look any different. A bit more Nightwing but not hugely from actual batman looks.
The Joker/Harlie look isn't terrible. Better than new 52 at least.
>>44514746
Rule 1 of GMing: There are no rules.
Rule 2 of GMing: Cheat anyway.
>>44513476
Context? Are they actually arguing that a magical sword should increase the power of your spells? I mean I can see it if that's a trait of the sword, but your typical "+2 Sword" isn't going to do that.
>>44514449
Google reverse image search shows it was drawn by some dude named Cliff Chiang. Clearly not Japanese.
>>44514817
The blue haired girl is Hawkgirl I believe
>>44514817
The blue-haired girl is Wonder Woman by way of Pirate Queen Emeraldas, a spin-off character from the Harlock franchise. She's a space pirate. All of the characters in that image are modeled from classic anime characters.
>>44514395
>>44515012
Ultra Aquaman looks sick as fuck, though.
>>44513476
We exist to point out where the designer fucked up.
Which they did.
Repeatedly.
In your image, the mature response is to say that the rules are poorly worded and that a house rule/errata (depending on context) is being issued to correct them.
>>44514153
And the reason is to be a dick about them?
>>44515051
I think they all look pretty good actually, although the little boy + super robot combo should be Captain Marvel and the idea of Flash having a special car is hilarious.
>>44514923
Disregard this post, I just noticed the lasso
>>44514395
>ginger lantern with massive 'burns and a cyborg arm
>flash racer
okay, I can dig that
>>44515012
I must admit, it's a pretty cool look for wondy.
>>44515060
Rules Lawyers are scum though. The RAI in this situation seems obvious.
>>44515081
Not like they haven't sold a heap of 'Does this hero REALLY need this vehicle?' toys.
But yeah, Captain Marvel would work really well as Kid + Giant Robot.
>>44515109
What seems obvious to you may not be obvious to a 10 year old, or someone who does not speak English as their first language. Rules Lawyers exist to protect the weak - if that makes us scum, so be it.
>>44515146
>protect the weak
...nigga this is a ttrpg rule book not a siege on Gotham
>>44515095
GL is Cobra, I think.
>>44515115
>MFW the kid is Jimmy Olsen
>>44515172
Oh shoot, he is.
That explains why I liked him so much.
>>44514395
I would bang that Harley until my dick bled. Which is also true of Original Flavor, and a few other redesigns, but not nearly enough of them.
>>44515081
>>44515115
At the risk of staying what is known, I think this interpretation of the flash is the flash /because/ fast car, no natural superspeed involved.
>>44513476
>Patrick Rothfuss asking a game designer for a ruling about a +2 attack
>>44515146
Pointing out an editing errorv or vague mechanics is one thing, trying to apply it to your game is another thing entirely.
I've spent years dealing with Rules Lawyers trying to argue this kind of shit at my tables, I have no tolerance for it left.
>>44515097
>>44515095
I certainly like redesigns like this more than some minor costume change. If there was even a mini based on like the DC/anime crossover I'd definitely check them out.
>mfw Amazon Planet.
>>44515197
I know. I just think the other ones link up pretty decently (WW has actually been a space pirate) but that's very different from the actual Flash.
>>44514395
That is a fucking 10/10 Joker design.
>>44515208
>Patrick Rothfuss desperately trying to jerk off wizards more
>>44513476
The game's rules are the only thing that is consistent from table to table. If wanting that sort of consistency makes me a pee baby then so be it.
Rules lawyering wouldn't be a problem if people actually followed the damn rules.
>>44515172
Having the glowing Lantern insignia on the back of the hand is like Lensman, which had an anime adaptation but didn't look quite like that.
Incidentally, Doc EE Smith's Lensman corps were the basis for the Green Lanterns. And in a way the Jedi and just about any elite, supernatural, interstellar peace-keeping force.
>>44515634
You're right, it probably is Lensman rather than Cobra.
>>44515829
Eh, doesn't really look right. It may be a mashup of Cobra's look with Lensman positioning.
>>44514153
In normal games, yes. In RPGs, also yes except now it's a different reason. D&D is a collaborative effort, the rules are only there to provide a common framework in order to create a kind of story. Blatantly ignoring extremely obvious narrative hints that something shouldn't work in order to gain a tiny modifier flies in the face of those rules (which again, are inherently different from the rules in competitive games) and is in no way correct.
>>44515876
Cool Princess Leia.
>>44515876
Wait...there's an anime based on the works of E.E. Smith?
I think my mind was just blown.
>>44516035
A single movie that was so bad, EE Smith's estate swore off ever allowing anyone to have the rights to adapt it again.
I saw the movie over 20 years ago and I remember thinking it was cool, but I don't remember much else other than it was a blatant Star Wars knock-off.
>>44515211
i remember a while ago there was a thread where somebody was insisting they could use time stop to bukkate the lady of pain because it said the time stoped person could not be detected.
>>44516075
According to wikipedia there was an anime tv series AND a manga as well.
>>44516086
ah found it
http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/44153118
>>44516123
Huh. So the movie I saw would have been Harmony Gold's mashing of the TV series down to four episodes.
I had heard it was the only adaptation ever made, but I'll have to go searching if I can't find the full series, hopefully subtitled.
>>44514395
Gatchman Science Ninja Batman and Robin, Gigantor Superman, Kamen Rider Aquaman, GoMachGo (speed racer) Flash, Lensman (I appreciate the irony as Silver age GL was based heavily on the Scifi book Lensman) Green Lantern. Queen Esmereldis/Captain Harlock Wonder Woman.
>>44514395
Wait, my mistake. Ultraman Aquaman. Not rider. On mobile, didn't see the implied growth sequence.
>>44515829
It's funny because In current comics Hal is a space hobo with a gauntlet that does GL shit which looks like a Lensman thing on the backlog his hand.
>>44516230
>Gigantor Superman
Tetsujin 28, you fucking gaijin.
>Kamen Rider Aquaman,
It's Ultraman, faggot.
>GoMachGo
It's "Mach Go! Go! Go!"
It's even referenced with the "Flash Go!Go!Go!" right there.
>>44515375
Each game is tailored for that game's GM play style and what the group prefers. All rules are interpreted by your GM, not you.
Rules lawyers belong in PFS or other shitty dregs of the hobby where RAW is praised above all else.
>>44516333
Fuck you, I know it's Iron Man 28, but I grew up with a dad who knew and love Gigantor. And I already called out my own mistake on Aquaman. I got no excuse for the speed bit, I just confused the word order like it's such a big crime you witless fuck.
See, this is why asshole sticklers like rules lawyers suck the fun out of everything like a person giving unenthusiastic head.
And you know what, the jubilee screencap of why /a/ is elitist shits holds true!
>>44515876
>>44516035
>>44516075
>>44516123
>>44516203
I believe this is the movie you guys are refering. Enjoy your subs
https://kissanime.to/Anime/SF-Shinseiki-Lensman-Sub
I have no problems changing the rules.
As long as the GROUP agrees and the dm knows how to balance other rules that relied on the one changed. Fuck your shit if you just makes rules up and change them to fit your narrative and make characters fucking pointless.
>>44513476
After extensive study and in-depth research, I present my findings to you fine gentlemen.
>>44515081
>the little boy + super robot combo should be Captain Marvel
Fucking nailed it.
Superman would work better as Golden Bat, i think.
>>44517172
>streaming
No.
>>44513476
Childish ad hominem in response to polite questions?
Sounds familiar.
>>44514153
And they were written by a "professional game designer" who was actually paid to write them, as part of their job.
Unfortunately no-one thought to hire a competent one, or an editor, or even playtest shit properly.
>>44513476
The response was infantile, but the reality is that constructing highly complex rules systems without any sort of verbal ambiguity is the sort of thing you hire lawyers to do. It isn't easy at all, and no system is perfect. It is not supposed to be run through a computer's logic engine, it is supposed to be run through the highly adaptable hueristic engine of the human brain.
For this reason a certain amount of non-specific language is acceptable if the intended context is clear. No person ever prior to meme doorstop author has looked at that ruling and come to the conclusion that a +2 sword makes a wizard better at hitting with a searing ray. He went in intentionally looking for an ambiguity to try and shove in the developer's face.
The correct answer is that the implication of a magic weapon is that, unless otherwise stated, its bonuses apply only to attacks made with it. You do not make searing ray attacks with a sword. You might as well complain that the game does not specify that humans only have two limbs, and so they can have as many limbs as the player wants, allowing for as many weapons to be used as he wants. I have seen this argument made before. People are that stupid, and it is easier to wear sandals than to carpet the world.
Also Name of the Wind sucked fucking shit. Kingkiller Chronicles. More like 600 pages of nothing happens and shitty love interest chronicles.
>>44514746
>If I cheat or wheedle or half-ass on a PC, then I'm inviting my players to cheat.
No, that's not how it works. However, I do agree that the GM should play by the rules and I do have somewhat of a contempt for systems with a freeform-bent where the GM is encouraged to improvise and make up rulings on the spot, but for a completely different reason, and that is simple human fallibility. A player doesn't even need a Ring of GM Control to sway rulings in his or her favour without uttering a single word in such a system, just being the guy who shared his snacks or bought pizza is more than enough for the GM to start ruling unfairly.
>>44517493
Yeah, it reminds me of 4chan.
>>44513476
If it uses a d20 roll against any form of AC, it's an "Attack roll".
>>44517493
What the Fuck am I even looking at here?
>>44513476
Honestly if they managed to add color and RP to it, I'd be ok with sword wizard,
>I wrote a poor rule
>Someone pointed it out
>Better call 'em a piss baby to cover my inability to write in clear sentences.
Lets be fair it could apply to that, he didn't make it clear and the idea of a generalissimo wizard who uses a magic blade instead of a wand makes as much sense as anything else.
And is kind of awesome.
There's no excuse for resorting to name calling like an 8 year old just because someone sees something you wrote a different way to you, if you didn't plan it that way, say thanks, put that shit up on the FAQ and move on.
Is that so hard?
>>44518136
It's a drawing about how SJWs try to constantly smear anyone that disagrees with them by pretending to be the voice of the everyman (and the Majority) which often fails because they're terrible at pretending to be normal.
Like, as bad as /r9k/ levels of Spaghettimancy most the time.
>>44518221
So a boogey man then,
>>44518256
Sure.
If the boogey man had been caught doing that shit time and time again.
People lie on the internet to make themselves/their side look like its in the right, more news on this breaking story at 10.
>>44514395
>loss.jpg
>>44518136
Adam Koebel cocreator of Dungeon World apparently
>>44516086
Well, then you probably could use it to bukakke powerful setting entity of choice. That's not even rules lawyering, that's just a straightforward application.
Why you'd play in a group that jizz on gods mid game I have no idea.
>>44513476
If it can be misinterpereted then it will be misinterpereted.
A rules lawyer's job is to ensure it cannot be misinterpereted, by getting clarification.
Though I have to admit, inconsistent houserules frustrate me to tears, and the more houserules are invoked, the greater the chance that they'll have inconsistencies.
What also frustrates me is when a houserule pops up in my face that violates some cool thing I was trying to do.
So it's best to get all the houserules out in the open early, so you can make sure everything you wanna do works with them, and you can iron out the bugs in them.
Which is pretty much what you do with written rules as well, for the same reason.
... what was I explaining again?
Oh, right. The manual is written poorly; it doesn't specify that the +2 is only on attacks taken using the sword as the primary source of damage.
>>44517691
I love a well-made game because you can explore the possibility space and find interesting solutions to most problems.
I also love a really shittily made game because "How can I break this over my knee and rape its still twitching corpse?" is question 1, and "How can I make a complete mockery of this gameworld and everything in it" is question 2. Once mockery has been made, you may laugh.
>>44513476
While my rules lawyer-ey side is more for TCGs where the rules are well established and not following them strictly gives someone an upperhand, that has carried over some to TTRPGs.
I know that the rules for most systems are typically like 'build your own lifeboat!' sort of stuff where the core rules are this prebuilt lifeboat that sometimes floats great and other times, well, not so great. And as the people about to embark you are allowed to change things around and not use certain pieces and replace others, potentially to the point of tour boat being unrecognizable as originally being the prebuilt boat.
Thats typically where I draw the line. Why play a system if you just house ruled so much its not even the really the same system. Personally, I wouldnt want to change a rule unless it was enabling broken shit or was unintuitive, but even unintuitive rules have their place sometimes.
>>44517691
Even competent writer need editors.
>>44517719
>You might as well complain that the game does not specify that humans only have two limbs, and so they can have as many limbs as the player wants, allowing for as many weapons to be used as he wants.
I am now going to build an 8 armed human to see what sort of bullshit I can get up to.
>>44513476
>That question
Yes if the wizard is using his magical sword as a focus for casting spells, but since a sword makes for a poor magical medium I'd roll some sort of mechanic where in he risks breaking his sword the more he uses it like that.
Using a magic sword to cast spells is like using a sword to cut down a tree: sure you can do it and sure you'll eventually get the job done, but there are other tools better suited for this specific job.
>>44518711
Your wizard will IMMEDIATELY ask for a +2 magic focus.
(I recommend telling him that enchanted foci are not in the rules, and anything not in the rules can be assumed not to exist. Watch him proceed to pretzel his own brain)
>>44515916
This, I absolutely loathe when players start caring more about rules and powergaming than actually playing a story
>>44517719
>For this reason a certain amount of non-specific language is acceptable if the intended context is clear. No person ever prior to meme doorstop author has looked at that ruling and come to the conclusion that a +2 sword makes a wizard better at hitting with a searing ray.
It's a magic sword. Who knows WHAT it does to the wielder?
>>44515167
The hero tg deserves. We should all seek to become better people.
>>44518767
And I hate when the story gets in the way of my numbercrunching and combat mechanics.
We should internet fight.
>>44515146
>Rules Lawyers exist to protect the weak
No, that's a rule paladin
>>44515109
That is like saying that reviewers in scientific papers are cry babies and that you totally meant another thing.
>>44518664
>A rules lawyer's job is to ensure it cannot be misinterpereted, by getting clarification.
I'd love this to be true but it's not. Rules lawyers mostly exist to screw momentary advantage from rules. They undermine GMs and steal spotlight time, disrupting otherwise satisfying scenes for others.
I've been playing and GMing for 15 years and I can count the times rules lawyering has been useful on one hand. Note: that's separate to people knowing rules well to help with combat for example, which is not debate-based tactic.
>>44517719
An infantile response to an infantile statement.
>>44513476
Well, it would explain why Gandalf wanted Glamdring, I guess.
>>44513476
He's right, man. Rules are for chumps. Why should we read rulebooks? Fuck rulebooks. Especially that rulebook. I'll never buy it.
:^)
99% of the time, I rules-lawyer just to know when to break them. I want to know if it's a rule that I modify, or if I'm just making shit up, or if i'm playing by the rules to begin with.
The call is always the GM:s anyway, but if I'm using a ruleset, I want that ruleset to be clear.
It's when rules lawyers go beyond that and forces a point after it's been settled that "Yeah, we know that, we just don't care", that's when we have a problem.
>>44518836
>Rules lawyers mostly exist to screw momentary advantage from rules.
Eh, can't blame them for trying. Lots of people want to "win" dungeons and dragons. You'll either need to group them with other people who want to "win", or train them that winning isn't the sole point of D&D - it's overcoming challenge, and challenge cannot exist if you break the game.
Human psychology is a strange thing.
Give them a button that they press and which says "YOU WIN", they get bored in 5 minutes.
But give them a button which takes constant mental effort to press, and not only will they press it, they will actively seek ways to transform it into the "YOU WIN" button above, thereby making themselves bored within 5 minutes.
It's quite strange. Perhaps the joy isn't in the destination, but the journey. Finding that gamebreaker.
>>44518711
>Sure you can use this thing that's in the rules but actually you can't because fuck you, aren't I a clever GM
As for swords for trees and all that that'd be fair enough, if not for the magic involved, an adamantine sword can certainly cut down a tree, its a tool that's got something else about it that makes it more useful for the job.
I'm not a rules lawyer but I am a type that believes in rewarding interesting and unusual ideas that work.
Why wouldn't a mage use a sword as a focus?
Why can't a necromancer look into the fey, if they're the invert and opposite of what the undead are?
Why shouldn't a rogue use his UMD to pretend to be a paladin and pull the sword from the stone.
If your answer to any of the above is 'because they get magic AIDS and shit sux for being innovative' then you're an asshole, because there's so many interesting places any of those ideas could go and they're much more interesting than Mage use Wand, Necromancer use 2skoopy, rogue gotta run around being a dickass.
>>44519024
You've been quite diplomatic there, but if I detect that's what a player wants at my table I ditch them right then.
You're not going to win the game by going full-rampancy on the rules, I'll just break my foot off in your ass, and as DM I have more feet to break off than you.
>>44519071
Then I shall not play at your table because I love overcoming challenges, game mechanics, crunch, and reducing imaginary enemy goblins to arrays of numbers. Which then get reduced to 0.
>>44519097
Good. Although in the interest of fairness when it comes time to play legendary encounters alien you shall be my nigga
>>44518735
>anything not in the rules can be assumed not to exist
He will proceed to argue that everything dies because no rulings for air exists, but rules for drowning exist.
>>44519128
> no rulings for air exists
Recheck your rulebook. It's referenced multiple times.
What you may notice is that torches won't asphyxiate you in a small room, nor will going too high up asphyxiate you.
I'll never 'get' people who piss all over anyone that goes looking for entertaining little widgets or foibles to use.
What kind of funless fuck do you have to be that when someone comes up to you and goes 'hey, look at this whirligig I made using these spare parts and exploits in the nature of physics' you slap it out their hand and tell them to stop fucking with YOUR fun.
Sure if someone is trying to take advantage of something retarded that'd break the entire game, fair enough, but if someone comes up with some entertaining little fart-about that only fringe benefits them then what's your fuckin' problem.
>>44519161
People are extremely anal-retentive about their fun being goodrightfun and anyone else's fun being badwrongfun, and that if someone else is anal-retentive about their fun being goodrightfun, then they are objectively a terrible person. (But it's okay when they do it themselves)
Have you not noticed this from /tg/?
>>44519161
As someone that enjoys doing this, I always fear that my fellow players hate me for it, because I enjoy analyzing the rules and find oddities or things that could potentially be abused, or not.
I rules-lawyer, but I also don't think that a game should be bound strictly by the rules. If it is, you get retard situations as when someone argues in WHFRP2 that a Bright Mages spells doesn't set things on fire because it doesn't explicitly say that they do.
Well guess what, neither does a torch. It's inferred by the fact that it's fucking on fire.
I just had to inform my GM and our only ranged combatant that the fact that we were playing with +10 for Short Range was technically wrong, and now I worry that they think I'm some rules lawyer asshole. D:
I just want to help! We can't break rules if we don't know them!
>>44518614
>Why you'd play in a group that jizz on gods mid game I have no idea.
(user was flayed for this post)
also the reason your undetectable is because your moving so dam fast its nothing inherent to the spell its a fucking side effect the lady of pain can still stop it.
>>44515146
>implying that rules aren't translated from English to shithole of different ones.
>>44519161
Because it's almost never the way you describe, that's why.
You're going out of your way to make it seem as innocuous as possible when it's nearly always about "Look at this neat exploit I came up with (that clearly contrasts against the intent of the rule/spirit of the game), why won't you let me use it, aren't I CLEVER?".
It generally involves someone trying to tell the GM how to run their game, not for the betterment of all involved, but so they can get their way.
>>44518221
There is no excuse for being so pathetic you twist the rules to give you every advantage in game either.
>>44518769
Enhancement Bonuses are pretty clear-cut dude. It gives you a +X bonus to attack roles "when used in combat."
Clearly this is meant to mean when the weapon is used to make an attack. Otherwise you could hold a +2 sword in your teeth and apply that enhancement bonus to an attack with a conventional bow.
Does anyone think that's what the designers intended? Of course not. The only way to make the case that the rules are obtuse is to pretend to be a total retard. You are not that stupid. Nobody is. That is why there has never been an errata for this--just as it's never been necessary to explain to players that the number that you roll on the die is the one that comes up on top either, rather than whichever one you choose of the ones visible after rolling.
>>44519281
You've been watching too much twitch.tv , my man. I recognise that mind poison anywhere.
Telling the GM how to run his game is fine, the GM is not the sole authority on the game. It's a co-op action with the GM and the other players.
Yes, you have to obey the GM's rules. But that does not mean you must obey them silently, or make no attempt to change them. Feel free to discuss with the GM how to make the game more enjoyable for you.
The player SHOULD get their own way, some of the time. Not all the time. I'd estimate in a GM + 4 game, the GM gets his way ~40% of the time, and each other player ~15% of the time. Maybe 60% 10% if the GM is putting in a lot of work.
The intent of the rules and the spirit of the game exist for the enjoyment of the players. Furthermore, the intent of the rules and the spirit of the game are subject to interpretation. They are not an absolute to be followed, they are a guideline that can be used.
A player who is expected to submit to the other players' preferences on intent of the rules, or to obey the GM's directions without disagreement, is not being treated as a player. They are being treated as a bitch.
It's twitch.tv 's mindpoison that mistakes the tyrant-bitch relationship as respectful, and the "discussion amongst equals" relationship as disrespectful. Really, you should stay away from that place. It'll rot your mind worse than 4chan.
>>44519024
>Eh, can't blame them for trying.
Actually yes you can and you should.
>>44519366
>Swineposting on /tg/
Go home Edwards.
>>44517252
It lost me at the jailbait bit. Self referential humour is fine, but that bit was part of the reason we cant have nice things. Cringe worthy.
>>44519355
There is also no excuse for bypassing an advantage that you could've used.
>>44519357
>just as it's never been necessary to explain to players that the number that you roll on the die is the one that comes up on top either
That's one of the first things that gets explained in any dice rolling game. How to extract RNG from the dice. Precisely because it is necessary.
Enchantment bonuses ARE clear-cut, which makes the rulebook unnecessarily obtuse. The rules could be clearer. No downside for doing so. The book could use an errata.
>>44519355
There's no excuse for the designer writing a vague rule and then taking a shit on anyone that points it out.
>>44519366
>you dislike selfish rules lawyers, you obviously spend too much time on this random website that I happen to know a lot about but claim to dislike
Is this really your argument.
And no, people who selfishly twist the rules for any advantage they can get at the expensive of the narrative, the pace of the game and everybody else's fun are just shitty people who need to be kicked from the group if they do not stop. That is what most lawyers are, selfish players who only care about 'winning' by exploiting everything they can find. They are the ones being disrespectful, not the guy telling them to stop being a dick.
>>44519415
>>44519402
>>44519355
People who think in terms of excuses miss the point. You do not ask "Can I get away with this?", you ask "Is this action right?"
Is twisting the rules to give you an advantage right? So long as other players can use the twisted rule, I see no problem with it.
>>44518664
Simple flowchart
Are you a gm?
If yes - you interpret the rules anyways.
If no - leave it to fucking gm, don't try to wedge something retarded because there is hole in rules.
>>44519435
You valuing the narrative over another player's advantage is selfish. You are a prick. Your group are a pack of selfish pricks that agree with each-other, and do not tolerate other people's preferences. You are the shitty players.
Are you sure you're not a twitch.tv veteran? Because that is an EXACT implementation of their mind poison. "I'm not disrespectful because I have other people at my side being assholes in the same way that I am."
>>44519402
>There is also no excuse for bypassing an advantage that you could've used.
And this is why powergamers ruin everything. Those 'advantages' never existed because they only come about from you exploiting rules in ways they are not meant to be.
>>44519415
Most RPG's do not bother to specify that a sword of +1 to attacks does not give you +1 to magic spells. Because any reasonable person not looking to exploit the game would realise that its only meant to apply to attacks from the sword.
>>44519439
>don't try to wedge something retarded because there is hole in rules.
You call it retarded.
I call it awesome. I call it fun.
Perhaps it is all three.
Anyway, it's just a game. No need to take the "spirit of the game" or the "narrative flow" so seriously.
>>44519459
Now you have just gone full retard, well done. Do you freak out like this every time someone tells you to stop being selfish and twisting the game rules for your own ends? How dare they not want you to waste half an hour every session arguing with the GM about how your contrived reading of the rules should make you more powerful.
And stop going on about some random website, nobody cares if you are obsessed with it.
>>44519468
That is because most RPGs specify that the +1 only affects the sword. Moreover, spells that work in conjunction with a sword strike ARE enhanced by the sword's +1.
>Those 'advantages' never existed because they only come about from you exploiting rules in ways they are not meant to be.
Perhaps. But those advantages can be made to exist, and those rules can be exploited.
The correct argument is "Advantages only exist in the context of the game, and in achieving the game's victory condition. As there is a GM present to scale the victory condition, any advantage you get is only temporary, and will leave you spinning your wheels trying to find more advantages, ending up in wasted effort".
>>44519501
No, the correct argument is that its the GM's job to just shut down such attempts immediately and tell the guy to stop being a dick.
>>44519496
You are the one freaking out.
And yes, this is my reaction to every time a group unreasonably demands that I cater to their preferences and shove my own preferences up my ass.
How would you react to a group that told you to fuck off if your character wasn't properly optimised, and you took time away from their combat with your roleplaying bullshit?
If you'd accept that you were wrong and that you were selfish for roleplaying, then I suppose you're at least consistent with your majority rules mindset.
And are you from the damn website or not?
>>44519523
How often does telling a person to stop being a dick ever work for them not being a dick?
45% of the time they'll insist that they weren't being a dick, your judgement was a false positive, and continue as normal.
45% of the time, they won't know what "not being a dick" is, and continue as normal.
10% of the time, they'll be more of a dick to spite you.
>>44519524
I have never been there in my life. And I would not join a group of such people in the first place, stupid question. Also 'optimising' is not the same as rules lawyering. One is normal and co-exists just fine with roleplaying, the other is selfish and wastes time when the rules lawyer inevitably tries to argue with the GM for telling him no.
>>44519542
Then you just kick them out if they are unable/unwilling to stop. Problem players are not worth keeping around.
>>44519593
I prefer to think of "Problem groups", not problem players.
What's your definition of selfish, anyway? Personal gain at the expense of others? Because that's literally what the GM and the group are doing by shutting down the rules lawyer. Getting something they want by NOT giving the Rules Lawyer what it wants.
That said, you should tell the GM "no" at every possible opportunity, lest they become complacent and get a sense of authority and ego bigger than their sense of responsibility.
>>44519524
>Yes I freak out and get upset when people tell me I can't play broken homebrew builds
>How would you react if you were playing with a group that generally wanted different things out of the game than you? Would you either discuss with them the direction of the game and reach a concusses or find a group more in line with what you want out of a game or would you demand to obstruct what they want out of the game to serve your vision only like me?
>If I accuse him of using a website I don't like I win the argument
Genuinely kill yourself thatest of guys.
>>44519691
You first, thatest of groups :)
>>44519639
>I prefer to think of "Problem groups", not problem players, that way I don't have to confront the fact that I'm the only asshole in my group
>What's your definition of selfish, anyway? Personal gain at the expense of others? Because that's literally what the group are doing my securing enyoment for the whole group by preventing the problem player, in this case me, from shitting up the game for my own amusment.
>That said, I'm going to say something so retarded the person typing this greentext can't find a way to point out it's ridiculous underlying meaning because it already is astoundingly insane.
>>44517252
This is amusing.
Do they have a guide to roleplayers, too?
You know, the type of people who get immersed in an imaginary world and get upset when they're reminded of the rules, or the people who take up time speaking about a story when they could be rolling dice for massive damage?
I notice roleplayers are a much bigger problem than rules lawyers.
>>44519357
>You are not that stupid. Nobody is.
You underestimate the stupidity of humanity. Remember that 49% of people are of below average intelligence.
>>44519737
I'm glad you're so close-minded that you literally cannot fathom the idea of your group and your GM being the ones at fault, and believe an attempt to correct your faults is the act of an asshole.
Stay shit.
>>44519366
>I'd estimate in a GM + 4 game, the GM gets his way ~40% of the time, and each other player ~15% of the time. Maybe 60% 10% if the GM is putting in a lot of work.
Where are you pulling your numbers from?
This is how it actually goes down; the GM makes the rules, and the players either enjoy what's given to them, or they leave. If all or enough the players leave, it's game over.
If the GM is an absolute tyrant, the players all leave. If any one player is being a stroppy bitch, he can has his ass kicked to the curb.
Players can voice their opinion on how the game is going and request changes; if the GM agrees that this is both what he would be happy to do and it would make the players happy, they can make the changes, but if there's irreconcilable differences, then the players can shut up and deal with it, or not put up with that crap, and leave. There's no "the players must have their will enforced 15% of the time".
This isn't even twitch.tv, this is how most social groups work. How the hell are you going to enforce "telling the GM how to run his games"?
>>44519751
I wish more people were outright malicious, rather than being good-intentioned but incompetent.
>>44519402
>There is also no excuse for bypassing an advantage that you could've used.
Ah, and this is why it's vital that you cry like a baby about the DM being "That DM" when he refuses to accept your insanely overpowered interpretation of the rules?
Either way, faggots like this forget that these games are cooperative fun. We trust everyone to interpret the rules correctly, because it takes a load off the DM when everyone knows the rules and they don't have to be policed constantly by one person.
The only rules powergamers exploit, are the rules of social conduct. They abuse trust when it is given to them. This is why we hate them, and this is why I'd never allow a cunt like you at my table. If you're here to win, rather than to have fun, you can pack up your bullshit and go play a video game.
>>44519783
Looks like you've gotten used to having stroppy bitches as GMs.
There are better GMs out there, man.
>>44518794
go play a board game or a video game or something you big poof
>>44519761
>I'm glad you're so close-minded that you literally cannot fathom the idea of everyone being obligated to serve my happiness and believe that a complete inability to practice introspection is the behavior of an asshole. Stay shit.
This is a 100% serious thing I'm about to say. If what you have said isn't a joke, and this is what you actually believe, you are a bad person. I'm not trying to fuck with you. You are a poor human being who's low quality is almost certainly present in every aspect of his life, not just gaming.
Please either end your life, introspect, or turn 15. Whichever.
>>44519783
Because people have a relationship besides God King of Shit Mountain and his four pet peasants, you boob. They are friends/relatives/coworkers and they respect each others' opinions enough to find their way to a mutually acceptable interpretation of the rules. Nobody is "mandating" anything.
>>44519792
>Either way, faggots like this forget that these games are cooperative fun. We trust everyone to interpret the rules correctly, because it takes a load off the DM when everyone knows the rules and they don't have to be policed constantly by one person.
Christ, that massive lack of self-awareness. You deserve a goddamn medal.
Also, do you have he rulebook for social conduct? :P
>>44519817
Oh, I don't play that roleplaying "the rules are up to interperetation" crap. I just come to /tg/ for quest threads. I mostly play videogames.
>>44517719
Still a little sore about The Worm, Jimmy?
>>44519832
>Oh, I don't play that roleplaying "the rules are up to interperetation" crap. I just come to /tg/ for quest threads. I mostly play videogames.
good
carry on then
>>44519821
I know you are, but what am I?
>>44519800
Hardly. I've had my share of stroppy bitch GMs that didn't play the game the way I wanted.
In about 4 of the times the GM didn't agree with me about significant things, I simply doffed my hat and 360'd out of there instead of whining like a child that they had to give in to my utterly reasonable demands that they stop adjudicating the game the way they wanted to and started adjudicating the game the way I wanted to.
In the other two times, the games and friends I had there were good enough that the significant issues were small enough that I let it slide.
I did not think that issuing an ultimatum to the GM that if they didn't change the rules I would strip the players from the game and force him to submit or lose his campaign, I did not attempt to blackmail the GM into changing how he was trying to have fun by poisoning the other players against him.
Because that would be pretty damn selfish, and counterproductive since you'd make the GM be pissed off at you, and probably most of the other players and make the campaign pretty unfun, too.
Do you try to turn the other players against the GM, instead of leaving unfun games?
>>44519832
>only shitposts in quest threads
>only plays vidya
>still lecturing people on RPG's
>uses le ebin meme smileyfaces
You are the cancer etc. etc.
>>44519863
I hadn't even considered turning the other players against the GM.
I should try it.
Thx for the suggestion.
... wait, do I even need to try to do that? The players are against the GM by default.
>>44514746
It's not a video game for Christ's sake.
>>44519863
There is no such thing as an unfun game because complaining about games being unfun IS fun. The only unfun game is one you can't play.
>>44519863
Anon this person literally fails on the most fundamental level of being a decent human being and is utterly incapable of introspection to even the shallowest degree. You are attempting to argue with someone literally incapable of changing their beliefs because they are literally incapable of considering themselves to be at fault.
>>44513476
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTMQP9u8Ewk
>we need a ruling
That's why the GM exists.
>>44519825
>to find their way to a mutually acceptable interpretation of the rules
Try reading this line
>Players can voice their opinion on how the game is going and request changes; if the GM agrees that this is both what he would be happy to do and it would make the players happy
and see how it applies to friends and coworkers and finding mutually acceptable interpretations of the rules.
If there's an irreconcilable difference that the bellend of >>44519366 is suggesting
>The player SHOULD get their own way, some of the time
then how else is he going to get his 15% success rate that he pulled out of his ass?
Here's some better figures; the players and GM should come to mutually acceptable interpretations of the rules up to 70% of the time, 25% of the time one or the other should bend to the majority's desires and accept what they might feel is a poor ruling, and 5% of the time go "nah, peace, man, I'm out."
Instead of 60% GM WINS, 15% PLAYER WINS
>>44519825
However, it is also a part of the social contract that the players must accept the GM's judgment on rules issues when all factors have been taken in to account, including if that judgment is not favorable to the player(s).
That also is predicated on the ideal that the GM is both fair and impartial, while being consistent in their rulings.
Basically, the GM must use their ability to be final arbiter with care and wisdom, nor abuse it unjustly.
>>44514153
To be broken, yes. We've known this since time immemorial.
>>44519933
Lindy is usally pretty based but I don't think he understands the way armor is represented in DnD
![what-the-author-meant-copy[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hRillJT.jpg "what-the-author-meant-copy[1].jpg")
>>44513476
>>44519920
Is there any videogame that accurately simulates rules lawyering and social interaction, the act of convincing other people that your interpretation of a thing is correct?
>>44519931
I am fully capable of introspection and I change my beliefs whenever information appears that can challenge them. This happens often on /pol/. However, in this case, you're flat out incorrect in thinking that I should change my behaviour for a group, and the group has no obligation to change their behaviour for me.
You haven't offered anything resembling compromise. Your argument is "Accept it my way, or I shall >greentext and imply you are a terrible human being". That argument only convinces me that YOU are a terrible human being, and that your group lacks introspection (is it still called introspection when it's a group examining their beliefs, rather than one person?)
I am easily capable of considering myself to be at fault. However, this is only when I am at fault. Circumstances such as "I didn't pull my weight in combat and someone else's character suffered". That is a fault. That happens to me. Or, "I didn't ask for what I wanted, and now I didn't get what I wanted." That is a fault. I have learned not to make that fault.
The correct response to your groups is to tell them to go fuck themselves and 360 because everything you wrote here
>>44519931
Applies to your group. You are wrong, but utterly incapable of realising it or changing it.
>>44519993
He's right though. Not like it matters, D20 systems are just horrible in general.
How the fuck is +2 weapon unclear? I have played Video games where you are best off saving before using new abilities because the description might be wrong.
>>44519939
>25% of the time one or the other should bend to the majority's desires and accept what they might feel is a poor ruling
Nah, screw that. What if you're never in the majority?
Well I suppose that's the 5%.
I guess the lesson here is "Never play a game with people whose preferences agree with each-other and disagree with you". Which is honestly kind of bleak. You'd think there'd be some way of satisfying everyone, rather than making every playstyle and personality isolated into their own groups.
>>44520028
>He's right though
No, he isn't, and he'd know better if he read the earlier books that precisely broke down what Armour Class represents and the mechanics that go into it.
>>44519939
>mutually acceptable interpretations of the rules.
Hang on wait.
I think you're onto something here.
"You need a mutually accepted understand of the rules to play the game"
If not, the game might desync, and whoever desyncs will think they're getting screwed over and become upset.
And rules lawyers often desync because their understanding of the rules isn't mutual, so someone inevitably will become upset.
That makes sense.
So how do you get a mutually accepted understanding of the rules, if the rules aren't clear?
>>44520041
If you are constantly as a player being overridden and you do not feel that the GM is sympathetic to your arguments or requests to change the game, and none of the other players agree with your rule changes, AND are not having a fun time, clearly your playstyle differs too greatly from theirs and you should take your leave instead of having a not fun time, yes.
You should seek players and GMs that you share a like mind with to begin with, and that you have a fun game with. If the game is sufficiently fun that you can be treated like a bottom bitch all the time and it's still like snorting crystal meth off their toes then feel free to play along, though.
>>44520075
Why, you tweet at the designer, of course! Hopefully you're a famous author, so he answers.Or you create a system that utilizes standardization and precise language, starting with basic stuff like rounding rules and then building it outward, maybe using things like keywords and technical definitions like 'melee basic attack'. Did anybody make a game like that? Fuck it, probably not, good thing we have Twitter now.
>>44520108It'd be impossible to roleplay in such an MMO boardgame shittwinkie system where everyone is the same anyway.
>>44520075
The players suggest the rules as they see it, the GM considers it, the GM makes a final arbritration and the players accept it.
If the players are no longer having fun due to the rules making it unfun or the GM appearing to be biased against them or any other reason, they leave.
If the player refuses to accept the GM adjudication, they are making the game unplayable and therefore stopping other players and the GM from having fun, amd gets ejected from the game.
>>44520040
I know videogames like that. They piss me right off. I get salty when what I expect the game will do is different to what the game actually does.
>>44520075
Sort of like, my understanding of the rules differs from the game's understanding of the rules.
For example, Huniepop and Bejeweled's way of handling tokens falling in and making a match are different, which made me a bit salty. And huniepop can still shit itself on T-matches; sometimes it doesn't recognise the double match and only clears 3 tokens instead of 5.
The game sometimes fails to notice that a 3 in a row exists on the board at times, too.
>>44520097
>You should seek players and GMs that you share a like mind with to begin with
That's easier said than done.
Anyone know where I can find a webgame that offers 1 consistent not-possible-to-misinterpret ruleset that doesn't change, and players spend most of their time in tactical combat trying to Number harder than they get Numbered?
>>44520139
>huniepop can still shit itself on T-matches; sometimes it doesn't recognise the double match and only clears 3 tokens instead of 5. The game sometimes fails to notice that a 3 in a row exists on the board at times, too.
Would you be happier for there to be a DISPUTE!!! button that you can click, in which the game suddenly recognises the double match and 3 in a rows 15% of the time?
>>44520177
What you need to do is find a bitch ass GM that will cave to each of your rules arguments and rulings and play a single player game with them, so that they have masochistic fun putting up with all your demands and whinings about you not getting your own way, and you manage to get everything ruled the way you want it to be.
>>44520131
You goddamn rolepalyers are like fucking cockroaches. You're in Space Station 13, Garry's Mod, D&D modules, even some MMOs.
I'm confident you'll find some way to infest the system, and argue that "IT'S A ROLEPLAYING SYSTEM" and "PLAYING TO WIN IS THAT GUY" like you have in other places.
>>44520177
magic the gathering online
>>44520209
Why are you even here, /v/.
>>44520207
>Would you be happier for there to be a DISPUTE!!! button that you can click, in which the game suddenly recognises the double match and 3 in a rows 15% of the time?
God yes that would be amazing. But why only 15%?
>What you need to do is find a bitch ass GM that will cave to each of your rules arguments and rulings and play a single player game with them, so that they have masochistic fun putting up with all your demands and whinings about you not getting your own way, and you manage to get everything ruled the way you want it to be.
That sounds amazing too and I'd love that too.
>>44513476
Rules lawyers is usually a derogatory term used to describe someone you dont agree with reading the rules aloud to you.
>>44520263
Or someone pointing out that your unacknowledged houserule (that they're apparently supposed to know about despite noone ever telling them) is actually NOT what the rules say.
>>44515081
>little boy + super robot combo should be Captain Marvel
I was actually just thinking the same thing.
>>44520231
Actually come to think of it a DISPUTE!!! button would be godlike in almost any situation. Even if it's only 1%. But of course the higher the % the better. Unless it's above 100%, at which point probability breaks.
I would mash that DISPUTE!!! button so goddamn hard so goddamn often.
It only works when the rules as another entity thinks of them differs from the rules as the buttonpresser thinks they are, right?
Fuck yes.
>>44520231
>15%
Because >>44519366
>15% player gets their way
>That sounds amazing too
I'd offer to run a game for youbecause I'm a masochistic submissive GMbut I don't have enough time alasand I'd rather try to submit to touhoufag's autistic rules-lawyering because that makes me all sorts of shivery at having all my GM interactions so precisely outlined and delineated
>>44518012
>just being the guy who shared his snacks or bought pizza is more than enough for the GM to start ruling unfairly.
That's a shit DM.
Off course a DM should cheat like hell if it will make the story flow better. I've had a NPC that I needed to die for the story arc, off course he is gonna flop the die roll to resist the poison.
I've had a NPC who's romantic relationship with a PC would be hillarious, off course that player succeeds on his seduction roll.
The rules are there to help you tell a story.
>>44520280
You are bringing up bad memories for me, of a huge argument I got into with a DM about the Leadership feat.
What really grinds my gears is when you take their houserule, find some use for it, and the DM then bitches at you for using the houserule to your advantage. I literally told the DM to go fuck himself and that his schroedinger's houserules were horseshit.
>>44520304
I disagree with your DMing style entirely.
For one, you have a "story arc". Story arises as a result OF the game's progress, it does not have any effect ON the way the game progresses.
The rules are not there to help you tell a story. The rules are there to help you create a story. And the various unexpected successes and botches are part of that story.
>>44514395
>Flash
>Driving a car
It hurts. Why does it hurt?
>>44520284
The button has a 15% chance of success, but it also has a 1% chance to make the service you are pressing stop working for you permanently. If you hit it 100 times you are potentially never going to play huniepop again, use it on your mother and she won't speak to you or acknowledge you, the police will stop giving you human rights and will shoot you down after DISPUTE!!! fails, and so on.
>>44520330
>I disagree with your DMing style entirely.
>For one, you have a "story arc". Story arises as a result OF the game's progress, it does not have any effect ON the way the game progresses.
>The rules are not there to help you tell a story. The rules are there to help you create a story. And the various unexpected successes and botches are part of that story.
Bah, the story doesnt get better by being completely random.
Off course all the time you waive a rule it has to be done in favour of the PCs because else you are just being an omnipotent dickhat. But if the game gets more fun by ignoring rules here and there, why not?
>>44520294
You sound like a bit of an ERPing fag tho.
Oh well. Beats getting into a group with selfish dickasses that need to get their own way in every dispute.
And huh. I'm interested in this touhoufag's autistic rules-lawyering as well. A precisely defined system is MUCH less bullshit to work with than a "Spirit of the rulez xD" "just roleplay it xD" "our group has decided {dumb thing xyz}, ur not one of them rules lawyers are you xxxxDDDD" systems.
Like places that ban you for being "an idiot" or "disrespectful" or "an asshole". You can be a respectful intelligent kind person by telling them how they're wrong and expecting they'll take the criticism productively and improve, and they'll still buzzword at you.
>>44520367
Good lordy I like those odds. Sign me the fuck up.
>>44520397
>>44520367
Also what's the downside in using the button if I'm getting permabanned in some place for some bullshit reason?
The 1% chance of complete denial of service is a complete nonissue then.
Shit, you could make it a 50/50 ... no, a fucking 10% success and ~90%~ chance to permanently end the service. I'd still be on that shit like niggas on a white girl.
>>44520367
>>44520424
Though you're right, I probs wouldn't take the (relative) 1/16 chance of #rekself if it was something I would tolerate 16 times before throwing the thing out the window.
Spells are not attacks. They're spells.
>>44520479
That's true but the rules should be more clear.
>All these fags saying the story should override the rules
Welcome to the new gaming! We call this Gaming+!
In Gaming+, we have one rule: If everyone doesn't feel like a special snowflake, it's the DM's fault and everyone is entitled to a better DM. Players #1!
How do you join Gaming+? Simple! You just never do any of the following things:
>Challenge players with things they don't explicitly have the skills for on their character sheet.
>Use puzzles, ever, unless you let the correct answer always be whatever the player comes up with.
>Use traps, ever. What kind of grognard just hands out penalties and damage that can't be countered and serves no purpose? You might as well just rip up their sheet!
>"Railroad" players. Fuck your plot, all games need to be rule-free sandboxes for players to romp in as they please!
>Give players freedom to fail. If failure was an option, we wouldn't play, now would we?
>Demand that players roleplay or act in-character. Fuck you and your neurotypical, non-autism! Some people are just to awkward and anti-social to take part, and you need to respect them and reward them anyway! It's their choice of fun!
Remember to follow these simple guidelines, and you too can have the right kind of fun! Remember, it's 2015. Get with the times.
>>44520509
Well now you're just being silly.
Wait.
I think I can get something usable out of Gaming+.
Where my rules lawyers at?
>>44513476
Aren't Spells and Attacks different things?
>>44520509
Try to ease off a bit, or nobody is going to bite.
>>44513476
Explain yourself, DnD players.
>>44513476
>I don't believe that's the intent.
What do the rules SAY.
>>44513476
I don't see why not.
>>44514395
Some of these designs are more fun than whatever DC is currently doing with the art direction.
>>44520618
Do you think an attack has to be an Attack? Is a spell that attacks people an attack or an Attack?
Natural language! Where the game's made up and the bonuses don't matter! That's right, they don't matter, you're already playing a Wizard!
>>44513476
>>44520610
If only there was some simple and concise way of stating which enhancement bonuses apply to what attack. Maybe some kind "Weapon" and "Implement" keywords for different types of powers. Shame such a system has never existed in any edition of D&D.
>obviously the MAGIC sword cant help you with MAGIC
>that wouldnt make sense
>>44519524
>muh twitch boogeyman
That's a new one to me
>>44520700
Yeah, no reason an 8 Int fighter can't get sick bonuses from an enchanted tome of spells, either. Hell, while we're at it let's make all magical shields apply their benefit to bow attacks. Why the fuck not?
>>44520012
The only thing I have left is this
>However, in this case, you're flat out incorrect in thinking that I should change my behaviour for a group, and the group has no obligation to change their behaviour for me.
All I can do is smug anime at that. It's such a hilarious ego centric statement.
It was fun gazing into the world of a such a shit human being.
>>44520359
>acting like cosmic racecar battle of the Flashes wouldn't cool
Flash actually has the Racer X design there so he would technically be the rival, not the protagonist.
>>44520700
>obviously the PHYSICAL sword cant help you with PHYSICAL Running
>that wouldnt make sense
>>44520842
I see no reason why a metal stick should be any worse at focusing spells than a wooden stick.
>>44517340
That would be very fitting but a skull faced Superman probably wouldn't fly.
>>44520900
Because magic is intent, Anon, and you don't forge a sword without the intent of stabbing a fucker at some point.
>>44520914
What about those ceremonial swords used in knighting people?
>>44520914
Alright, that raises a valid point. An ordinary sword forged for combat would logically be no better a focus than a branch straight off a tree would be a wand (well, except for druids, but they can't use swords anyway so it's moot).
I maintain that a sword forged and/or enchanted for the purpose of enhancing magic should be perfectly viable, and that a sword enchanted with a spell which one could reasonably conclude would aid spellcasting should do so, though perhaps not to the full extent of the weapon bonus if the blade was intended purely for martial use. For example, a +2 sword with a fire enchantment giving a bonus to casting fire spells equivalent to a +1 weapon.
>>44520879
But anon swords are made for attacking not for running. And physical swords do give you a bonus to physical attacking. So why not magical swords for magical attacking?
>>44520923
You think that smith is thinking of how peaceful and nonviolent and magic this sword is going to be? No, you little shit, that smelly asshole is thinking about what a waste of perfectly good metal this "ceremonial" piece of scrap is going to be. If you can find for me a smith that can forge a sword without a single thought to the edge, or the function, or any of the things that make a sword a goddamn sword, then you've given me a man who's never known hardship, and a worthless smith besides. Just as important as the spellwork is the feeling behind a piece, boy, why do you think damn near all the finest artifacts in the world were already peerless masterworks beforehand?
>>44520990
Well of course Spellblades exist, lad, instrumental in the Uprising of 1368, they were. But you'll never get a sword, no matter how magical, that's the proper equal of a staff or a wand or a magical focusing what-have-you.
>>44520900
Don't D&D casters just cast spells with their hands, though? I don't think focuses are a thing by default.
>>44519751
>Remember that 49% of people are of below average intelligence.
That is not how averages work, anon.
>>44514903
Multiple horrible wars killing tens to hundreds of millions changes a man.
>>44521081
They are in 4e and kinda in 5e (they only let you ignore the cheap material components).
>>44519751
If you cut off all ten digits (including thumbs) off one person, then averaged the number of digits him and 9 other people have, the average number of digits they would have would be 9. 90 attached fingers, 10 people, average of 9 fingers per person.
However, it would be wrong to say that 50% of those 10 people have a less than average number of digits.
Outliers on bell curves throw off averages and there is a not insignificant number of highly mentally disabled people out there that throws off intelligence averaging.
>>44522615
Plus, you could have a large percentage of people all square in the middle, in which case much less than 49.5% would be below average.
>>44513476
I was about to lose my shit at this autistic semantics until
>find rules
>read rules
>wizards can attack with fireball
>sword gives +1/2 to any attack
You've brought this on yourself, Wizards. Learn to fucking write what you mean.
>>44518343
How do you fucking see that?
Why am I seeing it??
>>44517719
Jimmy kickstarter when
>>44518256
The term is boogey-person, actually.
>>44523021
Wednesday.
>>44513476
There is a section in the 4e Phb 1 that specifically states that a weapon's enhancement bonus does not count towards spell rolls unless you have proficiency with that weapon as an implement, i.e; wizard of the spiral tower w/longsword.
General wotc policy is that specific rules beat general rules, and that's fair specific.
Also, at my table, disagreeing with the DM is a great way to summon a posse of Inevitables to arrest you for cosmic crimes.
And I WILL make you roleplay your defence case.
>>44523484
>And I WILL make you roleplay your defence case.
How? Your PC does not know they are a PC, presumably?
>>44519357
I'd argue the word "used".
Holding a sword isn't using it. Thus if you aren't " using"the sword, you are holding it. No +2 to holding.
No I wouldn't argue this..its silly.
This entire thread is silly.
Fuck off magefags. No +2 for you.
>>44520004
this literally happened on brazil
some famous musician I forgot the name has a song about avoiding a stone that is on front of him.
on a interview someone said something like "your song about avoiding the stone said something about overcoming the hard parts of life....."
he said "actually I made this song because I had to go to place X and there was always this huge stone on this park and I needed to go throught another route to avoid it"
>>44523850
I don't *need* a lot of things. Doesn't mean I don't want them or they aren't useful.
What a silly thing to say on his part.
>>44513476
Rules Lawyers ARE pee babies, but in that case it's just pointing out that the world is badly written to convey its intended meaning.
>>44520879
>d&d
>making sense
>>44514395
These are actually some pretty solid designs.
>>44523617
No, but your character will damn well know he's on trial for his life!
Also, as DM I maintain my duty to to mete out power-noogies to he who violates the concordat of my arbitration.
>>44519639
>I prefer to think of "Problem groups", not problem players.
If everyone you meet is an asshole, that means you're the asshole.
>>44520012
Why would a group care what you think? You are a vile, disgusting human being who doesn't even play TTRPGs because you can't get anyone to stand you long enough to sit through a single session. You're forced to play video games where people are assigned to play with you be default, and you're probably that guy who screams orders at the team if there is one, otherwise you just scream at your opponent. Both ways you get ignored and laughed at depending on the other players.
Your opinion on anything is completely and utterly irrelevant, much like you.
>>44520097
No, if he's always in the minority and no one is sympathetic to him, that's because h's such a pathetic waste of oxygen that no one anywhere ever wants to associate with him. Not until he becomes a better human being, which is unlikely.
>>44522615
Fine, think of someone of *median* intelligence, then.
>>44518136
The truth
>>44518343
phew, I wasn't the only one.
