META: Referencing spells, rules and features and the rise of "misinformation glut"

[TheUser]

Real-talk. I'm annoyed.

Annoyed that I constantly see posts in this forum where people posit an interpretation/opinion about a specific ability, feature, rule or spell, which is entirely untrue upon a quick re-reading of the original text, because they have forgotten details or simply do not account for all of what is written there.

It is, in this posters opinion, far too wide spread a phenomenon in this forum, especially when missed details like this become clear upon a simple re-reading of the original contents (a crime I was definitely guilty of when I first started to post here). Then what happens? Well someone else has to come in, quote the ability directly, and correct the discrepancy in the previous person's post and honestly... It's slowing us down... and it kind of makes us look bad.

Want to help the community?

Put a spoiler tag with the full description and page number of the spell, rule or ability you are referencing if it is the first time it's coming up in the discussion.

Better yet, if it's a new thread entirely dedicated to a single spell or feature then have it put at the bottom of your post without the spoiler tag. This affords everyone reading your post a quick refresher on the details of the spell/feature which is at the center of the discussion and will reduce a lot of the "misinformation glut" that frequently bogs us down.

Will it slow down posting? Probably a bit. But the hope is that we all go into a discussion with all the relevant information we might need.

This shouldn't need to be a codified rule of conduct here, but if we all do our part I'm sure we can make a difference. People will notice trends like this and catch on quickly, with a pretty inherent understanding of 'why' this might be important. Who knows, maybe we can start a trend...

EDIT: as an aside this could also be perpetuated out the respect and courtesy angle of "new players come here all the time, and nobody should be expected to have an encyclopedic knowledge of D&D to participate, so throw up the details of what you're talking about" making it a healthier space for everyone ;)

EDIT 2: If you do not have a resource available you can always request someone post the source text for you.

Let's hear your thoughts.

[ImproperJustice]

I don’t think it’s a bad idea and I would just be prepared that a lot of new players may not think to post all that info when they are just seeking a quick clarification.

But people responding could do so.
Then again, if their response quickly and succinctly addresses the issue, is the spell description repost needed?


IMO: I wish the PHB and Xanathar’s did a better job of highlighting key terms that get reused a lot such as:
A creature you can see, heavily obscured, restrained, etc....

I was watching another YouTube feature on the animated spellbook where the author was discussing invisibility and how the vast majority of how the spell works is scattered all over the PHB because the description references conditions like those listed above.

[Justin Sane]

Honest question: doesn't that run into copyright issues for non-SRD material?

[CheddarChampion]

Not everyone has their books at hand when posting to this site, not everyone paid for the content on D&D Beyond, and third party sources aren't always reliable for phrasing.
If everyone has to pay money to D&DB or type up a copy of the wording from their books before posting, I imagine there will be much less activity on this sub-forum.

On another point, is posting descriptions word for word against some kind of law or am I imagining things? Maybe it's just when you have a database of material? I might be imagining things.

[Jophiel]

Honest question: doesn't that run into copyright issues for non-SRD material?
I Am Not An Internet Lawyer but I'm fairly confident that excerpting a couple lines from a book for purpose of discussion falls safely under Fair Use.

[TheUser]

Not everyone has their books at hand when posting to this site, not everyone paid for the content on D&D Beyond, and third party sources aren't always reliable for phrasing.
If everyone has to pay money to D&DB or type up a copy of the wording from their books before posting, I imagine there will be much less activity on this sub-forum.

On another point, is posting descriptions word for word against some kind of law or am I imagining things? Maybe it's just when you have a database of material? I might be imagining things.

I hadn't thought about the notion that people don't have easy access to the rules.
I don't use my books all too often, I have...*ahem* "other" digital sources that I keep on my phone..
This would be one of those brick walls I hadn't considered though.

Again it wouldn't be a hard rule of the forum, just a trend that we could all try to participate in. And not everytime the rule comes up, just the first time in a particular thread.

Posting descriptions word for word is fine. If you post -all- the rules that becomes a problem as that nullifies the need for a service like D&DB or the books entirely.

[CheddarChampion]

I hadn't thought about the notion that people don't have easy access to the rules.
-SNIP-
Again it wouldn't be a hard rule of the forum, just a trend that we could all try to participate in. And not everytime the rule comes up, just the first time in a particular thread.

Maybe a change in the proposed M.O. where if you have a source handy you post the description but if you don't you say "AFB, can someone post the description?"
I don't expect posters will really be on board with this kind of thing, though.

[NaughtyTiger]

On the other hand, would it really help?

The most recent angry mobs posted plenty of text blocks of the rules about PAM and OoA, plenty of RAW blood was spilled.

[bid]

Annoyed that I constantly see posts in this forum where people posit an interpretation/opinion about a specific ability, feature, rule or spell, which is entirely untrue upon a quick re-reading of the original text, because they have forgotten details or simply do not account for all of what is written there.
While helpful, I'm not sure it is enough. Some posters thrive on ambiguous statements, I don't think their agenda is to clear things up.

[MaxWilson]

On the other hand, would it really help?

The most recent angry mobs posted plenty of text blocks of the rules about PAM and OoA, plenty of RAW blood was spilled.

This. People already post RAW snippets, with text appropriately bolded to emphasize their points. It rarely changes any minds because the argument is usually about interpretation, not text.

This feels like a solution in search of a problem.

[GlenSmash!]

On the other hand, would it really help?

The most recent angry mobs posted plenty of text blocks of the rules about PAM and OoA, plenty of RAW blood was spilled.

I think it could help the original poster in the scenarios. And those trying to help the OP. Not the keyboard warriors who pedantically debate long past the original question being resolved.

[MeeposFire]

Honestly this is one of those things that sounds like it would help but if you look around the real problems are not fixed by this. The most nasty of threads on this website (and this is edition agnostic as well) are more often things like alignment based discussions, interpretation, and other things that the facts are used more as weapons rather than as a way to determine a solution.

Heck you find plenty of times where facts are stated and the thread ends. Those conversations already get solved quickly by the application of facts and that happens a lot but you do not remember those so much because they are quick and easy. The ones that get bad likely already have plenty of facts presented on both sides so the rule does nothing to help and those uses of the rules are likely at the center of the scruff if it is an interpretation argument. People with an emotional investment in an argument will not be persuaded by facts it is a problem even outside of the game in real life.

Facts are not the problem people are the problem.

[ZorroGames]

Real-talk. I'm annoyed.

Annoyed that I constantly see posts in this forum where people posit an interpretation/opinion about a specific ability, feature, rule or spell, which is entirely untrue upon a quick re-reading of the original text, because they have forgotten details or simply do not account for all of what is written there.

It is, in this posters opinion, far too wide spread a phenomenon in this forum, especially when missed details like this become clear upon a simple re-reading of the original contents (a crime I was definitely guilty of when I first started to post here). Then what happens? Well someone else has to come in, quote the ability directly, and correct the discrepancy in the previous person's post and honestly... It's slowing us down... and it kind of makes us look bad.

Want to help the community?

Put a spoiler tag with the full description and page number of the spell, rule or ability you are referencing if it is the first time it's coming up in the discussion.

Better yet, if it's a new thread entirely dedicated to a single spell or feature then have it put at the bottom of your post without the spoiler tag. This affords everyone reading your post a quick refresher on the details of the spell/feature which is at the center of the discussion and will reduce a lot of the "misinformation glut" that frequently bogs us down.

Will it slow down posting? Probably a bit. But the hope is that we all go into a discussion with all the relevant information we might need.

This shouldn't need to be a codified rule of conduct here, but if we all do our part I'm sure we can make a difference. People will notice trends like this and catch on quickly, with a pretty inherent understanding of 'why' this might be important. Who knows, maybe we can start a trend...

EDIT: as an aside this could also be perpetuated out the respect and courtesy angle of "new players come here all the time, and nobody should be expected to have an encyclopedic knowledge of D&D to participate, so throw up the details of what you're talking about" making it a healthier space for everyone ;)

EDIT 2: If you do not have a resource available you can always request someone post the source text for you.

Let's hear your thoughts.

As said in other words by others, you are trying to fix human nature. Nice idea but I will forget next time I start a thread, sadly.

[Kadesh]

TheUser should probably wind their neck in and either correct the individual or move on with their life rather than this passive aggressive appeal for validaiton.
Put my opinion in spoilers, is that correct?

[TheUser]

Honestly this is one of those things that sounds like it would help but if you look around the real problems are not fixed by this. The most nasty of threads on this website (and this is edition agnostic as well) are more often things like alignment based discussions, interpretation, and other things that the facts are used more as weapons rather than as a way to determine a solution.

Heck you find plenty of times where facts are stated and the thread ends. Those conversations already get solved quickly by the application of facts and that happens a lot but you do not remember those so much because they are quick and easy. The ones that get bad likely already have plenty of facts presented on both sides so the rule does nothing to help and those uses of the rules are likely at the center of the scruff if it is an interpretation argument. People with an emotional investment in an argument will not be persuaded by facts it is a problem even outside of the game in real life.

Facts are not the problem people are the problem.

Just because it solves "not the biggest problem this forum has" but instead tries to solve "a small contrivance that this forum has" doesn't mean it's not worth doing.


I'm not looking to solve -all- of the forums problems, or even the most contentious of them. And you are absolutely right, the bulk of discussions is centered usually around interpretation.

This is about the nitpick of people who make bold, completely assertive and off-base claims based off of a lack of memory with regards to specifics in rules.

The classic "this feature/spell/ability works this way"

and literally the next post is "here is the excerpt from the rule book you are referencing showing you are categorically false without exception due to a very clear sentence within the text" or something to that effect.

I see it a lot.

Meanwhile, had the source text been available from the get go, the person throwing out inane claims would probably safeguard themselves from embarrassment by taking a quick glance at the rule before posting about it and not wasted everyone's time.



TheUser should probably wind their neck in and either correct the individual or move on with their life rather than this passive aggressive appeal for validaiton.
Put my opinion in spoilers, is that correct?

I have reported this post for harassment. I'm ok with people being rude, but when you aren't even contributing to the discussion and just harassing a poster I draw the line.
(how am I going to get any validation points now?!)

[MaxWilson]

Meanwhile, had the source text been available from the get go, the person throwing out inane claims would probably safeguard themselves from embarrassment by taking a quick glance at the rule before posting about it and not wasted everyone's time.

Heh.

It would be nice if the world worked that way.

[MeeposFire]

Just because it solves "not the biggest problem this forum has" but instead tries to solve "a small contrivance that this forum has" doesn't mean it's not worth doing.


I'm not looking to solve -all- of the forums problems, or even the most contentious of them. And you are absolutely right, the bulk of discussions is centered usually around interpretation.

This is about the nitpick of people who make bold, completely assertive and off-base claims based off of a lack of memory with regards to specifics in rules.

The classic "this feature/spell/ability works this way"

and literally the next post is "here is the excerpt from the rule book you are referencing showing you are categorically false without exception due to a very clear sentence within the text" or something to that effect.

I see it a lot.

Meanwhile, had the source text been available from the get go, the person throwing out inane claims would probably safeguard themselves from embarrassment by taking a quick glance at the rule before posting about it and not wasted everyone's time.




I have reported this post for harassment. I'm ok with people being rude, but when you aren't even contributing to the discussion and just harassing a poster I draw the line.
(how am I going to get any validation points now?!)

You are trying to push the idea that posting the rules will somehow fix the issues around here but frankly your solution will not fix it at all. Most of those nasty arguments that somehow involve rules tend to have the rules being posted at length (and in bits and pieces as well) all over the thread and yet those are the parts that cause the most arguments. The problem is not a lack of posting the rules because the threads where merely posting the rules in a post that can end the the thread already have that happen. The threads that get ugly often get ugly because the rules are posted but the two sides cannot agree on how they are implemented and essentially how they should be read. There is also the possibility that one or both sides do not care at all about the actual rules and are arguing over how the rules ought to be so once again just posting the rules does not change behavior.


The people that do not care about what the rules actually say will not care if you post them. The ones that do care often already post them. The people that are arguing about interpretation are already posting the rules but are often already posting the rules but are causing some of the biggest arguments because just having the rules posted is not enough.

You can already see this in other threads how many times have you seen a poster still make claims about how a rule works even after the actual rules have been posted? They flat out ignore the posts with the rules in it (usually by rationalizing that you are reading it incorrectly).

Posting the rules can be helpful at certain points in a conversation in particular for certain questions but generally those threads already get solved this way and easily. What does your idea do to the actual problematic people on this site? If we have a poster making claims that do not accurately follow the rules and you post them and they just ignore it or come up with an alternative reading of them that makes for a 20 page argument what does your idea do to stop that because those are the things that go down the rabbit hole. For example there were facts being thrown left and right in the spellcasters are overpowered theread but none of them stopped that from getting shutdown due to problems and it never has. That never stopped the 3e threads back in the day from getting out of hand.


I agree that there are some stupid arguments that happen here (and I like that you are at least hinking of trying something to help so kudos) but I do not personally see this being the solution. Facts have never been the problem but the way people treat each other is. Feeling ignored sucks. People getting angry is no fun. This place would be better if more people (myself included sure) would learn how to let go better. You do not need to win every argument and most of the stuff here (does any of it really) does not really matter. Does posting the rules and ruling on shield master make anybody actually happy? Is the problem really the rules being posted or not or is the problem that a group of us here cannot stop berating each other over whether the rules follow how I see it working, the way you see it working, or lordy how the Sage sees it working (really does anybody really like conversations that come up about that the conversations about the hate being thrown about that guy has little to do with rules being posted in how toxic it can get around here). The people in charge of making the game tell us to do what we want with the game so it really is incumbent on us to not make talking about it toxic.


Also as an aside making it really inconvenient to post as a means to control behavior is typically a really poor way to do it. You should want to make the good behavior easier and the bad behavior harder otherwise you are going to be fighting human nature every step of the way and this is coming from a guy who will go and find his book and take the time quote verbatim rules from the book when needed (though not too often as doing that way is a bit of a pain in the butt since this is supposed to be for fun and not my job). I have taken the time to post page numbers and verbatim quotes and in those nasty conversations it went nowhere which is another reason that I do not see this as being as helpful as I think you would like.

[Kadesh]

If it's got to the state that telling you to either to correct someone who's wrong or continue about your day is harrassment, then this world is a sorry state. You asked for our opinions, and you got it.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked. This thread is a good example of why the Forum Rules prohibit vigilante modding. Please don't try to tell others what to do or how to post here. Posters regulating other posters quickly turns into objections to being told what to do, divisions into groups who think said regulation is fine, those that object, and those that think it doesn't go far enough. It also invites posters the then make other complaints about fellow posters. Regardless of the (presumably good) intentions, the result is a mess of recriminations and complaints.