Argument thread [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

SangoProduction

2015-09-27, 03:32 AM

I advise you to read the Sleight of Hand skill.
I did. You want to actually try and make an argument to support your statement?

If I did, which position did I distort to disprove and where did I assert that this that this position was then faulty as a result of that?
OK, I admit my mistake of assuming you can see it, if it was merely called out. I didn't want to increase the size of a post needlessly. I'll list and quote what were the fallacious arguments in order of appearance, in as concise a manner as possible.

1)Strawman: "Ask yourself if you really want to have a game where expensive spell components are ignored. A villain could (and would) glyph every five foot space in their castle."
No one said this, and you are supposedly trying to abuse your perception of "Let's make all components free" to base your argument.
2)Ad Hominem: "I haven't heard a single good argument against their use and a bunch of bad arguments, which to me, seem like they were conjured out of a personal desire to keep ignoring the rules."
Should be kinda self-explanatory.
3)Strawman: "Take care to read through the comments of people saying they have absolutely no problem with expensive spell components, all explaining they were surprised there are people who do. It doesn't strike you the least bit odd that there are more than a handful of people who think it's perfectly find and not at all difficult while a smaller number of individuals think it's problematic?"
No one was surprised, as I already explained. People were only saying that they don't like it. And it's tedious, not difficult. /end copy pasta from previous post

The DM is welcome to homebrew whatever rules he likes.
Glad we got that out of the way, as that seemed to be a point of contention with your arguments.

I'm glad you don't oppose using a reasonable and worthwhile game mechanic that is included in the core rules.
I think you are misunderstanding the point of contention that was intended. So, instead of agreeing, and saying you're right, I'll sum it up. "No one is wanting it to be free, just to not have to micromanage ingredients."

It's unfair to others that you can ignore a rule that benefits your character but may not benefit their's, especially. Just because the DM waives it doesn't mean it's acceptable. There have been several threads in the past I can remember where a player has experienced frustration that another player wasn't following the rules and the DM just let them do it or won't accept that the rules say what they say. If you're going to houserule otherwise, it should be upfront; but simply treating the game all along like it's just not something that really matters is bad. I've been in multiple groups and have experienced this as a player firsthand, I'm not just talking about theory here. I've been there, on both sides of the table, and I can tell you flat out that only one group I was in actually said, "We're a bunch of power gamers so we just changed the rules a bit" upfront instead of me learning later on that the Wizard using his Limited Wish spell constantly wasn't actually paying for it.
What was implied, though apparently not inferred by "Who said anything about not following rules that others in the game are?" was "Have everyone agree to it."
Also, to those players who complain about others not obeying the rule, when the rest of the group seems ok with it: talk to the offender. 9/10 it works. In that 1/10, the group is OK with something you aren't, so you should default to the "No game is better than a bad game" rule, if it's really bothering you.

I'd say this is the closest thing contending for a strawman in this post. You equated writing down a few numbers to spending 40 hours a week entering data into a machine, then proceeded imply because people don't like entering data into a computer for 40 hours a week, keeping track of a handful of numbers is too tedious.
No, I said it's not satisfying (for a good number of groups - ie. every group in my 10 years of gaming) to micromanage book keeping like that. Each group was OK with me just subtracting the appropriate amount for the spell. It changes power in absolutely no way. You get no extra gold, you get no extra casts (unless your GM is intentionally keeping you away from spell components, in which case, they probably wouldn't have agreed to it in the first place), you get nothing from micromanaging spell components.

That's maybe 10-20 seconds of minimal effort, tops.
Every round.

It's not micromanaging. I'm not telling them where to put it on their sheet and how to put it on their sheet. It's simply managing.
Micromanaging definition - control every part, however small.
Your way of doing it involves managing every component, of which, is a small part (just an excerpt, basically, on the spell description). That fits the definition

Food is the one thing I did simplify because it does very often needlessly bogged down the game during traveling (so I created a basic ration pack that costs a standard amount everywhere). It retains balance while removing some of the more boring aspects out of the equation. The reason I kept it in the game is because there are races which don't have to eat or drink and this is factored into their CR as a racial trait.

It is exceedingly rare for this to actually a point of LA change, as for most games, this is fluff, and nothing more. It's only a point that is considered in dark and gritty games, where food is actually a central mechanic.
And glad you agree with removing things that don't add to the game, and just bog it down. See, we can come to an agreement. It's also why going to the restroom is not roleplayed, nor is walking 5 hours, unless something happens.

It's unreasonable to say that casters are overpowered while simultaneously ignoring many of the restrictions that go with casting. This is to say if you're applying houserules to change the game's balance, then you can't argue that the unaltered game is imbalanced from your own experiences.
Again, I think you are missing what's being said, but I'll assume you are talking purely about what I am.
Letting casting costs be done on the fly doesn't change balance in any way, as already stated many times.
As was already mentioned, making something annoying doesn't make it balanced.