View Single Post

Thread: Teleportation Circles - Permanence

  1. - Top - End - #25
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Zhorn's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Space Australia

    Default Re: Teleportation Circles - Permanence

    Wow, okay, there’s a bit to unpack here. I’d really like to get back to the thread topic, but you really don’t want to let this go. At this point I can’t tell if there’s a legitimate misunderstanding, or you’re intentionally twisting things looking for an argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    As @Yuneru already pointed out, it speaks to his credibility, you clearly think highly of it given your earlier statement:
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhorn View Post
    It's somewhat the reason why I tend to ask for citations or references before I change or alter what I would have previously claimed as being the true meaning of the rules.
    I tend to view streams of other games with the same level of credibility to RAW as I do any other people on the internet (forums, videos, etc). Unless their comments include a citable reference to something WotC would call official (so their printed rules books, modules, Sage Advice Compendium and @JeremyECrawford on twitter), then they are just saying their own preferences or houserules. It's why I made this post.
    1) It is less about thinking so highly of their opinion and more just recognising the position they hold in relations to official rulings interpretations and design. Their job title is literally “Lead Rules Designer for Dungeons & Dragons”. Even with twitter and interviews out of the picture, their input into the final drafts of the rules before they go into print carries more weight that others in the company because that is their job role.

    2) On twitter, that section you quoted me on is from earlier in the discussion prior to me seeing the exact tweet that removed the official rulings status from the @JeremyECrawford tweets (that part of the thread has already been covered quite handily by JackPhoenix, with all relevant tweets referenced in post #12). I have since gone back to that post and lined out “@JeremyECrawford on twitter” as a reference WotC would call official. Your quote of me even includes that correction.

    3) I don’t agree with this “throw the baby out with the bathwater approach”. Just because their tweets are no longer official rulings it doesn’t mean that there is no value it using them for background information and context when discussing relevant RAW and RAI interpretations. < pay note to the wording I used here (echoing post #17). I did not say his tweets are RAI, I said background information and context. Designer insight is worth discussing.

    4) The key point I was originally getting at in that post was to do with getting information from other people and 3rd parties (ie: watching game streams, talking to people on forums, etc). If there is not citable reference to official WotC material, anything they say you can only trust as an opinion of preference, not a reliable RAW or RAI interpretation. Like with anecdotes; good for discussion, but would be shaky grounds to use in evidence-based court. Like the twitter thing, still has discussion value, but still needs a link to a rulebook, module, or the SAC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    Citing a specific recent example of him ignoring RAW, his own guidance on the RAI of wildshape's "deliberate" vague wording, and the reasoning he explained in detail to rule one way with dragonborn in order to rule in contradiction of all three for warforge without being willing (or perhaps being unable) to correct himself after making such a mistake puts his rulings into a far more questionable state than the weight you give them. Liking crawford or not has nothing to do with that. As I pointed out earlier, a good GM should have the confidence to make rulings on their own rather than trying to emulate a human shaped set of computer scripts & algorithms... I'm on more solid ground by both RAW and RAI on that note as well.
    5) Someone holding an opinion in one area that you disagree with does not mean any opinion they hold in another area is automatically rubbish and to be ignored. You can say liking or disliking Crawford has nothing to do with it, but you keep bringing up disagreements on topics unrelated to this one as you justification for him being discredited.
    Same principle in the other direction too, someone being right in multiple areas does not mean they’ll be right in ALL areas. If Jeremy Crawford makes a tweet about Teleportation Circles, then THAT tweet will be relevant to this discussion. Dragonborn Druids and their racial Breath Weapon in Wild Shape? No relation to this thread’s topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dmg4
    -big snip-
    References to the workings of past editions and various settings that explain & shed light on the sort of thing you reference in the first post explicitly help to aid in doing precisely what both RAW & RAI say is something for the dm to do or not as suits the style of game they want to run.
    6) I don’t know what big checkmate move you had in your mind with this big rulebook quote. I’m pretty sure I’ve already expressed a willingness to make table rulings to suit my needs and deviate from official rules as suits tastes. So a big 300 plus word quote that boils down to ‘do what you were intending to do’ ? Or am I still missing the forest for the trees?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetrasodium View Post
    Things like the posts you are showing frustration over are so unacceptable that you need to keep creating new threads & questioning why someone would dare post it, perhaps a search of might better suit your goals since it will give you the answer you seem to be hunting for rather than the answers people think are important to the discussion?
    7) And somehow I’ve managed to cause some great offense here for… what?
    • I start a thread about clarification on Teleportation Circles after watching an episode of Critical Role has me questioning if my previous understanding was wrong, and also express interest in how others rule it at their table.
    • By post #7 I’m in agreement with the people who’ve responded to the thread thus far that the CR version is not the RAW or RAI of what a permanent circle is (how it is being described is matching how I thought the spell functioned prior to viewing the episode).
    • As this is a discussion thread, I decide to instead post the houseruled version in the Homebrew section to be its own thing for the purposes of analysing the language used and tightening up any loose phrasing. Review and critiquing, the core purpose of the homebrew forum. Seemed like a good way to proceed as this thread’s intended focus was
      Quote Originally Posted by Zhorn View Post
      I am curious of how others rule it at their tables, or have some citation or reference to what is the OFFICIAL way those circle are meant to operate.
      yet somehow this is some grand cardinal sin on my part?

    Maybe I’m just missing a whole heap of context here, but reading that last paragraph sounds loaded with accusations that have me wondering if we’re even talking about the same thread any more.

    “Things like the posts you are showing frustration over are so unacceptable that you need to keep creating new threads & questioning why someone would dare post it”
    I have a mild confusion over this insistence of dragon breath in wildshape being relevant. What’s the post that has me showing such frustration over?
    Are there other threads? Is there some trend of behaviour going on here? Have I got some dark habit of thread hopping and burning bridges all of the sudden?
    “questioning why someone would dare post it” It makes me sound like I’m absolutely livid about something?
    But please, do tell. What vile and angry thoughts are running through my mind. What anger and resentment do I hold in my heart for not getting the answer I want? What even is this answer I want?
    Last edited by Zhorn; 2019-10-23 at 05:37 AM.