I really hate whenever I try to explain how some bad rules can be abused and immediatelly get someone say shit like “If this happens in your group, change it” as if that would solve the problem. And whenever it is not soemthing you witnessed personally, then it means it never happens and could never happen.
Right, OK, yes, so what? the red box is where reasonable people arrive mentally.
Not really. You’re placing blame on players using a system as written and a DM for being unable to handle an exploit in the rules. At no point do you open the rules themselves up for criticism. In fact, you deflect all criticism away from the rules, as if the impossibility of a perfect system excuses every bad decision ever made.
Just like how there is no ruleset that cannot be exploited, there is no ruleset that cannot be improved. It’s only by acknowledging the flaws that something can improve, but you seem hellbent on dismissing flaws entirely. That’s unhealthy.
DnD isn’t just a set of rules, though. It is inherently a social activity, and that means there has to be a certain level of expectation for social norms. If your group has toxic people in it, they will be toxic while playing tic-tac-toe.
The solution is to employ social pressure or ostracism for those people. We can certainly modify rules that have proven abusive in the past, but enforcing rules of conduct must always be the first line of defense.
If D&D isn’t a set of rules, why do they charge so much for their rulebook?
It’s also worth noting that nobody has said an actual exploit. Nobody has DONE anything toxic. Someone just noticed a POTENTIAL exploit and suggested fixing it before any problems occur. Yet ostracizing people is a more acceptable position than a rules patch?
If the rules aren’t something to be changed, why do they charge so much for the rules revision they just put out?
At its core DnD is a wargame where we spend most of the game time fighting against monsters and bad guys. Having robust combat systems is the big draw of the game and fighting monsters in interesting ways without being too unfair either way. People want rules that are robust enough to make interesting combat but don’t completely break down under a bit of the box thinking, like the peasant rail gun, or the moon box lich, or the create water in someone’s lungs to cause drowning, or the coffeelock to get infinite spell slots.
All of these mechanical oversights are frustrating to play with because we have to stop the game and debate over whether this cheesy game breaking bullshit should be allowed at the table and it takes time away from the reason we’re all here, to get together play a game, and let everyone have fun, DM included. And sitting around debating whether the moon counts as a container for a lich’s soul reliquary or lining up 500 peasants and each of them readying and handing off an object at a bazillion mph for an hour and a half breaks the rules is not fun.
You want a system for magic that encourages being busted even at high levels? Play some Mage the Ascension, you can do some absurdly wacky shit even at fairly low power levels.
Yes. If you can’t get someone to knock off bad behavior, the rules do not matter.
There are good reasons to change rules. People breaking social norms is not one of them.
Once again, nobody has done anything. There is no bad behaviour anyone needs to stop. You don’t even know what the exploit is, or how the group feel about using it. You are inventing a hypothetical person to punish, while the actually flawed rules are right in front of you.
What we infer from it all is that someone is using a rule in a way that’s detrimental to the group. We may want to change the rule, or it may be time to have a talk, or it may be time to kick them out.
As far as assumptions go, that cuts both ways All I’m saying is that we don’t take any of the options above off the table.
Quick question: Who do you mean by “them”? Who are you saying to kick?
Because the only information given is that an exploit exists. Nobody has said, at any point, that anyone has used an exploit at a table where the others found it to be detrimental. You invented that scenario. You invented the person acting badly, and you specifically imagined them to be toxic and ruining everyone’s fun.
A person who doesn’t exist cannot be kicked. A ruleset that exists can be changed. And changing a ruleset doesn’t mean I can’t also kick a person.
If nothing has happened, then nothing needs to be done. I sometimes float exploits in the rules past my friends for various games, but make it clear I have no intention of playing that way.
I even tested something in Terraforming Mars this past weekend. I made it clear with the group ahead of time that I wanted to try something, what the strategy was, and how I would be playing. They were all fine with it, and it turned out the strategy was broken as hell. Won by 12 points against a fairly experienced group. It’s also a boring way to play that game and I wouldn’t care to do it again.
That’s also how I know that it’s fruitless to expect rules to avoid these situations entirely. They must be handled socially. Any other tool is inadequate.