Campaign to Stop Insulting the Giant

[Tragak]

To everybody who's tired of the nit-pickers complaining about The Giant writing a brilliant, cinematic, character-based story instead of a super-mechanical sequence of obscure D&D builds and auto-win combos at every opportunity, would you please sig this quote?


I tip my hat to you, Giant. For every person who rules-nitpicks you, there are bound to be ten times as many fans who are just blown away by how excellent your storytelling is.

I would love it if every page of every thread had at least one person's sig quoting this so that the "lash out at every obscure mechanical detail deemed less important than storytelling" crowd know, and are always reminded, that their "analysis" is not what the people here are looking for.

[Rakoa]

You got it. A very worthy cause.

[Tev]

Tbh when the D&D veterans are self aware of how nitpicky they are, they bring a lot of insight to how might comic happen in different way and who's making biggest blunder . . .
Rich already ignores them to big extent, and I don't get why anyone else should be bothered when nitpickers rant too much. Overreacting to overreaction isn't good idea.

[Roland Itiative]

I didn't intend on ever having a signature here but count me in.

[armourer eric]

You got it. A very worthy cause.

Now we just need a Sally Struthers PSA

[SavageWombat]

In fairness, I think the serious character-builders are respectful to the Giant and his work, and that recent bursts of "well he's just wrong" are outliers that will be quickly disavowed by the rest of the fanbase.

[Szarrukin]

{scrubbed}

[sam79]

To everybody who's tired of the minmax-nazis (is that putting it too strongly?)

Probably a bit. Gotta say...I love the story, think the author has created a great world and some interesting characters, and I'm not very familiar with the rules of 3.5 D+D, BUT:

1) If the world is based on D+D rules, then having people analyse it based on D+D rules is inevitable. Sometimes this goes a little too far, but not that often.

2) IMO, the forums here are pretty respectful, even when the debates get robust. Direct insults to other forum-members, let alone the author, are thankfully pretty rare.

3) As he has proven time and again, the author has broad shoulders for legitimate comment/criticism, and more than enough snark to stick up for himself when the detrators cross the line.

I respect the intention of this thread, but I think it is a solution looking for a problem.

[Carry2]

[The] usefulness test will tend to produce results that annoy people: there's no use in telling people things they already believe, and people are often upset to be told things they don't.

I can certainly agree that are various aspects of D&D mechanics that don't easily gel with various conventions of dramatic storytelling (e.g, relatively trivial resurrection mechanics,) and if it took the author a number of years to realise it, well, he's hardly alone in that. But the other half of me feels that problems with a rule-set entail an obligation to rewrite said rules, rather than to play without rules entirely. So to speak.

(i.e. if the author has a bunch of homebrew tweaks and changes and revisions to D&D mechanics, fine and well and good, but I would be nice to have them explained in advance and stuck with consistently. Checkov's Gun, and all that. I remember this complaint about, e,g. Durkon not being able to use Commune to just ask Thor what he intended.)

[Quorothorn]

I respect the intention of this thread, but I think it is a solution looking for a problem.

Agreed.

On a personal note, I've only ever had a "problem" with the "mechanical analysis" part of the fanbase (which I actually consider myself a part of, in fact) when it just gets taken too far (especially if someone tries to bring theoretical optimization limits/RAW loopholes into things), and/or when the folks complaining about something are actually incorrect on the mechanics (again, often in some kind of TO exercise taken outside its thought-experiment context). And that happens with almost any "aspect" of a fanbase, so it's hardly a unique point. The world IS one that operates under the basic rules and conditions of D&D 3.5ed, after all, so analyzing events in that light is another, perfectly valid and often entertaining, route to talking about the comic more.

[Ghosty]

Agreed that it's a solution in search of a problem. I also think that some of the people who note perceived discrepancies between the rules and characters' actions in-comic would be better served by not coming off as a jerk when they point those discrepancies out. Tone matters.

I do agree though that the rules matter as they are part of the framework through which we are perceiving the Giant's story. So, when we see a rules discrepancy, it bugs us. In the same way it would if we were reading a sonnet and one of the words didn't match the meter. We aren't out of line in pointing these out to the Giant, though I think we should present any questions we have with the narrative in a more respectful tone. Part of that, I'm sure, is the imperfect nature of text as communication. That's all.

Personally, I was wondering why Roy's fantasy wouldn't have RC just Disintegrate the Forcecage. He didn't witness it personally (being dead at the time) but he'd have heard about it. I however accept the explanation that he was too busy exulting in kicking Xykon's bony a** to notice what a (to him) henchman healer was bothering to do.

Neat strip. I really like the misdirection of introducing RC early with an eyepatch, as it set me up to accept the rest of your con, Giant. Even though I was on Team Illusion.

[coineineagh]

I probably haven't read the threads in question, but I've seen people have a go at him for spelling mistakes (and the times the nitpickers got it wrong was absolutely hilarious: "suitable to opening it"), the timing of new comic updates (which is a banned topic altogether), and even people suggesting that his prolonged absence was financially convenient!

In the light of all the accusations and complaints, I don't believe he'd be particularly put off by a thing like D&D rules nitpicking. The comic itself often discusses the topic of ridiculous rules, so they are hardly sacred on this site. Rich has said many times that story comes first, and rules for his world are only loosely based on 3.5 D&D, also for copyright reasons. Nothing is set in stone. If anybody decided to post some harsh value judgements based on the comic's non-adherence, then they didn't properly read the disclaimers.

And besides, I'm sure everyone here enjoys discussing D&D rules to a certain extent. If The Giant happens to lose a discussion on occasion, no biggie: He'll always be the biggest winner here!:smallwink:

[Mantine]

This thread is wrong on so many levels that it's almost comical.

First, the "min-maxing nazis" (forcibly labeling a a group of people so to create a target to focus hate on), rather than addressing the actual arguments.

Second, the "complaining about The Giant writing a brilliant, cinematic, character-based story instead of a super-mechanical sequence of obscure D&D builds and auto-win combos at every opportunity", another cheap trick as to describe one side majestically and the other in a stupid way, so to underwhelm their position while completely ignoring any objective argumentation.

Third, the assumption that commenting/noting any possible inconsistencies while in the presence of an overall very good work shouldn't happen in the first place.
Basically, the death of critical mind.

Fourth, the "so that the minmaxers know, and are always reminded, that their "analysis" is not what the people here are looking for"
Sorry, it's not for you to decide what other people comes here for. :smallsmile:

Feel free to voice your tastes and opinions, just don't try to enforce them upon others.

[happyturtle]

I do agree though that the rules matter as they are part of the framework through which we are perceiving the Giant's story. So, when we see a rules discrepancy, it bugs us. In the same way it would if we were reading a sonnet and one of the words didn't match the meter.

Shakespeare broke all the sonnet rules at various times, including writing a sonnet with fifteen lines, using iambic tetrameter, talking about non-traditional subjects, and changing the rhyming structure. It was his willingness to play with the form that contributed to his genius. If he'd written 154 completely standard sonnets, nobody but extreme poetry geeks would have even heard of them.

[Finagle]

To me, it's either a D&D comic or it's not. If it is, then use D&D rules. If it's not, then why even bother with stuff like Meteor Swarm and Forcecage at all? Just start making stuff up. At one point, Belkar even says (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) "Uh, OK, but I thought we weren't actually representing a game campaign, we were just living in a world where the laws of--" while Shojo is behind a DM's screen with polyhedral dice showing.

If it's D&D then let's do this thing. If not, then why even bother with levels and saving throws and clerics and soulblades (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0730.html)? As far as I can guess, it's something like "well I started with D&D because it's what I knew and I could get an audience, but then it got big and after I sold $1.2 million dollars of merchandise I really don't need the D&D fans any more. If I stuck to the rules as written some geek would always catch me in a mistake and that sort of thing really gets under my skin, so whenever that happens A Wizard Did It (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt)." Sometimes, I just think it's too hard to make all the rules work together and that's why the comic is the way it is.

Besides, I don't think we need a campaign like this. The man is fully capable of defending himself. He tells people "the subject is closed" or "end of story" and locks threads all the time, so he can get the last word in any argument. It is actually against the forum rules to insult the author. So by definition, whenever it happens the post is deleted and the member banned and thus we never see such things.

And before anyone starts, I like the comic a lot. I used to think all webcomics were crap (and I was right) but I surprised myself by following this one. Look at me, I even post in the forum! The thing that hooked me was exactly what Belkar said - a bunch of D&D characters actually living like they would if they were "real" and following their adventures. And done with such skill. I especially like when character attributes like Int or Cha are shown as having an effect on the characters in the story. The author even has the fantastically rare ability, as showcased in the most recent comic, of keeping what different characters know separate. They only know what they should know and their thinking reflects that. A skill doubtlessly honed by a relentless dedication to the art of DMing.

[ThePhantasm]

1) Rich can defend himself just fine, and has.

2) I doubt somehow that the powers-that-be will look favorably upon splitting the forum into two groups of stereotyped posters.

3) Said stereotypes and generalizations tend to be overly simplistic and not reflective of actual reality (and yeah, that's a generalization about generalizations). In this case there's a lot of poison-the-well fallacy up in the OP, against a half-imagined group of posters.

4) Its the internet. As much as I hate the fact, being insulted on the internet comes with the territory. You have to be thick-skinned and not put so much weight on what a random stranger blasts you with. That doesn't excuse insults (and mods do just fine curbing flaming) but acting majorly surprised or offended every time they appear isn't going to make them go away (and in fact encourages actual trolls more). You just have to brush it off and shrug. I think the Giant does a good job putting the more off-the-wall critiques of his work firmly in their place without insulting his critics in turn - there's no need for a bunch of fans to be acting vicariously offended in his stead.

My two cents.

[Edhelras]

I kinda agree that this is a solution looking for a problem. However, I have noticed that the otherwise benevolent and cheerful Giant takes on a harsher expression when the rules-lawyers appear to quarrel on his chosen solutions. Given the fact that this is a free comic (at least for me), and that we are totally dependent on the goodwill of the Giant for getting this excellent entertainment upon our existence depends - I would strongly recommend the rules lawyers to think once again: Are your contributions helpful? Are they welcome? Are they goodhearted? Or are they first and foremost expressions of your personal desires to show off? If the latter - consider having your own websites?

I truly enjoy reading OOTS exactly as a DnD game, and I look for usage of the beloved rules everywhere. However, as a gamer, I too know that there are some basic rules to DnD: 1) The DM decides, in the end, and 2) the whole point of DnD is to tell a story, together. The of course the bottom rule is to have fun. So, to a true fan of DnD, these rules should trumph all the details we can look up in the PHB, DMG and other sourcebooks.

There is no need for this campaign, I hope, but there is a need for some people to reflect upon the role they're playing in this particular game.

[ThePhantasm]

Given the fact that this is a free comic (at least for me), and that we are totally dependent on the goodwill of the Giant

This is also the Giant's livelihood, not just something he does for fun or out of goodwill.

[Zerter]

The Giant is the dictator of this site. If he does not want people to have the freedom to insult him (as you put it) he has the power to stop it. Apparantly he can take it.

Also, this thread is seriously wrong. You are making a campaign in which you call on the majority to shut down a minority. Also known as the reason most civilized countries have constitutions. Now, I am not going to say I enjoy the rulenazi's (although I very much enjoy the conflict they generate), but I will defend their freedom to be who they are and by extent that of everyone else.

[Rakoa]

The Giant is the dictator of this site. If he does not want people to have the freedom to insult him (as you put it) he has the power to stop it. Apparantly he can take it.

Also, this thread is seriously wrong. You are making a campaign in which you call on the majority to shut down a minority. Also known as the reason most civilized countries have constitutions. Now, I am not going to say I enjoy the rulenazi's (although I very much enjoy the conflict they generate), but I will defend their freedom to be who they are and by extent that of everyone else.

I'm sorry, where did Tragak say that he was going to absolutely obliterate the freedom of people in some doomsday death machine? He is proposing we put a quote in our signature to show our support for Rich, not personally steal the "freedom to be who they are" (sounds like a Pokemon moral or something) by some Grinch-like tactics.

[Zerter]

I'm sorry, where did Tragak say that he was going to absolutely obliterate the freedom of people in some doomsday death machine? He is proposing we put a quote in our signature to show our support for Rich, not personally steal the "freedom to be who they are" (sounds like a Pokemon moral or something) by some Grinch-like tactics.

You are refering to step one of the Campaign to Stop Insulting the Giant, also known as you know, the thread title?

It's also in the general tone. Glorifying his own people (''the people''), demonizing the ''others''. I know where this is headed, I have seen enough shows and films to recognize the beginning.

[Rakoa]

You are refering to step one of the Campaign to Stop Insulting the Giant, also known as you know, the thread title?

It's also in the general tone. Glorifying his own people (''the people''), demonizing the ''others''. I know where this is headed, I have seen enough shows and films to recognize the beginning.

Oh I see now. Tragak truly is an evil genius. It is only a matter of time before he bends the weak-willed majority to their knees and fills their heads with his thoughts. A new age of forums will be ushered in as Tragak and his minions flood like a wave of death, exterminating all those "others" who oppose them, wiping out all resistance until none are left to stand in the way of Emperor Tragak.

Shows and films have served you well, my friend. You truly are a visionary.

[Zerter]

Shows and films have served you well, my friend. You truly are a visionary.

Thank you!

[Tragak]

Oh I see now. Tragak truly is an evil genius. It is only a matter of time before he bends the weak-willed majority to their knees and fills their heads with his thoughts. A new age of forums will be ushered in as Tragak and his minions flood like a wave of death, exterminating all those "others" who oppose them, wiping out all resistance until none are left to stand in the way of Emperor Tragak.

Shows and films have served you well, my friend. You truly are a visionary.Well, obviously I and everybody who agrees with me are just a sock-puppets created by The Giant to make people THINK that more than one person wants to find out what happens next in the story instead of just shouting urdoinitrong, as opposed to everyone else on the board who is real knows that character knowledge is not allowed to be incomplete.

Wait, no, I blew my cover! Why am I still typing this instead of deleting it? :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

[Shadowknight12]

Wow, this forum has accumulated a lot of bitterness and bad blood over the years. It's all there, simmering under the surface.

:smalleek:

[Tev]

Well, obviously I and everybody who agrees with me are just a sock-puppets created by The Giant to make people THINK that more than one person wants to find out what happens next in the story instead of just shouting urdoinitrong, as opposed to everyone else on the board who is real knows that character knowledge is not allowed to be incomplete.

Wait, no, I blew my cover! Why am I still typing this instead of deleting it? :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

You definitely chose the right post for responding, now you can act like a victim instead of actually adressing issues with your "campaign".

[Tragak]

You definitely chose the right post for responding, now you can act like a victim instead of actually adressing issues with your "campaign". The "issues" being that the people who want to insult The Giant's storytelling ability want more right to support each other than should the people who want to let The Giant let his characters make imperfect decisions with their imperfect capabilities, because we believe (falsely?) that a story about Mary Sues is less interesting than a story about characters and you know better?

[Mantine]

You definitely chose the right post for responding, now you can act like a victim instead of actually adressing issues with your "campaign".

It's part of the standard protocol. :smallsmile:
After "label someone names to demonize him" and "exaggerate what they say to make them look stupid" (of which Rakoa has given two beautiful examples so far), the third rule is "pick only battles you can win".
As in, ignore every discordant, argumentative post that goes against your cause but stand ready to appear as soon as some minor, more easily picked argument shows up.


The "issues" being that the people who want to insult The Giant's storytelling ability want more right to support each other than should the people who want to let The Giant let his characters make imperfect decisions with their imperfect capabilities, because we believe (falsely?) that a story about Mary Sues is less interesting than a story about characters and you know better?

The real problem here is that you seem to equal critic=insult.
Which is, needless to say, totally and utterly wrong.

[Dire Lemming]

I wholeheartedly support this.

At the least, people should recognize that this is Mr. Burlew's work; it isn't the decision of others as to whether he, say, decides to make Order of the Stick based on the Bourne film series in the middle of the final battle sequence.

[Kazul]

Wow, this forum has accumulated a lot of bitterness and bad blood over the years. It's all there, simmering under the surface.

:smalleek:

Dude, don't taunt the forum-killing abomination. :smalltongue:

[Pheldagriff]

During the last few weeks, the Giant certainly made the impression of being fed up with the constant rules bickering. I'm too lazy to gather together some quotes but I remember one instance where someone said that a certain "felt" rules infringement (I think it was Durkula summoning a fiend) was finally crossing the line and said that the Giant went to far with his liberal take of the rules. The Giant answered by saying that the original poster is right, that he has lost the right to further continue with the comic and it would be better if he'd just quit releasing them and everyone began wandering off for greener pastures. He followed up by totally dismantling the argument and pointing out that if there is one thing that he can stand less than rules bickering is false rules bickering.
Imho the rules bickering is a real threat and the Giant is appearing weary and tired of it. Surely it isn't meant as censorship and it is absolutely in the right to discuss the rules-aspects of the story, but people should really watch their tone sometimes and think twice about insulting the Giant for "rules infringement" like it has happened several times lately.

[Rakoa]

I agree with Pheldagriff. This is just an attempt to show support for the Giant, nothing more. People are making it out to be much more than it is.

[Ikialev]

I like it when Burlew verbally smacks people who expect rule adherence.

[Mantine]

You show support by endorsing what you like, not trying to shut off people from what they don't.

[CoffeeIncluded]

During the last few weeks, the Giant certainly made the impression of being fed up with the constant rules bickering. I'm too lazy to gather together some quotes but I remember one instance where someone said that a certain "felt" rules infringement (I think it was Durkula summoning a fiend) was finally crossing the line and said that the Giant went to far with his liberal take of the rules. The Giant answered by saying that the original poster is right, that he has lost the right to further continue with the comic and it would be better if he'd just quit releasing them and everyone began wandering off for greener pastures. He followed up by totally dismantling the argument and pointing out that if there is one thing that he can stand less than rules bickering is false rules bickering.
Imho the rules bickering is a real threat and the Giant is appearing weary and tired of it. Surely it isn't meant as censorship and it is absolutely in the right to discuss the rules-aspects of the story, but people should really watch their tone sometimes and think twice about insulting the Giant for "rules infringement" like it has happened several times lately.

I also feel like there's just been much more of the annoying-type of rules lawyering lately, rather than the clarification type. If I were the DM, I'd be getting fed up with it, and I bet Rich is getting sick of a vocal minority that is being rather rude. Look, there's a thread going on right now where we're talking about what we'd change in the comic. He hasn't locked that down although he did post to move back on topic because we were going on a tangent. But the main thread stayed. Why? What's the difference?

The difference is between, "I didn't like this part because of X, Y, and Z," and "This is stupid, you're stupid, and you're wrong!" Tone means everything; even I understand that and the only social weapon I really know how to use is the +5 Sledgehammer of Bluntness. There's been an awful lot of annoying-type rules lawyering and unconstructive criticism lately and I figure the Giant's reaching his limit of patience. And frankly, I cant really blame him.

What I'm more curious about is why the sudden increase? I didn't really notice this much when I first joined, although admittedly I bounce around threads and again, I was even worse with social cues when I first joined than I am now.

[Zerter]

I agree with Pheldagriff. This is just an attempt to show support for the Giant, nothing more. People are making it out to be much more than it is.

Nobody is disagreeing with Pheldagriff as far as I can tell. Only what Pheldagriff is saying is very different from what the OP is saying. The OP is targetting a much broader group (all minmaxers, whatever you consider that to be) and doing so in a very hostile manner. So I don't see why you are considering the two to be in support of the same cause.

[deworde]

I do understand Finagle's point. If you've come here because it's a D&D comic, and you have built up a strong working knowledge of D&D 3.5, it probably does take you out of a story when something works counter to your expectations. Probably how watching Stargate comes across if you work for the military ("Teal'c was an enemy officer 20 minutes ago! HOW CAN HE BE A TRUSTED MEMBER OF YOUR PRIMARY SCOUT TEAM?!!") or House if you're an actual Doctor (in terms of the solutions, not the personality).

At the same time, I absolutely agree with Rich's decision that plot comes first (see my sig). D&D is inherently balanced towards heroic victories, and players having a good time. On the other hand, that leads to a lot of issues when trying to set a scene or tell a story, especially when you aren't actually getting the collaborative storytelling that comes with actual players.

And I do think that there's a lot of times when the posters are just being ridiculous with their "that couldn't happens", because it's not how they'd run their game or play their character. Especially when it falls foul of what I call "the Order of the Stick" fallacy, that even with the same innate knowledge of rules, the way a character will play is the way a player will play. A player will sit with rule books, discuss with other players, and argue with the DM about whether a particular move is Lawful or Neutral. A character won't want to "soak up some damage" because damage hurts, and they won't know every optimisation because they don't sit up at nights with sourcebooks (they actually have to spend that time learning their skills).

Critically, I think this comes down to the kind of D&D player you are. If you're the kind of player who wants to optimise their character and plays against DM's who you have to outthink, then what you're reading here is often so far from how you play D&D that it probably is distracting. If you're the kind of player who does this (http://tabletitans.com/tales/post/worst-adventurers-ever)... not so much.

There are one or two posters who make a habit of this, and they're the ones who tend to get a smackdown reply from the Giant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15175785&postcount=48). The fact that it's annoying him is reason for them to cut it out, but to be honest, it's an inevitable consequence of how this strip started. My concern is that at some point he'll get sick of this nonsense and stop checking the forums (best-case) or updating the site (NOOOOO!). Either that or launch a totalitarian banning approach (personally, I'd vote for a system where only rules lawyers can see rules lawyer posts. Everybody wins!).

Then there's those few posters who've got a right bee in their bonnet about a particular event (Roy abandoning Elan but not becoming Neutral, Vaarsuvius not toasting Xykon with his absolute magic power, Haley killing Crystal, etc). These are quite frankly displaying troll-like behaviour. They'll pop up on just barely related threads to go "Oh, and by the way X shouldn't have Y'd because of Z". It's fine when it's a recent development (Malack, evil or no?), but when the event happened YEARS ago, and it's clearly coloured everything for them since then, it's a bit tiresome.

It's when you groan when you see them post, because it's going to be the same damn point you disagreed with last time, especially when it's accompanied by an attitude that is at best condescending, and at worst condescending but not as clever as would justify that condescension.

tl;dr? I've already put the Giant's response to this kind of stuff in my sig, and how much I enjoy this comic. I see no problem with others doing the same, but I'd rather not have all sigs be the same. Personalise!

[sam79]

I think "watch your tone" is advice everybody can take onboard and a campaign everyone can get behind; this applies double when making a criticism, which can be hard to do without causing offence.

Overall, as I said, I think the forum membership does a pretty good job on this front.

Showing support for the Giant (even though he's a big boy and can take care of himself); sure, why not? All power to you. Calling people who you think are overstepping the mark "nazis"...not helpful.

[Olinser]

Agreed that it's a solution in search of a problem. I also think that some of the people who note perceived discrepancies between the rules and characters' actions in-comic would be better served by not coming off as a jerk when they point those discrepancies out. Tone matters.

I do agree though that the rules matter as they are part of the framework through which we are perceiving the Giant's story. So, when we see a rules discrepancy, it bugs us. In the same way it would if we were reading a sonnet and one of the words didn't match the meter. We aren't out of line in pointing these out to the Giant, though I think we should present any questions we have with the narrative in a more respectful tone. Part of that, I'm sure, is the imperfect nature of text as communication. That's all.

Personally, I was wondering why Roy's fantasy wouldn't have RC just Disintegrate the Forcecage. He didn't witness it personally (being dead at the time) but he'd have heard about it. I however accept the explanation that he was too busy exulting in kicking Xykon's bony a** to notice what a (to him) henchman healer was bothering to do.

Neat strip. I really like the misdirection of introducing RC early with an eyepatch, as it set me up to accept the rest of your con, Giant. Even though I was on Team Illusion.

The simple answer is that Roy doesn't have the Knowledge ranks to know that Disintegrate CAN destroy a Forcecage. (And possibly isn't even aware that Redcloak CAN cast Disintegrate - he's never cast it in front of Roy).

All the signs in the comic seem to point to this being Roy's personal fantasy - Haley and even V just played support roles to him literally soloing Xykon.

Just like the argument it generated about Superb Dispelling and whether it could have actually dispelled the Forcecage.

If this is Roy's personal fantasy, it doesn't matter what the rules are. The only thing that matters is what Roy THINKS the rules are.

Me personally, I enjoy discussing possible scenarios for how the plot might play out in upcoming comics, with regards to the abilities we have seen and the rules we know.

(At the same time, I have almost zero patience for the min-maxers that wander around claiming that the Ancient Black Dragon would solo Xykon, or Tarquin's group will kill him in 1 round, based on stupidly optimized builds that Rich would never ever put in the comic).

Knowledge and discussion of the rules should aid you in discussion and enjoyment of the comic - they shouldn't be for nitpicking with 'Giant you screwed teh rules up lolz!'

[Dire Lemming]

Showing support for the Giant (even though he's a big boy and can take care of himself); sure, why not? All power to you. Calling people who you think are overstepping the mark "nazis"...not helpful.
Indeed. That can be taken as flaming in its own right.

Some people are of often popularly unpopular opinions or views, but these are still their own. :smallamused:

[Mantine]

Some people are of often popularly unpopular opinions or views, but these are still their own. :smallamused:

Thanks. You bring hope to this forum.

[JSSheridan]

The Giant's a big boy and can take care of himself.

Just don't feed the trolls.

[deworde]

One addition I'd like to see on the forum would be a basic up-vote/down-vote for posts, so that the persistent rules lawyers could be voted out of my view (if it turns out that actually most of the posters love hearing a discussion of whether Rich has done the wrong thing, then... no, I can't live in that world)

I have to say, for the people claiming oppression, I'm a firm believer in the Zivkovic Principle (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/2013/01/28/commenting-threads-good-bad-or-not-at-all/):

Free speech does not mean everyone has the right to say everything everywhere. It does not mean you have the right to say your stuff on my blog. It means you have the right to start your own blog [to say your stuff about my stuff]

http://www.orderofthestickrulesdiscussion.com/ is available, if anyone wants to set up their blog there...

[luagha]

Is that the min-maxers all have copious time on their hands while the characters in the story are acting is real-time.

If you've ever run an adventure or D&D combat where people only have 6 real-world seconds to start and declare their action - when they actually have to spend standard actions for perception checks to determine additional details - it's a very different and fun experience. (Of course the GM has to be fair about the details he gives as well as watch for people who try to scam more thinking time.)

Speed chess is awesome but everyone acknowledges that it's less deep.

[ti'esar]

On the whole, I think I agree with the people opposed to this thread. I'm sick of the rules lawyers and I think they're getting worse, but the Giant is fully capable of dealing with them when they go too far on his own. And calling people "Nazis" is never, ever constructive.

[archon_huskie]

yeah, well nazis can be fixed with an edit. and it does not appear in the sig.


the sig in fact is a complement to the Giant for his hard work and a dis to people who dis his hard work.

Thus . . . sigged

[elros]

As long as the "rules lawyers" are reading this comic and posting on the forum, they are adding value to the Giant's work. I think a healthy debate about the rules can be interesting sometimes (although I understand why it would be annoying to the Giant). After all, one of the nice things about this comic is that we have a good understanding of what each of the characters can do, which adds to the suspense and depth of the story. In particular, I like how the Giant is able to introduce nuance and depth to the otherwise static alignment system of D&D.
On the other hand, there have been a number of "the Giant was wrong" type of comments, and those are neither interesting nor desirable. The Giant is right in wanting no part of those comments. After all, when I was DMing I used to interpret the rules in order to add drama to the campaign, so why shouldn't the Giant do the same thing when he is writing a story?

[Carry2]

I'm too lazy to gather together some quotes but I remember one instance where someone said that a certain "felt" rules infringement (I think it was Durkula summoning a fiend) was finally crossing the line and said that the Giant went to far with his liberal take of the rules...
It's quite possible that the underlying motive for this particular rules-nitpick was the poster(s) in question being unhappy over what's happened with Durkon recently. (For my own part, while I can acknowledge that the rules do say that vampire clerics automatically retain access to spells, I also think it's a pretty dumb rule.)

[Tragak]

yeah, well nazis can be fixed with an edit. Taken care of.

[sam79]

On the other hand, there have been a number of "the Giant was wrong" type of comments, and those are neither interesting nor desirable. The Giant is right in wanting no part of those comments. After all, when I was DMing I used to interpret the rules in order to add drama to the campaign, so why shouldn't the Giant do the same thing when he is writing a story?

Agreed, with this and your post in general.

To me the ironic thing about some of the more agressive rules-lawyering; some of the time they seem to forget Rule 0, which is the one rule that every good DM knows.

[Edhelras]

I like it when Burlew verbally smacks people who expect rule adherence.

Well, I don't like it at all. I don't like people smacking each other, other than in for instance DnD, where smacking is part of the fun. But this is OOC area, and there ought to be as little smacking as possible. To me, it detracts from the fun when people build up for smacking, and these people, who appear to be somewhat rude, do just that.

But most of all - I have a problem with the "rule adherence" thingy. Although I'm no guru of DnD, at least I have some basic knowledge from playing and DMing and makeing up adventures. To me, I feel that most of the time the Giant is simply adhering to the rules - even though he denies that he consistently does so. Furthermore, just about every time a "rules lawyer" enters the field, it seems to me that either the Giant or somebody else is there to explain to us that, actually, the rules were being followed.

Most of the time, the "rules complaining" isn't about intelligent and alert players catching something that the Giant missed - it's about rigid and singleminded who simply hadn't thought of this or that possibility. To me - reading OOTS is also a great inspiration as to how play and DM a DnD game, and it seems to me the Giant is a supert DM.

Other times, the complaints show that these complainers expect the characters to metagame to an extent that I, as a DM, wouldn't tolerate. Part of picking a character with its strengths and weaknesses is playing that character. So even if Rich denies that OOTS visualizes an imagined game of DnD, even if these stick figures are just fictional characters with no direct link to the DnD game - at least they ARE whole and believable characters, with strengths and flaws. And as noted - neither from a game (metagaming) point of view or from a literary point of view ought a fighter (even an intelligent one as Roy) to be fully aware of his opponents capabilities, spell lists and so on. Had he known, for instance, that RC was capable of casting Regeneration - then it must have been either his player metagaming (looking up the Cleric chapter in the PHB, even though he was currently only allowed to use the Fighter chapter), or it would be the author imposing his knowledge on his characters. Either way, it would be a sign of bad writing or gaming.

At the bottom of it, what makes me somewhat irritable, is this bunch of people who actually seem to think they are in the position to criticize the author, and kind of implies that he doesn't know what he's doing. One is free to think so, but it's kind of rude to say it openly, and on the author's own website. And I don't like rude people. Noone likes rude people. Only themselves, - and barely that too.

[Tragak]

VeryGoodStuff™ I believe that you just won the thread. :smallsmile:

[Nymrod]

Most of the time, the "rules complaining" isn't about intelligent and alert players catching something that the Giant missed - it's about rigid and singleminded who simply hadn't thought of this or that possibility. To me - reading OOTS is also a great inspiration as to how play and DM a DnD game, and it seems to me the Giant is a supert DM.

What I gather from the strip is that trying to do a decent story following the D&D rules, particularly after a certain level, is doomed to fail. So the Giant HAS to make his characters so suboptimal cause any other way, we'd have no story.

[Carry2]

Agreed, with this and your post in general.

To me the ironic thing about some of the more agressive rules-lawyering; some of the time they seem to forget Rule 0, which is the one rule that every good DM knows.

After all, when I was DMing I used to interpret the rules in order to add drama to the campaign, so why shouldn't the Giant do the same thing when he is writing a story?
Well, bending the rules is also, often, a thinly veiled way for the GM to cop out of outcomes that he or she didn't like- which is to say, railroading.


To expand on the point: The players' sense of accomplishment is enormous. They went through hell and death to survive long enough to level. They have their own stories about how certain scenarios played out. They developed their own clever strategems to solve the puzzles and defeat the opposition. If I fudge a die, I take that all away. Every bit of it. Suddenly, the game becomes my story about what I want to happen. The players, rather than being smart and determined and lucky, are pandering to my sense of drama—to what I think the story should be.
Luke Crane on Moldvay D&D (https://plus.google.com/111266966448135449970/posts/Q8qRhCw7az5)

Now, given that the Giant is the only person 'playing' this particular game, this may or may not be a problem. But there is major contention about whether this is an appropriate philosophy for dealing with actual groups of real players.

[Kish]

One addition I'd like to see on the forum would be a basic up-vote/down-vote for posts, so that the persistent rules lawyers could be voted out of my view (if it turns out that actually most of the posters love hearing a discussion of whether Rich has done the wrong thing, then... no, I can't live in that world)
You don't exactly need a ton of other people casting downvotes to put anyone whose posts you don't want to see any more of on Ignore, y'know.

[sam79]

Well, bending the rules is also, often, a thinly veiled way for the GM to cop out of outcomes that he or she didn't like- which is to say, railroading.


There is surely a large area of happy middle ground between strict adherence to the rules in all situations (which could result in a My Rules-Fu is Stronger Than Yours style of campaign) and an over-use fo Rule 0 to force the players to dance to the DMs tune. IMO, bending a rule/fudging a roll to allow a player to Do Something Cool is a lot more acceptable than doing it to Prevent Something Unexpected. But this is a pretty huge topic of debate, and I'm not sure if this is the right area of the forum for it.

[deworde]

You don't exactly need a ton of other people casting downvotes to put anyone whose posts you don't want to see any more of on Ignore, y'know.

Is there already an Ignore User option on these forums?

My feeling is that currently, someone says something tedious and provocative, and because there's no downvote, people respond. A post the Giant already shot down is still getting responses on page 13 because it's on page 2 and people read from the start. If that post was on -10 and falling, they'd probably be more likely to go "already taken care of", if they saw it at all.

And at the same time, downvoting posts is very different to blocking users. I don't want to read X's tedious post about Y, but I do want to read their interesting post about Z.

And finally, people chase rep. If certain of your posts are consistently downvoted, you'll probably start writing less of those posts and more of the posts that are upvoted.

[Kish]

Is there already an Ignore User option on these forums?
Click the name, choose View Profile, choose Ignore User.

I...have a significantly lower opinion of popularity contests than you do, I'm afraid.

[oppyu]

Before this thread gets locked, I'll chime in with I think the Giant's cool as well.

You may now go back to teetering on the edge of a flame war.

[The Giant]

OK, I'm going to have to lock this.

First, from a strictly Rules-of-Posting perspective, this is not OK because it violates our explicit rule on not forming groups aimed against other posters. While people can put whatever they want in their signature (within the rules), creating a thread to discuss and demonize other posters is not OK. Especially if those posts include flames toward a large unspecified population.

More importantly, though, I don't actually have a problem with people analyzing the comic by the D&D rules. If posters ask questions or make observations about the comic, I often explain my thinking, which is sometimes, "I didn't check that beforehand, oh well." I only really bring out the verbal lashings when people are rude and obnoxious about it, telling me I'm objectively wrong, or that I'm a bad writer because I didn't follow such-and-such a rule. It's infuriating to read that over and over and over, often from the same handful of people.

The truth is, if I could officially decouple the comic from D&D, I would do so. But I can't. There's no way, it's too ingrained in the abilities that the characters possess. Hell, I could have Roy turn to the camera and state that this comic no longer follows D&D rules, and it still wouldn't stop anyone. The only option is to end the comic abruptly and start a new one, and doing so without finishing the story properly would be a greater problem. But I have long since lost interest in D&D as a story element. So I simply don't worry about it. I write what I want to happen based on my shaky memory about the game rules, and that means there are a lot more discrepancies than there used to be. But they're not errors. They're a conscious choice to not care.

However, and this is important: These issues are my problem. Not yours. I can defend my decisions myself, and am not shy about doing so. I don't need protecting. Not only is it, itself, an equal disruption of the message board, but it doesn't really help me. It divides the message board into pro-Giant and anti-Giant camps, and that's terrible. People are allowed to criticize the comic as much as they want, as long as they:


are polite and follow all the Rules of Posting,
understand that I do not have the same priorities as they do, and
understand that I am under no obligation to write the story that they want to read—no matter how long they have been reading.


As for why some of the worse offenses happen in the first place:


To expand on the point: The players' sense of accomplishment is enormous. They went through hell and death to survive long enough to level. They have their own stories about how certain scenarios played out. They developed their own clever strategems to solve the puzzles and defeat the opposition. If I fudge a die, I take that all away. Every bit of it. Suddenly, the game becomes my story about what I want to happen. The players, rather than being smart and determined and lucky, are pandering to my sense of drama—to what I think the story should be.

I think one of the major issues that comes up is that this IS my story about what I want to happen. And ultimately, you are all pandering to my sense of drama and what I think the story should be. Because this is not a game, it's a work of fiction.

But D&D players who come into this treating it like it is a D&D game become incensed by anything that, at a game table, would be railroading. Because they are (mistakenly) perceiving it as a bunch of players getting their agency taken away by a DM. They are projecting their anger toward bad DMing onto me and ranting endlessly about every decision that gets made. Like a disgruntled player, they argue in the hopes that I reverse the ruling—or at the least, convince enough people that they're right so that I'll rule differently next time. But this is not a game, and the characters are all being controlled by the same person. It is literally impossible for me to be unfair to my characters because "fairness" is not a concept that exists in anything but games.

Anyway, as I said at the top: This thread is itself a rules violation. Locking, with possible review to see if anyone crossed the line.