Meta: What topics should we not bring up?

[Man_Over_Game]

So there seems to be a number of topics on the forum that always break into some tangent that derails the thread. I'm trying to come up with a list of these arguments, just so I (and whoever else cares) know what to expect and to exercise caution regarding these topics.

Please do not break into debates about the exact topics, and please stay on topic regarding their place on this list.


Druids and their interactions with metal armor.
Illusions potentially making visible holes in objects.
Small creatures and the Heavy weapon trait.
Balance concerns and Short Rests in the same sentence.
Enchantment spells, and how evil they are.
Virtually anything that involves alignment.


Any others you can think of?

[KorvinStarmast]

Druids and their interactions with metal armor.
Illusions potentially making visible holes in objects.
Small creatures and the Heavy weapon trait.
Balance concerns and Short Rests in the same sentence.
Enchantment spells, and how evil they are.
Virtually anything that involves alignment.



Any others you can think of?
Never mention Fight Club.

[MaxWilson]

So there seems to be a number of topics on the forum that always break into some tangent that derails the thread. I'm trying to come up with a list of these arguments, just so I (and whoever else cares) know what to expect and to exercise caution regarding these topics.

Please do not break into debates about the exact topics, and please stay on topic regarding their place on this list.


Druids and their interactions with metal armor.
Illusions potentially making visible holes in objects.
Small creatures and the Heavy weapon trait.
Balance concerns and Short Rests in the same sentence.
Enchantment spells, and how evil they are.
Virtually anything that involves alignment.


Any others you can think of?

Sharpshooter/GWM balance
Rolled stats vs point buy

[Man_Over_Game]

Sharpshooter/GWM balance
Rolled stats vs point buy

Those are good. I am squinting my eyes, resisting the urge to soapbox the hell outta those right now.

[ShadowSandbag]

{scrubbed}

[Millstone85]

Whether or not a creature would be considered "hidden".

[nickl_2000]

Never mention Fight Club.

Dang it, we told you not to talk about that!



Wildshaping
Ethics around mind control/animate dead
any references to eating other sentient creature
Summon choices
Really anything related to Druids in any possible way




{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
He wins the post

[Rerem115]

The point, if it exists, where "creature" becomes "object" for the purpose of targeting, and vice-versa.

[Man_Over_Game]

Whether or not a creature would be considered "hidden".

That one's odd to me, as the rules are pretty clear that there's a difference between "Unseen" and "Hidden" (as both have explicit sections of rules). Rather, it, unlike most of the topics on the list, has an official response for either conclusion on the debate. There's not, for example, much information on the balance concerns regarding Short Rests.

But, sure. Seems like a controversial enough topic.

[darknite]

Anything that tries to work out the logic in real world chemistry/physics/psychology/etc of a magic spell.

[solidork]

Illusory Lenses/Mirrors

[Willie the Duck]

samurai vs knight or anything katana related.
longsword/arming sword/bastard sword/etc.
Studded Leather (and Leather) and historical accuracy
Kiting a tarrasque to death at low levels

[MilkmanDanimal]

Any "are Warlocks any good" threads; they invariably descend into arguments about optimization vs. roleplaying vs. the benefits/drawbacks/mechanics of multiclassing.

[nickl_2000]

Any "are Warlocks any good" threads; they invariably descend into arguments about optimization vs. roleplaying vs. the benefits/drawbacks/mechanics of multiclassing.

I think this could be expanded to any "is X better than X" or "is X any good" or "is X underpowered" or "is X overpowered/OP"


Although if all of the stuff mentioned so far was banned, we may only be down to 1-2 posts a day.

[Derpy]

Alignment in general always seems to end up as subjective vs inherent in dnd.

[KorvinStarmast]

any references to eating other sentient creature

JoeCartoon is now sad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Cartoon). :smallfrown:

The number of times "eat me" was uttered in Joe Cartoon episodes was pretty large.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Interaction with illusions
The definition of an attack
RP obligations for warlocks and paladins anyone
5-minute adventuring day
Forgotten Realms/Eberron
Trolleys

[Man_Over_Game]

Trolleys


I'm sorry, what?

[DMThac0]

Cover vs Obstruction vs Line of Sight
Perception vs Investigation (bonus points if it starts because of Passive Perception)
Intelligence vs Wisdom vs Charisma

[GlenSmash!]

The logic (or lack thereof) of the weapons and armor table. Including not enough options, too many options, and the dreaded appeal to historical accuracy.

[Man_Over_Game]

Cover vs Obstruction vs Line of Sight
Perception vs Investigation (bonus points if it starts because of Passive Perception)
Intelligence vs Wisdom vs Charisma


The cover rules seem odd to be on the list, if only because there's so much real material on the topic. Most people worth their salt know the difference between the three, and a few of those have references to back it up.

Spell targeting, though, is definitely something that is controversial enough to deserve a spot on the list.

[Constructman]

I'm sorry, what?

Trolley problem, aka do you kill one person to save five people, or do you do nothing and let five people die?

[Willie the Duck]

I'm sorry, what?

I think he means the Trolley Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem), which tends to give some people fits

[DMThac0]

The cover rules seem odd to be on the list, if only because there's so much real material on the topic. Most people worth their salt know the difference between the three, and a few of those have references to back it up.

Spell targeting, though, is definitely something that is controversial enough to deserve a spot on the list.

That's where I was headed with it, so yea, Spell targeting would be the clarification on that taboo topic.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think he means the Trolley Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem), which tends to give some people fits

Ah, so basically "Any moral dilemma where there's no obviously correct answer". Which is right up there with every alignment question ever asked.

[darknite]

Trolley problem, aka do you kill one person to save five people, or do you do nothing and let five people die?

Kill them all and resurrect your mistakes? :smallbiggrin:

[Coffee_Dragon]

no obviously correct answer

Clearly you just haven't had morality explained to you properly!!

[Keravath]

Clearly you just haven't had morality explained to you properly!!

Whose morality? :)

[NaughtyTiger]

dragonborn

[MaxWilson]

Is darkness from Darkness spell opaque?

How far away should monsters usually be when you first notice them?

Can you ready an action before a fellow PC kicks down a door to immediately attack any monsters on the other side?

[tieren]

Shape changed paladins and an infinite number of pigeons. (greater than light speed character movement).

[Man_Over_Game]

Shape changed paladins and an infinite number of pigeons. (greater than light speed character movement).

I really need that Chris Pratt meme of "I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm too afraid to ask".

[Keravath]

- the difference between passive and active is whether the player rolls dice and has nothing to do with the actions of the character

- transparent objects and cover (though it relates to spell targeting)

- stacking of advantage/disadvantage, the vision rules and what happens when you attack someone you can't see

- whether multiclassing and/or feats in general are good or bad

- anything to do with the definition of evil/neutral/good - which does come back to the alignment system but also in terms of interpreting character actions

[Naanomi]

What lore retcons are good, acceptable, or horrible

What parts of the ‘default setting’ are good, acceptable, or horrible... or how default the default setting is

What stuff is ‘sacred cows’ that should have been abandoned or not

[Man_Over_Game]

- stacking of advantage/disadvantage, the vision rules and what happens when you attack someone you can't see


I'm not sure if these ones fit. Everyone knows the rules and how you're supposed to play, it's just that some people think it's stupid.


I think that's an important distinction vs. the other mentions on the list. Most of the others have some level of ambiguity. There is evidence for either side that ends up breaking into a massive debate.

But something like stacking Advantage is on the lines of Rules-vs-Opinion.

Not Opinion-vs-Opinion or Rules-vs-Rules. Rules-vs-Opinion is basically on the same lines of "There's a part about the game I don't like", and anyone can say that without it being a debate. It's not like you're educating someone on what the proper rules are, or telling someone why attacking something blind should impose more than Dis/Advantage. Everyone knows why each side believes they're right, and nobody is budging that's arguing over it. Discussions like those usually burn out quickly, because there's so little fuel to flame each other with.


What lore retcons are good, acceptable, or horrible

What parts of the ‘default setting’ are good, acceptable, or horrible... or how default the default setting is

What stuff is ‘sacred cows’ that should have been abandoned or not

That's a good one. Basically "Traditionalism" vs. "What's the DNA of D&D?"

[Davo]

What's left, then? Copying and pasting rules for folks who don't look them up themselves?:smalltongue:

[Max_Killjoy]

So there seems to be a number of topics on the forum that always break into some tangent that derails the thread. I'm trying to come up with a list of these arguments, just so I (and whoever else cares) know what to expect and to exercise caution regarding these topics.

Please do not break into debates about the exact topics, and please stay on topic regarding their place on this list.


Druids and their interactions with metal armor.
Illusions potentially making visible holes in objects.
Small creatures and the Heavy weapon trait.
Balance concerns and Short Rests in the same sentence.
Enchantment spells, and how evil they are.
Virtually anything that involves alignment.



Any others you can think of?

Based on recent experience, the interaction of Hexblade, Pact of the Blade, and Improved Pact of the Blade.

[MaxWilson]

What happens in the game fiction when you get stabbed for N HP of damage.

==============


What's left, then? Copying and pasting rules for folks who don't look them up themselves?:smalltongue:

Original discussion, like Mr. Consideration's monster threads, new tactical ideas, guides, etc.

Unfortunately the forum rules are designed to create as many threads as possible (thread necromancy banned in favour of new threads) so original discussion is only a small fraction of what happens in this forum.

[NaughtyTiger]

it isn't the topic, it's us.

we dig in that our view is the only right one.
we are passive aggressive and churlish.

we are legion internet



Unfortunately the forum rules are designed to create as many threads as possible (thread necromancy banned in favour of new threads) so original discussion is only a small fraction of what happens in this forum.

this is a good thing, cuz when a thread hits 18 pages, no one will read and sift through all of them for the 4 actual original discussion points.

[Man_Over_Game]

What's left, then? Copying and pasting rules for folks who don't look them up themselves?:smalltongue:

It's more about avoiding these topics on unrelated threads. Literally on the front page, right now, is a topic regarding determining what Druid armors are available when following the metal restrictions in Adventure League.

There is almost no opinion to debate on the topic itself. He asked a question with a specific criteria and sought out the community for help.

About halfway through the thread he gave up because most of the comments were on the legalities of Druids wearing metal armor, and what afflictions happen because of it. Our need for ceaseless debate ruined the GITP experience for someone, which is a pretty s***y thing. And I'm sure it's not the first time, or the last.

I'm not saying don't talk about these topics. I'm saying don't talk about these topics on other people's threads. If you want a thread that's a cesspool of recycled arguments and air, go for it, but make one yourself instead of turning someone else's into it.

[NaughtyTiger]

I'm not saying don't talk about these topics. I'm saying don't talk about these topics on other people's threads. If you want a cesspool of recycled arguments and air, go for it, but make one yourself instead of turning someone else's into it.

then don't hijack or continue hijacking a thread.
but we all do it. we all find that one point we disagree with and pile on.

you are basically asking for a (voluntary) forum rule of one topic per thread, no hijacking...

[Aprender]

How much is the "right amount" to tip your tavern waiter or waitress.

[GlenSmash!]

Melee weapon attack vs attack with a melee weapon.

[Man_Over_Game]

then don't hijack or continue hijacking a thread.
but we all do it. we all find that one point we disagree with and pile on.

you are basically asking for a (voluntary) forum rule of one topic per thread, no hijacking...

On a personal rule, sure. If other people want to join in, why not.

I'm just Forrest Gump on a jog, asking for directions. If people want to jog, too, I'm not gonna stop them.

Really, I'm just knowing which topics require a bit more caution. I like to argue as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to contribute to a topic that makes the thread less and less about the OP's original concern.

And we do that, a lot. We care more about gaining value from our opinions than helping other people. Just part of the human experience, I think.

[Rukelnikov]

Some of these are not exactly the same but very closely related so I'll list them in the same line.

- Turns outside combat / Initiative / Surprise round / Alert

- Visibility rules / Awareness of enemies

- 3.x vs 4e vs 5e / "5e is perfect"

- Caster superiority

- Double bladed scimitar and TWF / Racial requirements for stuff that requires being superior an elf (Bladesinger, Revenant Blade)

For the record, while I don't plan to ignite flames on these topics, I also don't plan to stop arguing with those that do.

[MaxWilson]

then don't hijack or continue hijacking a thread.
but we all do it. we all find that one point we disagree with and pile on.

you are basically asking for a (voluntary) forum rule of one topic per thread, no hijacking...

Topic to avoid: effects of Usenet/Reddit vs. GITP forum technology on emergent sociological phenomena such as thread-jacking.

Also: whether a given contentious topic has just been successfully avoided, or only lampshaded.

[Man_Over_Game]

Topic to avoid: effects of Usenet/Reddit vs. GITP forum technology on emergent sociological phenomena such as thread-jacking.

Also: whether a given contentious topic has just been successfully avoided, or only lampshaded.

I'm getting weird, meta levels of Orwell-1984 vibes going on here.

DISCUSSING THE VALIDITY OF THE DISCUSSABLE TOPICS THREAD ON THE DISCUSSABLE TOPICS THREAD IS DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD AND IS CRIMETHINK.

[MaxWilson]

I'm getting weird, meta levels of Orwell-1984 vibes going on here.

DISCUSSING THE VALIDITY OF DISCUSSABLE TOPICS IS DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD AND IS CRIMETHINK.

Hey now, if you can successfully come up with a shorthand equivalent to Godwin's Law for some of these topics, maybe we can just short-circuit all of the arguments themselves. :)

Maybe it gets to the point where rather than actually HAVING a "HP = Injury?" argument, someone just invokes the entire flame war by reference: "<insert Meatwar>" and then we all roll our eyes and go back to talking about the main thread, instead of actually having the Meatwar yet again.

[Theodoxus]

gonna call it first - "MaxWilson's Law" - Any argument that can be shortcircuited by citing a prior example of said argument immediately negates the current argument."

It's the threadjack equivalent to that old joke/meme about numbered jokes. Where instead of telling a joke, you just say "#47!" and everyone laughs because they know joke 47.

[Pex]

The effectiveness of illusions.
Anything to do with the ability/skill check system.
How does Shield Master work.
I don't like 5E because . . . and you shouldn't either.
I like 5E because . . . and you should too.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't like 5E because . . . and you shouldn't either.
I like 5E because . . . and you should too.

Personally, I think it's dumb to discuss how much you like/hate a game on a biased forum, whether or not it's controversial. Biased polls really bug me something fierce.

You don't go to a 5e thread, ask people if they like 5e, and expect to get unbiased votes. Although I see more of this on the Older D&D/AD&D and Other Systems section.

It's akin to asking people at a gas station if they drive.

[NaughtyTiger]

"RAW says" then list your interpretation of what RAW actually states (barely refrained from reacting in the shield bash thread)

[Man_Over_Game]

"RAW says" then list your interpretation of what RAW actually states (barely refrained from reacting in the shield bash thread)

Agreed. Saw a lot of this in the many Heavy Metal Druid threads that've come up in the last few weeks. "Here are the facts, and they clearly state that my guess is more right than yours!"

[Rukelnikov]

Agreed. Saw a lot of this in the many Heavy Metal Druid threads that've come up in the last few weeks. "Here are the facts, and they clearly state that my guess is more right than yours!"

Seconded .

[Rukelnikov]

Just remembered another one:

Roleplaying rules

[Kane0]

Skill DCs.

[stoutstien]

So there seems to be a number of topics on the forum that always break into some tangent that derails the thread. I'm trying to come up with a list of these arguments, just so I (and whoever else cares) know what to expect and to exercise caution regarding these topics.

Please do not break into debates about the exact topics, and please stay on topic regarding their place on this list.


Druids and their interactions with metal armor.
Illusions potentially making visible holes in objects.
Small creatures and the Heavy weapon trait.
Balance concerns and Short Rests in the same sentence.
Enchantment spells, and how evil they are.
Virtually anything that involves alignment.


Any others you can think of?
Few off the cuff

Skill and ablity thresholds a player with a total modifier of X should be able to 100% of time succeed at action-y.

Counterspell. Just yea

spell-casting point of references. example tiny hut on a boat does it stay stationary or does it move the boat.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

it isn't the topic, it's us.

we dig in that our view is the only right one.
we are passive aggressive and churlish.

we are legion internet




this is a good thing, cuz when a thread hits 18 pages, no one will read and sift through all of them for the 4 actual original discussion points.

I frequent the old Gardenweb forums where folks bring up old threads year after year with updates so the thread necromancy idea here is foreign to me.

I try to not even mention old threads lol.

[MaxWilson]

this is a good thing, cuz when a thread hits 18 pages, no one will read and sift through all of them for the 4 actual original discussion points.

*resisting the urge to derail this thread*

[Willie the Duck]

Shape changed paladins and an infinite number of pigeons. (greater than light speed character movement).


I really need that Chris Pratt meme of "I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm too afraid to ask".

I read it as 'shaped charge paladins' so I was really confused.

[Kane0]

I read it as 'shaped charge paladins' so I was really confused.

No shaped charge paladins are totally different. Those are the mounted ones abusing action surge, haste, etc to dump maximum number of lance smites in one turn.

[Damon_Tor]

That one thread where I pointed out that barbarians can concentrate on spells while raging under certain circumstances sure got loud.

I think that can go into the "when RAW and RAI are both clear and in conflict" category.

[patchyman]

Fluff vs Mechanics and To what extent players are bound by fluff.

[Keravath]

Based on recent experience, the interaction of Hexblade, Pact of the Blade, and Improved Pact of the Blade.

I didn't notice this one ... I always thought this was pretty straight forward ...

[Keravath]

I'm not sure if these ones fit. Everyone knows the rules and how you're supposed to play, it's just that some people think it's stupid.


I think that's an important distinction vs. the other mentions on the list. Most of the others have some level of ambiguity. There is evidence for either side that ends up breaking into a massive debate.

But something like stacking Advantage is on the lines of Rules-vs-Opinion.

Not Opinion-vs-Opinion or Rules-vs-Rules. Rules-vs-Opinion is basically on the same lines of "There's a part about the game I don't like", and anyone can say that without it being a debate. It's not like you're educating someone on what the proper rules are, or telling someone why attacking something blind should impose more than Dis/Advantage. Everyone knows why each side believes they're right, and nobody is budging that's arguing over it. Discussions like those usually burn out quickly, because there's so little fuel to flame each other with.



That's a good one. Basically "Traditionalism" vs. "What's the DNA of D&D?"


Agreed. The vision rules are pretty clear. However, the number of people who believe that casting darkness causes any impact on combat by giving everyone disadvantage is a very common misconception though perhaps that should be a different category. RAW darkness does nothing to either ranged or melee attack rolls. If everyone can't see each other then it is the same as everyone seeing each other and the attack rolls are unaffected (unless the DM decides to do something otherwise).

[Keravath]

Shield Master feat and bashing as a bonus action timing

(Some aspects of the rules are pretty clear in terms of what is written but each person can read them differently ... which is part of the difficulty with citing RAW, you end up arguing about what the words mean - shield bashing is a great example where some folks interpret "take the attack action on your turn" to mean "plans to take", "intends to take", "will take" rather than actually having done something to specifically take the action (ie attack). I understand the point of view, I just don't think that is what the English words literally mean - thus argument :) ).

[Zuras]

Fight Club. That’s like the first freaking rule, man.

More seriously, as others have noted, real world ethics of spellcasting, the ethics of killing Goblin children, whether incorporating XYZ horrible thing that happens in the real world into a story is appropriate.

[Hypersmith]

In my experience, this is going to become an infinite list. People will tangent on everything in the game.

[Lupine]

In my experience, this is going to become an infinite list. People will tangent on everything in the game.

Not entirely true. I think most people will agree that at some point, everyone will have had to roll a d20 in every campaign.

That said, a topic for this list is whether a roll should have been called for by the DM or have been left as a passive check.

[bid]

- Turns outside combat / Initiative / Surprise round / Alert

It took that long to get to "readying out of combat".:smallbiggrin:


"RAW says" then list your interpretation of what RAW actually states (barely refrained from reacting in the shield bash thread)
Good olde One True Way. 90% of pointless arguments would end if people could accept RAW can mean 2 things.

I say square root of 4 is -2, you say square root of 4 is 2. We're both right. Someone come around and decides one of those answers is an heresy and argues there's only One True Answer. You can guess who is wrong.:smallfurious:

[Max_Killjoy]

I didn't notice this one ... I always thought this was pretty straight forward ...

I wish I hadn't noticed it, it was two profoundly unfun and counter-intuitive rulings based on odd selective parsings of the relevant text, dueling out for pages on end until it devolved into name-calling and such.

[nickl_2000]

You shouldn't bring up threads about topics we shouldn't discuss. Threadception!

[Aprender]

It's going to get really ironic/meta in three years when someone (not me) necros this thread.

[crayzz]

I didn't notice this one ... I always thought this was pretty straight forward ...

In my experience, that's the problem with most of these threads. /Everyone/ thinks their interpretation is straightforward and they get annoyed when dozens of forum goers keep loudly arguing a different opinion.

That's why you can have very civil discussions over important but complicated topics, but a trivial and simple one is kindling just waiting for a spark: everyone has an opinion, everyone thinks its simple, and everyone gets annoyed and fighty about it.

[NaughtyTiger]

In my experience, that's the problem with most of these threads. /Everyone/ thinks their interpretation is straightforward and they get annoyed when dozens of forum goers keep loudly arguing a different opinion.

That's why you can have very civil discussions over important but complicated topics, but a trivial and simple one is kindling just waiting for a spark: everyone has an opinion, everyone thinks its simple, and everyone gets annoyed and fighty about it.

Exactly!!!! My interpretation is the only obvious one and therefore the only correct one. Any other expression is a ruling, homebrew, lying, disingenuous...

[Max_Killjoy]

In my experience, that's the problem with most of these threads. /Everyone/ thinks their interpretation is straightforward and they get annoyed when dozens of forum goers keep loudly arguing a different opinion.

That's why you can have very civil discussions over important but complicated topics, but a trivial and simple one is kindling just waiting for a spark: everyone has an opinion, everyone thinks its simple, and everyone gets annoyed and fighty about it.


Is there any way to differentiate between an honest difference of opinion of a vaguely/poorly written rules text... and someone engaged in blatant misreading of clear text, parsing of sentence fragments, ignoring context, etc?

[RedMage125]

I don't think too many of these are "problem topics". I've had plenty of civil discusion with people I have different opinions than about things like alignment.

Problems arise when some people cannot or will not distinguish between their opinions and objective fact. But those same posters are just as problematic on any topic, so the topic is not the problem.


samurai vs knight or anything katana related.
I've never understood why this was ever even a bone of contention, or what made people go crazy over katanas. I mean, I've SEEN it, but it still baffles me.
{scrubbed}
On topic (some suggestions anyway, even though I reject the basic premise):
Apparently, discussing what Hit Points actually are vis what some people think they SHOULD be is an inflammatory topic.

Fluff vs Crunch, and the importance of either.

[Rukelnikov]

It took that long to get to "readying out of combat".:smallbiggrin:

Originally I wrote that, but then remembered other "issues" that come up with Initiative and Surprise round (schrodinger arrows and non-magical foresight), and I kinda remember there being some other issues with turns outside combat besides readying.


I wish I hadn't noticed it, it was two profounded unfun and counter-intuitive rulings based on odd selective parsings of the relevant text, dueling out for pages on end until it devolved into name-calling and such.

Can you point me to the thread in question? I don't think I'm aware of the conflict in those Hexblade's powers.

[Max_Killjoy]

Can you point me to the thread in question? I don't think I'm aware of the conflict in those Hexblade's powers.


As long as you understand I'm not forcing you to wade through this thing.


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585589-Pact-of-the-Blade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585589-Pact-of-the-Blade)

[crayzz]

Is there any way to differentiate between an honest difference of opinion of a vaguely/poorly written rules text... and someone engaged in blatant misreading of clear text, parsing of sentence fragments, ignoring context, etc?

I mean, I think you've written out the basics for determining that. Is the text actually clear, or is it ambiguous? Does context favour one interpretation even if it is a little ambiguous? Etc, etc.

I sometimes feel like it would be good to break out the grade school grammar lessons for these things. Often even if a rule seems clear, a careful analysis of the grammar will reveal an ambiguity. At that point it's good to keep in mind that language is largely an intuitive thing for most people, and people will have different intuitions for how to interpret grammatical ambiguity.

I dont think I could come up with a fool proof way for making that decision. I mostly just try to be patient, assume good faith, and concede irreconcilable differences if I think that's where we're at. I'd much rather just say "we have fundamentally different opinions, that's ok" than keep fighting a pointless fight.

I mean, thats a lie, I'd much rather keep fighting, but setting the sword down and acknowledging "we've been over this, neither is going to budge, might as well stop" usually ends up being the smarter decision.

[Rukelnikov]

As long as you understand I'm not forcing you to wade through this thing.


http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585589-Pact-of-the-Blade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585589-Pact-of-the-Blade)


DAMN! 30 pages? It sure went long

[No brains]

Avoid talking about sex stuff. Not even weird sex stuff (or where 'weird' begins), just avoid the topic altogether. Don't talk about anything less tame than a stork bringing you a new indeterminate orc to kill.

[RedMage125]

Avoid talking about sex stuff. Not even weird sex stuff (or where 'weird' begins), just avoid the topic altogether. Don't talk about anything less tame than a stork bringing you a new indeterminate orc to kill.

This remind anyone else of the beginning of Addams Family Values?

[Tiadoppler]

Not entirely true. I think most people will agree that at some point, everyone will have had to roll a d20 in every campaign.

Umm, exCUSE me? I find the use of d20s in D&D completely unacceptable because it renders ability modifiers and proficiency bonuses far too unimportant compared to the almighty spectre of random probability! A strong warrior who has trained in athletics their entire life shouldn't have a chance of failing a simple DC 10 check. In my campaign, we use the far superior 4d4 method so that skilled characters can benefit from the proper bell curves for their attacks and skills!



(in all seriousness, here are some other topics that often get derailed:)

* "Can somebody help me with this homebrew/houserule" frequently turns into "5e is perfect as-is, you just don't understand it" or "nobody wants a more complex encumbrance/economy/overland travel system"

* "How do I make this strange character work" becomes "you should just use a standard, cookie-cutter build, and remember to dip into Warlock"

* "Why does this rule work this way?" "The rule works this way." "Yes, I agree. Why couldn't it be modified to work this way instead, for a home campaign?" "The rule works this way." "Would it break anything if it was modified slightly?" "You idiot, the rule works this way!!"

* Alignment

* Old UA versions of now-published material

[Man_Over_Game]

I think things are getting a little bit too broad. It's gotten to the point where very few things are left to talk about, which is kinda funny.

The thing is, though, I'm looking for every specific, concrete topics that aren't likely to show up in many threads. Maybe that was my bad after including some broad topics on the original list (like alignment), but I'm really looking for specifics here. Things you guys might have noticed that incite more riots than usual.

[KorvinStarmast]

Things you guys might have noticed that incite more riots than usual. A riot is like a fight. Never mention Fight Club. :smallsmile:

[Yakmala]

1: How Shield Master works.

2: How to fix Warlocks.

3: Which multiclasses to allow/ban.

4: Anything to do with Alignment.

5: Discussion on the merits, or lack thereof, of Adventurer's League.

6: UA races, classes and sub-classes in threads where the original author specifically wanted answers/opinions related only to published materials.

[Max_Killjoy]

* "How do I make this strange character work" becomes "you should just use a standard, cookie-cutter build, and remember to dip into Warlock"

* "Why does this rule work this way?" "The rule works this way." "Yes, I agree. Why couldn't it be modified to work this way instead, for a home campaign?" "The rule works this way." "Would it break anything if it was modified slightly?" "You idiot, the rule works this way!!"


Have personally run into both of those multiple times.

[ChiefBigFeather]

It's more about avoiding these topics on unrelated threads. Literally on the front page, right now, is a topic regarding determining what Druid armors are available when following the metal restrictions in Adventure League.

There is almost no opinion to debate on the topic itself. He asked a question with a specific criteria and sought out the community for help.

About halfway through the thread he gave up because most of the comments were on the legalities of Druids wearing metal armor, and what afflictions happen because of it. Our need for ceaseless debate ruined the GITP experience for someone, which is a pretty s***y thing. And I'm sure it's not the first time, or the last.

I'm not saying don't talk about these topics. I'm saying don't talk about these topics on other people's threads. If you want a thread that's a cesspool of recycled arguments and air, go for it, but make one yourself instead of turning someone else's into it.

Pretty much like when I hoped for some constructive input on houseruling spellcasting with slight of hand if obscurement is available. The thread derailed very quickly into petty bickering about class balance.
{Scrubbed}

[RedMage125]

Pretty much like when I hoped for some constructive input on houseruling spellcasting with slight of hand if obscurement is available. The thread derailed very quickly into petty bickering about class balance.

Sometmes it depends how you ask it. I seem to remember that thread (allowing subtle spellcasting with SoH, right?), but I don't think I actually had anything to add, so I didn't post. You asked that in the 5e forum, where you're going to get stronger adherents to the rules of 5e. Did you try making a new thread in the Homebrew subforum? I imagine the people who frequent that subforum are much more inclined to give honest and constructive input on something houseruled.

I apologize if this comes across like I am blaming you for how your thread got crapped on. I'm just trying to offer a helpful alternative that might yield better results in the future.

[Man_Over_Game]

Pretty much like when I hoped for some constructive input on houseruling spellcasting with slight of hand if obscurement is available. The thread derailed very quickly into petty bickering about class balance.

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

It's important to note that one function of the Mods is to force the thread back on track. You can request them to do a Nudge by reporting a post (even your own, if you want to), and then just asking them for it as part of the report. Scary Red Boss text is enough to get the bickerers to shut up for half a second. Just make sure you're obeying the rules on vigilante modding:

"If you're not a Moderator, don't act like one. Rich has selected a few people he trusts to keep an eye on conversations here. Please refrain from chastising other posters over breaking the rules, especially concerning minor things. The proper response when you see someone breaking these rules is to report the post as discussed above or to a PM to the local Moderator. At most, you may courteously link to this announcement. But whatever you do, do not tell other posters what to do, what rules they have broken, that they are spamming, etc. Posters who do so will be issued an Infraction for their actions."

And on the Nudge itself:
"If a Mod finds a thread going off-topic, they'll post a friendly message trying to nudge it back on-topic – how hard a nudge depends on how far off the rails the thread has gone."

It seems like mods prefer people to report things rather than people trying to fix the problem themselves. So don't hesitate to ask for mod assistance.

[Bjarkmundur]

It's true, regarding constructive criticism I see much more of the "criticism" part than I see of the "constructive" part. Coming from the Homebrew forum, I see much more of "that's bad, and you're bad" than I do see of "that's bad, and here's what's bad about it, and here's what you could do to make it better, but that's just my opinion".

Thanks for sharing the Nudge rules with us, it's really nice to have something like that to fall back on.

[MaxWilson]

{Scrubbed}

[Lupine]

Here's one. Can strength be used in place of charisma for abilities?

[GreyBlack]

Whether or not the default, assumed setting of 5e is Forgotten Realms.

It totally is, but still best to not bring it up. :smalltongue:

[Xetheral]

Is there any way to differentiate between an honest difference of opinion of a vaguely/poorly written rules text... and someone engaged in blatant misreading of clear text, parsing of sentence fragments, ignoring context, etc?

Is there any need to distinguish the two? The forum is a nicer place if you just assume good faith on the part of the other posters.

Even if you feel that there *is* a need to try to distinguish the two, then I would say that there is no way to do so reliably. Especially not based on the content of a discussion at hand: the strength of your opinion that the text is clear can never be evidence of bad faith on the part of someone who disagrees with you. The best evidence would be a pattern and practice of the same poster repeatedly making claims you consider outrageous across multiple discussions, but even then it's possible the other poster simply takes an approach to textual interpretation that is fundamentally incompatible with your own.

[MaxWilson]

Controversial topic to avoid: Does a one hour-long spell (like Conjure Fey) last long enough to cast a spell with a one-hour casting time (like Planar Binding)?

[patchyman]

Is there any way to differentiate between an honest difference of opinion of a vaguely/poorly written rules text... and someone engaged in blatant misreading of clear text, parsing of sentence fragments, ignoring context, etc?

Yes and no. Every person is free to make that determination based on the context of the previous posts in the thread, but by the same token, nobody’s determination is conclusive.

[FilthyLucre]

Nothing should be off limits for discussion.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Rulings vs house rules – definitions, distinctions, legitimacy

[Willie the Duck]

Nothing should be off limits for discussion.

No one said anything about something being off limits (although the board has some very clear rules on what actually is off limits, although that doesn't seem to be the focus here). OP specifically stated that they were trying for a list of things that "always break into some tangent that derails the thread," such that one can, "know what to expect and to exercise caution regarding these topics."

[Naanomi]

Whether or not the default, assumed setting of 5e is Forgotten Realms.

It totally is, but still best to not bring it up. :smalltongue:
Or the Great Wheel at all

[Man_Over_Game]

No one said anything about something being off limits (although the board has some very clear rules on what actually is off limits, although that doesn't seem to be the focus here). OP specifically stated that they were trying for a list of things that "always break into some tangent that derails the thread," such that one can, "know what to expect and to exercise caution regarding these topics."

Yup.

Sometimes, I find myself adding to a fire that the OP doesn't want. They're looking for help, people get into an argument over unrelated nonsense, I see a bar fight and decide to jump in. Everyone's happy....except the person who made the thread. I've witnessed this twice in the last week on some high-post threads, so the problem is real enough.

[nickl_2000]

Yup.

Sometimes, I find myself adding to a fire that the OP doesn't want. They're looking for help, people get into an argument over unrelated nonsense, I see a bar fight and decide to jump in. Everyone's happy....except the person who made the thread. I've witnessed this twice in the last week on some high-post threads, so the problem is real enough.

Honestly, this is why I rarely go into conversations that go on more than 2 pages and even more rarely respond to them (in fact this is probably the first in months I've responded to). Most questions are answered within the first two pages of posts.

[MrStabby]

There are a lot of things people are suggesting fall under the category of Topics that we should not Bring up that I disagree with.

These are contentious topics but I have had my mind changed many times by the cases people have made around these. Topics like darkness, hiding and vision and similar. My games are better as a result. Some of these dont even have to have a unique right answer but seeing the back and forth on contentious issues can help you find what it the right ruling for your table.

Whilst some of the discussions seem repetitive to people who have been here a while (and they are) they still remain informative to newcomers. Certainly I would have made different decisions on my first character if I had read some of the long rambling arguments on here about warlocks first.

There are not many topics that I don't feel are useful to discuss openly, even if they are contentious.

Some alignment issues may be there. Not because they are not important but because they tend to be table specific. If you can phrase the question to be about your campaign and your table and the expectations there, then thats probable fine. Even then you are still going to get someone going "thats not how alignment works in 5th edition".

The difference between a houserule and an interpretation or ruling. This tends to be a debate over nothing more than labels and an attempt to delegitimise the decisions of people you disagree with. I would steer clear of these.

Is sage advice some Ex Catherda ruling or some guy on the internet's views or somewhere in between? Getting the right ruling for your game and your world is more important than where it comes from. This is a distraction from debating the right questions in my opinion. Exploring the pros and cons of different rulings is more productive I feel.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: This has to be one of the weirdest threads I've read in a while. At least since the black magic for hire spam.

I understand the intent here, but please don't start threads to talk about things you shouldn't talk about. Similar to the threads about "what do you hate" or "what makes you rage," that's just likely to spiral out of control. Gathering a wide-variety of unrelated hot button topics into one place is extremely likely to cause trouble. It might not be inherently rule-breaking, but it's going to end up locked and probably earn some people Warnings/Infractions.

Here, this thread has already spawned discussions about moderation, Forum Rules, banned posters, and other things that aren't really up for discussion here.