Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 159
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In an apartment
    Gender
    Male

    Default Giant in the Courthouse

    I was recently pondering the various number of Laws, Fallacies and Axioms that are often thrown about as commonplace terms in the various forum arguments. And with the recent issues that some of the other gaming forums were having, I thought it might be a good idea to try and consolidate them in one place. So repost those little gems of gaming wisdom here.
    Preferably I would like the original text by the law's creator.

    Spoiler: 10 Commandments of Practical Optimization
    Show
    I. Thou shalt not give up thy caster levels.
    II. Wieldest thou thy two-handed weapon with alacrity; but two weapons shalt thou not wield, excepting that thou hast a source of bonus damage such as Sneak Attack.
    III. Doubt not the power of the Druid, for he is mighty.
    IV. Avoid ye the temptation of Gauntlets of True Strike, for they shall lead thee astray down the Path of Non-Rule Cheese.
    V. Thou shalt not give up thy caster levels. Verily, this Commandment is like unto the first; but of such magnitude that it bore mentioning twice.
    VI. Makest thou no build with an odd number of fighter levels, for such things are not pleasing to the Spirits of Optimization.
    VII. The Rules of 3.5 are paramount; invoke not the rules of 3.0 if a newer version be available.
    VIII. When beseeching the Brethren of Optimization, come thou not empty handed, lest they smite thee; rather, bringest thou thine own build, that they may offer suggestions and guidance.
    IX. Invoke not "common sense", for it is not common.
    X. Thou shalt call no build "The Ultimate X" unless his name be Pun-Pun, or thou shalt see thine "Ultimate" build toppled by the Brethren within five minutes of posting.

    Spoiler: Bad Game Guideline
    Show
    Not playing at all is better than playing in a bad game.

    Spoiler: But Dragons! Fallacy
    Show
    The fallacy is that all breaks from reality should be treated equally in terms of acceptance and skepticism. Just because we accept dragons does not mean we have to accept rogues phasing through fireballs.

    Spoiler: Dictionary Fallacy
    Show
    Just because a word has multiple valid definitions does not mean it has multiple applicable definitions

    Spoiler: DXC's Razor
    Show
    If a person says he knows that a build choice is unoptimal but they want to do so anyways, then give them advice that makes the choice better, not advice on picking something better.

    Spoiler: (Ex) Razor
    Show
    Ignore any attempt to involve a game's redefinition of a word in a discussion involving the ordinary definion of the word. In particular, if you try to convince someone that macrocosmic teleportation via pure martial skill is magical because it has an (Ex) tag, no-one will believe you.

    Spoiler: False Balance Fallacy
    Show
    The tendency to interpret the rules, not based on any validity with RAW or logic, but that which makes the game (in their eyes) more balanced.
    This tendency is often fueled by the incorrect belief that the game is balanced or the desire for it to be.

    Spoiler: Grod's Law
    Show
    You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.

    Spoiler: Guy at the Gym Fallacy
    Show
    Things I can't do can't be done without spells.

    Spoiler: Oberoni Fallacy
    Show
    (Paraphrased) There is no problem; inconsistency, loophole or mechanical issue with (whatever rule) because you can always Rule 0 the problem; inconsistency, loophole or mechanical issue.

    Spoiler: Schrodinger's (Insert Class Here) Fallacy
    Show
    Selectively building a character to deal with a specific challenge proves nothing about the viability of a class.

    Spoiler: Snowbluff Axiom
    Show
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.

    Spoiler: Star Fruit Dilemma
    Show
    Just because something is not explicitly stated exist in D&D does not mean that it doesn't exist in the D&D world. D&D mimics Real Life except when noted.

    Spoiler: Stormwind Fallacy
    Show
    Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
    Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

    Spoiler: Tel's Axiom
    Show
    You should not try to solve out-of-character problems with in-character solutions.

    Spoiler: The Giant's Law
    Show
    It is the responsibility of the player to determine how her character should act for the good of the game before stating 'but that's what my character would do!

    Spoiler: Waker's Law
    Show
    Fluff is mutable. All fluff is ultimately constrained by the crunch and much be supported or at least not opposed by it.
    Last edited by Waker; 2017-07-30 at 07:42 PM.
    If you feel like quoting something that I have said, you have my permission to use it. Unless it makes me look stupid.
    Gaming Laws, Fallacies And More
    Avatar by Kymme
    My Homebrew
    Feel free to browse and comment on any of my Homebrew. I enjoy feedback.
    Love my Avatar? Well, why not check out the comic that it came from?

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Tainted_Scholar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    I believe this is the original post for the Stormwind Fallacy.

    Spoiler
    Show
    I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

    The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

    Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

    Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

    (I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

    Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

    Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

    How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

    In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

    In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

    By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

    And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

    Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

    They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.
    Last edited by Tainted_Scholar; 2017-07-21 at 04:12 PM.
    The False Balance Fallacy

    The tendency to interpret the rules, not based on any validity with RAW or logic, but that which makes the game (in their eyes) more balanced.
    This tendency is often fueled by the incorrect belief that the game is balanced or the desire for it to be.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by Waker View Post
    Anyone have the actual wording for Stormwind Fallacy?
    According to this, this is how it appeared at the WotC forums:


    Spoiler: Stormwind Fallacy
    Show
    Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.


    And for the longform description with included thoughts...

    Spoiler: Stormwind Fallacy And More
    Show
    I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.

    The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

    Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

    Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

    (I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

    Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

    Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

    How does this impact "builds"? Simple.

    In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.

    In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.

    By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.

    And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).

    Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

    They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.


    EDIT: Swordsaged!
    Last edited by Afgncaap5; 2017-07-21 at 04:16 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In an apartment
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    I'm gonna go with the shortened version of the Stormwind Fallacy to save on room a bit.
    If you feel like quoting something that I have said, you have my permission to use it. Unless it makes me look stupid.
    Gaming Laws, Fallacies And More
    Avatar by Kymme
    My Homebrew
    Feel free to browse and comment on any of my Homebrew. I enjoy feedback.
    Love my Avatar? Well, why not check out the comic that it came from?

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    tiercel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    I think there is an important distinction (re: Stormwind Fallacy) between "optimizing does not infringe upon roleplaying or vice versa" and "optimizing does not preclude roleplaying or vice versa."

    The latter states that the two are *not necessarily* incompatible, while the former can be seen as implying that the two are *never* incompatible.

    In particular, the former can fall into the territory of "Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy" in that anyone who questions whether one *ever* infringes upon another can find him/herself shouted down with NO, STORMWIND FALLACY without actually seeing whether the player/DM in question is, in a particular instance, emphasizing either the optimization or roleplay aspect of the game unduly compared to his/her group's playing style.

    (If nothing else, as a DM I generally have had a finite amount of prep time and energy for gaming sessions, and while nothing necessarily precludes me from having a potentially interesting story AND well-balanced encounters, sometimes I don't have the werewithal to pull off a balance of both for a given session, and have to settle for more roleplay-heavy story elements or more optimized challenging encounters because I just didn't have the time/oomph/inclination to pull off both to the same level this week.)

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In an apartment
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    While trying to come across the original text for the Stormwind Fallacy, I did see the argument about the "Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy" brought up. I am mostly just concerned with sharing the platitudes thought up by gamers, some of which may help improve gaming. Hopefully people don't come away with the wrong message from them.
    If you feel like quoting something that I have said, you have my permission to use it. Unless it makes me look stupid.
    Gaming Laws, Fallacies And More
    Avatar by Kymme
    My Homebrew
    Feel free to browse and comment on any of my Homebrew. I enjoy feedback.
    Love my Avatar? Well, why not check out the comic that it came from?

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    There's also the Playgrounder's Fallacy (Any discussion about roleplaying games is always a discussion about D&D, especially 3.5) and the "But dragons!" Fallacy (Because some things in a roleplaying game will always be unrealistic, there is no reason to be concerned with realism at all).

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2008

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Guy at the Gym fallacy - If it can't be done IRL, then a high level mundane character shouldn't be able to do it.
    The gnomes once had many mines, but now they have gnome ore.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    Guy at the Gym fallacy - If it can't be done IRL, then a high level mundane character shouldn't be able to do it.
    No, that's "If it can't be done IRL by someone I know, then a high-level mundane character shouldn't be able to do it." Ability to be done IRL at all is what defines mundane.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In an apartment
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    There's also the Playgrounder's Fallacy (Any discussion about roleplaying games is always a discussion about D&D, especially 3.5) and the "But dragons!" Fallacy (Because some things in a roleplaying game will always be unrealistic, there is no reason to be concerned with realism at all).
    Do you have a source on either of these? Not familiar with them.
    I'll message bekeleven to give a summarized version of Guy at the Gym.
    If you feel like quoting something that I have said, you have my permission to use it. Unless it makes me look stupid.
    Gaming Laws, Fallacies And More
    Avatar by Kymme
    My Homebrew
    Feel free to browse and comment on any of my Homebrew. I enjoy feedback.
    Love my Avatar? Well, why not check out the comic that it came from?

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    "But dragons!" Fallacy (Because some things in a roleplaying game will always be unrealistic, there is no reason to be concerned with realism at all).
    I fear that one is no fallacy and pretty much connected with "Guy at the Gym", at least when a simulation is the intention and rules should be modeled to reflect the in-game reality.

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by Waker View Post
    Guy at the Gym.
    That one is easy as itīs connected to verisimilitude: "People that do things that we can also do, canīt do things we canīt do - My only reference point for verisimilitude is me".
    Last edited by Florian; 2017-07-22 at 05:07 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by Waker View Post
    Do you have a source on either of these? Not familiar with them.
    I'll message bekeleven to give a summarized version of Guy at the Gym.
    The "But dragons!" fallacy: "All breaks from reality should be treated equally in terms of acceptance and skepticism."

    I can't find an origin for Playgrounder's but googling reveals several instances of its use.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse


  15. - Top - End - #15
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    The Fallacy Fallacy, when people throw around the word fallacy for things that aren't fallacies, just disagreements.

    The "did you really create a law of gaming named after yourself and then include in a list of you referred to as gems of wisdom" fallacy.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Jorgenfist
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by tiercel View Post
    I think there is an important distinction (re: Stormwind Fallacy) between "optimizing does not infringe upon roleplaying or vice versa" and "optimizing does not preclude roleplaying or vice versa."

    The latter states that the two are *not necessarily* incompatible, while the former can be seen as implying that the two are *never* incompatible.

    In particular, the former can fall into the territory of "Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy" in that anyone who questions whether one *ever* infringes upon another can find him/herself shouted down with NO, STORMWIND FALLACY without actually seeing whether the player/DM in question is, in a particular instance, emphasizing either the optimization or roleplay aspect of the game unduly compared to his/her group's playing style.

    (If nothing else, as a DM I generally have had a finite amount of prep time and energy for gaming sessions, and while nothing necessarily precludes me from having a potentially interesting story AND well-balanced encounters, sometimes I don't have the werewithal to pull off a balance of both for a given session, and have to settle for more roleplay-heavy story elements or more optimized challenging encounters because I just didn't have the time/oomph/inclination to pull off both to the same level this week.)
    Situations where a player cannot come up with a coherent character for the mechanical options they chose when making it are vanishingly rare and nearly impossible, and actually become impossible if the GM is at least halfway reasonable and willing to discuss things with their players.

    Situations where a player simply chooses not to bother to come up with a coherent character is just an example of their choice, not something that shows that making their character infringed upon their ability to roleplay or what have you, they just were never interested in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    Ability to be done IRL at all is what defines mundane.
    Not in D&D 3.5 it doesn't.

    Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics. They are not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training.

    These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.
    Nor Pathfinder, for that matter.

    Extraordinary abilities are non-magical. They are, however, not something that just anyone can do or even learn to do without extensive training. Effects or areas that suppress or negate magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities.
    Mundane characters are explicitly able to do things that are physically impossible for those of us here in the real world.

    That's without even getting into how capabilities increase as ability scores increase or skill ranks increase. Or how much damage a dude with a stick can cause by power attacking.
    Last edited by Coidzor; 2017-07-22 at 05:47 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keld Denar View Post
    +3 Girlfriend is totally unoptimized. You are better off with a +1 Keen Witty girlfriend and then appling Greater Magic Make-up to increase her enhancement bonus.
    Homebrew
    To Do: Reboot and finish Riptide

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Troll in the Playground
     
    gooddragon1's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In the playground

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    I just don't like the Oberoni Fallacy. Is my feeling that a DM and players working together can make 3.5 work well at odds with it?
    There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by gooddragon1 View Post
    I just don't like the Oberoni Fallacy. Is my feeling that a DM and players working together can make 3.5 work well at odds with it?
    No, but it doesn't stop broken content from being broken.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Jorgenfist
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by gooddragon1 View Post
    I just don't like the Oberoni Fallacy. Is my feeling that a DM and players working together can make 3.5 work well at odds with it?
    Only if you also believe that your system of houserules, homebrew, and spectrum of kludgy to elegant fixes mean that there weren't problems you had to address in order to make the game work for your group.
    Last edited by Coidzor; 2017-07-22 at 05:48 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keld Denar View Post
    +3 Girlfriend is totally unoptimized. You are better off with a +1 Keen Witty girlfriend and then appling Greater Magic Make-up to increase her enhancement bonus.
    Homebrew
    To Do: Reboot and finish Riptide

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In an apartment
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by gooddragon1 View Post
    I just don't like the Oberoni Fallacy. Is my feeling that a DM and players working together can make 3.5 work well at odds with it?
    You are free to disagree with it, no harm done. I don't agree with the Snowbluff Axiom, but some people would, so in the list it goes.
    If you feel like quoting something that I have said, you have my permission to use it. Unless it makes me look stupid.
    Gaming Laws, Fallacies And More
    Avatar by Kymme
    My Homebrew
    Feel free to browse and comment on any of my Homebrew. I enjoy feedback.
    Love my Avatar? Well, why not check out the comic that it came from?

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by Coidzor View Post
    Not in D&D 3.5 it doesn't.

    Nor Pathfinder, for that matter.

    Mundane characters are explicitly able to do things that are physically impossible for those of us here in the real world.
    That's funny, on my screen that says "Extraordinary", not "Mundane". And that's not the point, really: if in my game hippos have eight legs and fly, that doesn't mean that's what a hippo actually is, only that the game has a stipulated definition of "Hippo" that deviates from the real one. Mundane can either mean boring and everyday, or it can mean constrained by the limits of the real world. What D&D has to do with anything (we did just talk about the Playgrounder's Fallacy, yes?) I don't know.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    That's funny, on my screen that says "Extraordinary", not "Mundane". And that's not the point, really: if in my game hippos have eight legs and fly, that doesn't mean that's what a hippo actually is, only that the game has a stipulated definition of "Hippo" that deviates from the real one. Mundane can either mean boring and everyday, or it can mean constrained by the limits of the real world. What D&D has to do with anything (we did just talk about the Playgrounder's Fallacy, yes?) I don't know.
    This is why I dislike using the word mundane to describe anything in D&D except 1st level Commoners.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Tainted_Scholar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    That's funny, on my screen that says "Extraordinary", not "Mundane". And that's not the point, really: if in my game hippos have eight legs and fly, that doesn't mean that's what a hippo actually is, only that the game has a stipulated definition of "Hippo" that deviates from the real one. Mundane can either mean boring and everyday, or it can mean constrained by the limits of the real world. What D&D has to do with anything (we did just talk about the Playgrounder's Fallacy, yes?) I don't know.
    Mundane in D&D refers to characters that are incapable of using magic via class features. You can see where the miscommunication came from.

    EDIT; This term was created by the community, not the game itself.
    Last edited by Tainted_Scholar; 2017-07-22 at 06:28 PM.
    The False Balance Fallacy

    The tendency to interpret the rules, not based on any validity with RAW or logic, but that which makes the game (in their eyes) more balanced.
    This tendency is often fueled by the incorrect belief that the game is balanced or the desire for it to be.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Banned
     
    Jormengand's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    In the Playground, duh.

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by ColorBlindNinja View Post
    This is why I dislike using the word mundane to describe anything in D&D except 1st level Commoners.
    Well a 20th-level fighter is plenty mundane, ignoring details like "The rules for lava and falling are stupid and should be rewritten". It's just not mundane in a sense that I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tainted_Scholar View Post
    Mundane in D&D refers to characters that are incapable of using magic via class features. You can see where the miscommunication came from.

    EDIT; This term was created by the community, not the game itself.
    Well, mundane still means a lot of things. I don't think that it's reasonable to insist that mundane and extraordinary are the same thing though.

  25. - Top - End - #25

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In an apartment
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by bekeleven View Post
    If I were to get really pithy about the Guy at the Gym fallacy, it would be, "Things I can't do can't be done without spells."

    Most of the other summaries in this thread have a bit more nuance.
    Nuance is lost with these shorthand explanations, but trying to cram the full discussion of multiple laws/fallacies would really quickly fill up the posts.
    I will update your Fallacy now.

    Oh and if anyone who has a law/fallacy wants to update or otherwise clarify, just lemme know and I'll edit them.
    Last edited by Waker; 2017-07-22 at 06:39 PM.
    If you feel like quoting something that I have said, you have my permission to use it. Unless it makes me look stupid.
    Gaming Laws, Fallacies And More
    Avatar by Kymme
    My Homebrew
    Feel free to browse and comment on any of my Homebrew. I enjoy feedback.
    Love my Avatar? Well, why not check out the comic that it came from?

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    I had one, but since it's about gaming forums themselves I doubt it would be popular here.

    Quote Originally Posted by bekeleven View Post
    If I were to get really pithy about the Guy at the Gym fallacy, it would be, "Things I can't do can't be done without spells."

    Most of the other summaries in this thread have a bit more nuance.
    How about "without magic?" Lots of folks who have a problem with martials doing things like Ex Teleportation are fine with Su and SLA versions.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    Well a 20th-level fighter is plenty mundane, ignoring details like "The rules for lava and falling are stupid and should be rewritten". It's just not mundane in a sense that I'm talking about.
    So, if you ignore chunks of the rules they're mundane?

    Level 20 Fighters can lift more than ordinary people can too.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In an apartment
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Feel free to share, Psyren. If you think it's a worthwhile contribution, let us hear it.
    If you feel like quoting something that I have said, you have my permission to use it. Unless it makes me look stupid.
    Gaming Laws, Fallacies And More
    Avatar by Kymme
    My Homebrew
    Feel free to browse and comment on any of my Homebrew. I enjoy feedback.
    Love my Avatar? Well, why not check out the comic that it came from?

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Jorgenfist
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Giant in the Courthouse

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    That's funny, on my screen that says "Extraordinary", not "Mundane".
    We both know that you understand. Pretending otherwise just makes you look bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    Mundane can either mean boring and everyday, or it can mean constrained by the limits of the real world.
    Ok, that's a positively bizarre semantic argument and you're using a definition that flies in the face of convention, but, yeah, you're technically correct if you want to say that something that is constrained by the limits of the real world should be constrained by the limits of the real world.

    The problem crops up when people try to constrain things by the limits of the real world that the rules tell them not to. Which is what actually matters here, but for some reason you danced around that, so I'll just ask you point blank.

    So do you agree with people doing that or disagree?

    Or are we going to get sidetracked on something completely irrelevant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    What D&D has to do with anything (we did just talk about the Playgrounder's Fallacy, yes?) I don't know.
    Wait, what? Did you forget what subforum we're in right now?

    We're in the D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 subforum, mate. If you didn't somehow forget that, then exactly what D&D has to do with what we're talking about is patently obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    I had one, but since it's about gaming forums themselves I doubt it would be popular here.
    Never doubt the capacity for people to come into a thread just to start an argument?

    Never doubt the capacity for people on a gaming forum getting distracted and offtopic and arguing about a tangent that doesn't even matter to the main point of the topic at hand?
    Last edited by Coidzor; 2017-07-22 at 07:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keld Denar View Post
    +3 Girlfriend is totally unoptimized. You are better off with a +1 Keen Witty girlfriend and then appling Greater Magic Make-up to increase her enhancement bonus.
    Homebrew
    To Do: Reboot and finish Riptide

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •