If it looks like a loophole, it probably is one.
It really is that simple.
When you read the rules, if you realize there is something that you can do that doesn't make sense, why would your default be anything but no?
If you have to ask your GM if something unclear in the rules is allowed, it is probably because you know deep down it shouldn't be. If you were confident about it, you wouldn't need to ask.
Are there exceptions, of course. I fully expect the Lollypop Guild to come into this thread in force to point out all of the things the rules allow that are outside of logic, to point out initiative and one swing in six seconds aren't logical, etc...
But really. Seriously, isn't RAI pretty clear most of the time?
The rule at my table is simple. If you wouldn't try to do that in a game with the Devs, don't bring it to the table. When in doubt, majority rules.
I agree with you, so hard. Absolute loyalist to this, hard follower, absolute believer in this point.
This is behind many of my arguments on the rules, if it is a cheesy loophole, if it looks like cheese, smells like cheese and there is a hole being looped and used, there is no need to ask.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So very wrought! :P
So much wrought out there.
|
OK, this is too clever for me... "Huh? I mean, 'Excuse me?'"As long as the answer, "should" probably be no, there remains the potential for it to be yes.No, just a typo I can't edit.
Oh. I think I liked it better being redirected to the messageboards.
Dumb and Dumber. >shudder<
Never claimed quality :)
|
If everyone that played this game had an above average vocabulary, it wouldn't be as necessary.Roughly 0% of the arguments I've seen have centered over the meaning of a word like "polyzygotic" or "funambulism" and roughly 100% of the arguments I've seen have centered over the meaning of words like "is" or "that".
:-)
I remember a multi-page thread discussing exactly what it mean to drop a weapon :|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even in a very straightforward game like chess, rules that seem clear have some unintended consequences. In a game in 1979 (i think), a player moved their king pawn across the board and turned it into a rook. The king had not moved, the new rook had not moved, there were no pieces in between, and the king was not in check on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd rank. So the player castled. Moved his king from e1 to e3, put the rook on the opposite side. Clearly against RAI, given they had to rewrite the castling rule, but totally RAW. And that is chess. If it took 2500 years to get the wording perfect for a simple three step process to eliminate all loopholes and unforeseen rules interactions, imagine how hard it is in PF :)
I just think that's brilliant actually.
|
|
I remember a multi-page thread discussing exactly what it mean to drop a weapon :|If everyone that played this game had an above average vocabulary, it wouldn't be as necessary.Roughly 0% of the arguments I've seen have centered over the meaning of a word like "polyzygotic" or "funambulism" and roughly 100% of the arguments I've seen have centered over the meaning of words like "is" or "that".
:-)
You speak as if this thread is not currently going on in a different form :)
|
|
Even in a very straightforward game like chess, rules that seem clear have some unintended consequences. In a game in 1979 (i think), a player moved their king pawn across the board and turned it into a rook. The king had not moved, the new rook had not moved, there were no pieces in between, and the king was not in check on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd rank. So the player castled. Moved his king from e1 to e3, put the rook on the opposite side. Clearly against RAI, given they had to rewrite the castling rule, but totally RAW. And that is chess. If it took 2500 years to get the wording perfect for a simple three step process to eliminate all loopholes and unforeseen rules interactions, imagine how hard it is in PF :)I just think that's brilliant actually.
I don't think anyone is saying that some cheese moves aren't brilliantly creative.
I think what is being said is that a technicality is just a rule not yet fully clarified. It is a loop hole. And if you find a loop hole that you can argue technically legal, such as the one described, that doesn't mean it should be permitted.
|
You don't ask if you know. You say "I'm going to do this".
If I am going to make a human fighter with furious focus, power attack and a greatsword at first level, I will have a very powerful character that I won't feel any need to run by the DM. If he questions the damage, I'll hand over my sheet with a smile and have no concern about it being questioned.
Furious focus is meant to be used with power attack and the pre-requisites (assuming I took power attack first) are clear and meant.
No reasonable person could argue the devs didn't want that combo to exist.
You are only going to ask if you think they may say no, because the rule isn't clear. Or at least how you are using it isn't clearly how it was intended to be used.
If you are sure, you wouldn't need to ask the GM for...
No not at all. I can tell you never had players or kids Both ask ALL THE TIME if their unsure of something. In a good group, yes folks ask. Why? Because we're all trying to have fun. DM and players together. Social compact, remember?
Players in my last game asked things all the time. Both to make sure it worked the way it intended and to make sure the DM was cool with it. DM asked all the time what the plans were, where you were heading with your character to make sure you werent heading down the wrong path AND to make sure it worked as intended. Our barbarian got talked out of frenzy berserker becuase it didnt work the way he thought it did AND because it would have been a disruption in a city campaing.
Maybe its not the players. Maybe its you thats the issue.
|
|
I have a kid AND I'm a juvenile probation officer, so you are wrong about that.
Also, if you are equating the players at your table to children...well that is a problem of your table.
Asking things as a question of "How does this work?" is not the same as "Can I do this thing that seems broken?"
Using your example of the berserker barbarian, as you said it didn't work the way he thought it did. I presume that is because he thought it was more awesome than the rules actually allowed.
Flavor of character is a whole other issue, although that is also one where in my experience if you think the GM might say no to a concept, they probably should say no to it.
If the player coming to the GM thinks what they are bringing could be a problem, it is generally because it could be a problem.
If no one thinks it is a problem, you aren't asking about in the same way.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a juvenile probation officer,That explains everything about you in this thread. Its your mind set from the outset.
We cant change it becuase you see EVERYONE as trying to get away with something. Whether its gaming or other.
*sits then gets back up*
Nope, your therapy couch isn't comfortable. Sorry.
I actually don't think "everyone" is trying to get away with something.
I do think that if you are trying to get away with something, you should be honest about it.
As to why you think of your players as children, I'm not as perceptive as to your psyche. Maybe if you tell me about your mother?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You are only going to ask if you think they may say no, because the rule isn't clear. Or at least how you are using it isn't clearly how it was intended to be used.
Not quite. The first part of your statement ("You are only going to ask if you think they may say no") is true.
However, you then assert that the reason they may say no is either "because the rule isn't clear" or because "how you are using it isn't clearly how it was intended".
But there are other reasons you think the GM might say no. It could be that the item/ability in question works exactly as intended, but is thought by many to be overpowered/underpriced, so you just want to find out whether or not your GM is one of the many who houserule it. Or it could be that you already know your GM uses 3.5 rules in some places, so you want to double-check how he handles situation X before committing to it. Or it could be that your GM is just not that great with rules, and just plain gets things wrong and you know it. Believe me, if you spend enough time under a GM who's not very rules-savvy, you start to be able to guess what things he'll get right and which things will require explanation and which things just aren't worth your time.
The point is, there are lots of reasons to ask your GM besides just trying to get away with something.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I actually don't think "everyone" is trying to get away with something.
If you have to ask your GM if something unclear in the rules is allowed, it is probably because you know deep down it shouldn't be.
Okay, so technically not "everyone", but it sure sounds like your default assumption is that people asking their GMs "know deep down it shouldn't be" allowed.
But way to focus on the word "everyone" to draw attention away from the issues with your stated belief.
|
|
You are only going to ask if you think they may say no, because the rule isn't clear. Or at least how you are using it isn't clearly how it was intended to be used.Not quite. The first part of your statement ("You are only going to ask if you think they may say no") is true.
However, you then assert that the reason they may say no is either "because the rule isn't clear" or because "how you are using it isn't clearly how it was intended".
But there are other reasons you think the GM might say no. It could be that the item/ability in question works exactly as intended, but is thought by many to be overpowered/underpriced, so you just want to find out whether or not your GM is one of the many who houserule it. Or it could be that you already know your GM uses 3.5 rules in some places, so you want to double-check how he handles situation X before committing to it. Or it could be that your GM is just not that great with rules, and just plain gets things wrong and you know it. Believe me, if you spend enough time under a GM who's not very rules-savvy, you start to be able to guess what things he'll get right and which things will require explanation and which things just aren't worth your time.
The point is, there are lots of reasons to ask your GM besides just trying to get away with something.
If you are playing with a GM who isn't very rules savvy, you should go ahead and GM.
It is kind of a requisite for the position.
Further, if you are rules savvy, you aren't "asking". You may run it by him so he knows what you are doing when it comes up in game, but that isn't the same as asking. That is saying "I am using this rule, you may not be familiar with it, here it is."
In that moment, you are fully confident that when the GM reads the rule, they will agree. You aren't asking, you are telling.
If that leads to disagreeement, that is a different issue. You honestly believed a rule worked a way, and so you just showed it to the GM so the GM would be aware. You weren't asking anything.
When I go to my boss and tell them I am doing something that is a part of my job, I am informing them. When I want to leave early, I am asking them.
As a GM, very often I have approved off book flavor options that were clearly not meant for mechanical advantage. I have even worked with players who had problem characters to find ways to make concepts work.
What I am not ok with is someone saying "Technically this rule lets me do this thing that we both know it probably didn't mean to let me do, so will you let me do it?"
A good example was a GM I had who let us roll dice because he wanted a higher powered game (for the record, I also prefer dice rolling).
He didn't put a cap on how many sets you could roll, so someone stayed up literally for hours rolling dice sets over and over until they had an uber-build. Nothing below 16, multiple 18's. It was ridiculous.
He let them play it, they dominated the campaign.
As a result he put a cap on the number of sets you could roll and made them be observed rolls by another player.
We all love the guy who rolled the stats. None of us believe he cheated, all of us can see him up into the wee hours rolling dice over and over again.
But he knows he cheesed it. We know he cheesed it. If the GM had said no, he would have accepted it without any argument, even if he did spend hours rolling dice. Because he knew he was being a cheese monkey.
That is the whole point of this post. You know when you are bringing cheese to the GM when you approach to ask him if you can do it rather than show him how you can do it.
Be honest about it.
|
|
I actually don't think "everyone" is trying to get away with something.If you have to ask your GM if something unclear in the rules is allowed, it is probably because you know deep down it shouldn't be.Okay, so technically not "everyone", but it sure sounds like your default assumption is that people asking their GMs "know deep down it shouldn't be" allowed.
But way to focus on the word "everyone" to draw attention away from the issues with your stated belief.
On the contrary, I think most players are honest. And I think most players know when something they want to do is cheese.
That is the point. People know better, and they know when they are asking for an exploit rather than for a clarification.
I know it is much easier for you to believe that "everyone" is looking for an edge that skates the limits. But in my experience, people I play with take pride in finding ways to be successful within the guidelines.
Winning within the rules is the whole point of any game. Without rules it isn't a game.
There is a reason that Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemen's aren't going into the Hall of Fame this year. And it ain't because they weren't successful.
I thought it was fairly clear that Ciretose had a specific type of poster in mind. These type of posts generally don't appear out of a vacuum.
|
|
I'd rather play with a GM that was clueless about the rules but that had a great, creative imagination than vice-versa.If you are playing with a GM who isn't very rules savvy, you should go ahead and GM.
It is kind of a requisite for the position.
I think you either need both, or a very rules savvy and honest group.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I've played with GMs who were much better GMs than I am, even though I knew the rules better. Sometimes he'd defer to me for rules questions.I'd rather play with a GM that was clueless about the rules but that had a great, creative imagination than vice-versa.If you are playing with a GM who isn't very rules savvy, you should go ahead and GM.
It is kind of a requisite for the position.
I guess I would say that you need a GM who can make a ruling. Memorization of specific rules isn't as important as being able to know how things work and adjudicate fairly.
...Asking things as a question of "How does this work?" is not the same as "Can I do this thing that seems broken?"...
I can say that is not what I got from your original post or even the several after it.
What I read from your post was:
Almost anytime some one asks you if they can do something they are being dishonest and trying to cheat without being called a cheater.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That is the point. People know better, and they know when they are asking for an exploit rather than for a clarification.
Yes, I know you think that. I already pointed out that you think that. I have no idea why you think I had any other idea of your position than that.
I know it is much easier for you to believe that "everyone" is looking for an edge that skates the limits.
I don't believe that. I've been trying to tell you that this isn't the case. This is, in fact, exactly what you just said YOU believed: "looking for an edge that skates the limits" is pretty much the same as "they know when they are asking for an exploit".
Why did you bother to explain that your position was exactly what I already said back to you? Why did you then ascribe an equivalent statement to me and then act like you wanted to refute it?
The only conclusion I can think of is that you reply to what you assume people are getting at instead of what they actually say. That would explain why you completely missed that I already knew what you stance was. That would explain why you apparently have no idea what my stance actually is. That would explain why you thought you were having a lovely conversation with a designer who was actually about ready to pull his hair out (if he had any) from having to repeat himself to you so much. That would explain why in the thread that *cough* "inspired" this little jihad you call a thread, that none of your assertions of other people's stances have been correct and no one can figure out what YOUR stance is.
So I guess that's the thought I'll operate under from now on with you.
|
|
...Asking things as a question of "How does this work?" is not the same as "Can I do this thing that seems broken?"...I can say that is not what I got from your original post or even the several after it.
What I read from your post was:
Almost anytime some one asks you if they can do something they are being dishonest and trying to cheat without being called a cheater.
What is the first line of the original post.
Hell what are the first three sentences of the post.
Hell, read the entire original post and tell me how you got that?
|
|
@Jiggy - I honestly have no idea what you were trying to get across with the last post. Truly.
I do think most people know the intent of a given rule.
I do think the intent of most rules is very, very clear.
I also think you can muddy the hell out of the waters by parsing the meaning of the word "is".
I can only guess that was what was going on with the last post you made.
...Asking things as a question of "How does this work?" is not the same as "Can I do this thing that seems broken?"...I can say that is not what I got from your original post or even the several after it.
What I read from your post was:
Almost anytime some one asks you if they can do something they are being dishonest and trying to cheat without being called a cheater.What is the first line of the original post.
Hell what are the first three sentences of the post.
Hell, read the entire original post and tell me how you got that?
Title of the thread is "If you have to ask, the answer should probably be no."
First post "If you have to ask your GM if something unclear in the rules is allowed, it is probably because you know deep down it shouldn't be." Sounds pretty clear.
First post "I fully expect the Lollypop Guild to come into this thread..." Derogatory comment pre-emptively vs anyone that might disagree with you.
Your last few posts explained what you meant in a much clearer manner. I happen to agree that if something 'sounds to good to be true' it probably is. But there can be alot of room between 'unclear' and something you think is broken.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Kydeem de'Morcaine
Nice selective editing.
These are the first three lines you didn't include.
"If it looks like a loophole, it probably is one.
It really is that simple.
When you read the rules, if you realize there is something that you can do that doesn't make sense, why would your default be anything but no?"
Context matters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Jiggy - I honestly have no idea what you were trying to get across with the last post. Truly.And I absolutely believe you.
You guys need to just get a room and get it out of your system.
Becoming a probation officer.What crime did you do that was so bad that you spend hours a week in court, you rapscallion?
I am a social worker and I do find that the method of interpretation some people use for reading rules to be uh....very creative. I remember the one time I dared discuss an issue there was an argument over what adjudicate was. It was really funny.
@Kydeem de'Morcaine
Nice selective editing.
These are the first three lines you didn't include.
"If it looks like a loophole, it probably is one.
It really is that simple.
When you read the rules, if you realize there is something that you can do that doesn't make sense, why would your default be anything but no?"
Context matters.
Was not trying to use selective editing. You asked "...tell me how you got that?..." That was a sample of how I got that.
Also, to me loophole, doesn't make sense, and seems broken do not mean the same thing. At the begining of the thread you seem to be using them interchangeably.
The way it is commonly used, loophole usually means a rule not being applied the way someone originally thought it would be applied. It is also usually (but not always) meant advantageous. But does not always mean unintented, extreme, or wrong.
The way it seems to be most often (but not always) used on these board, broken means a huge advantage to one player such that others can't compete.
|
|
*sits then gets back up*
Nope, your therapy couch isn't comfortable. Sorry.
I actually don't think "everyone" is trying to get away with something.
I do think that if you are trying to get away with something, you should be honest about it.
As to why you think of your players as children, I'm not as perceptive as to your psyche. Maybe if you tell me about your mother?
It explains alot. Your OP states that if you have to ask the answer is no, that yoru intentionally trying to break the rules. YOu assume the default is "players trying to get away with something"
That isnt the case. Again let me ask- have you ever played a game from Games Workshop- warhammer or warhammer 40k? Because there are CONSTANT rules that need interpprtation until the designers make a ruling(which in many cases in their FAQ are not clearly laid out like you think).
So no, not all of us who ask are trying to get away with something. See thats you, not the players. Not ever rule problem or one thats not clear is someone trying to get away with something
And feel free to ask about my mother. However, unlike you, *I* DIDNT bring my real world work into it. DOnt like it, dont bring it on the internet.
|
|
*sits then gets back up*
Nope, your therapy couch isn't comfortable. Sorry.
I actually don't think "everyone" is trying to get away with something.
I do think that if you are trying to get away with something, you should be honest about it.
As to why you think of your players as children, I'm not as perceptive as to your psyche. Maybe if you tell me about your mother?
It explains alot. Your OP states that if you have to ask the answer is no, that yoru intentionally trying to break the rules. YOu assume the default is "players trying to get away with something"
That isnt the case. Again let me ask- have you ever played a game from Games Workshop- warhammer or warhammer 40k? Because there are CONSTANT rules that need interpprtation until the designers make a ruling(which in many cases in their FAQ are not clearly laid out like you think).
So no, not all of us who ask are trying to get away with something. See thats you, not the players. Not ever rule problem or one thats not clear is someone trying to get away with something
Lets look at what you said:
ciretose wrote:
I actually don't think "everyone" is trying to get away with something.
ciretose wrote:
If you have to ask your GM if something unclear in the rules is allowed, it is probably because you know deep down it shouldn't be.
Sure seems ike you think folks are trying to pull a fast one just because its unclear to gain an advantage, not because its UNCLEAR.
And feel free to ask about my mother. However, unlike you, *I* DIDNT bring my real world work into it. DOnt like it, dont bring it on the internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do rogues really get Sneak Attack on every attack they make while flanking, or just the first one?
I just don't allow rogues in my game unless they forgo sneak attacks. And if some jackass munchkin tries to play a rogue with sneak attacks, I let 'em think they'll get away with it right until combat starts and they've moved into melee. That shows 'em.
Incidentally, I'm looking for new players. My last batch walked out was just full of rules lawyers and powergamers, so I kicked them. Anybody game?
|
|
I am a social worker and I do find that the method of interpretation some people use for reading rules to be uh....very creative. I remember the one time I dared discuss an issue there was an argument over what adjudicate was. It was really funny.Becoming a probation officer.What crime did you do that was so bad that you spend hours a week in court, you rapscallion?
If anything from our respective fields effects view it is the ability to smell the difference between rationalization after the fact and realization at the onset.
If you find yourself arguing backwards from what you want rather than asking what the original intent of the rule is, you are probably wrong.
Not always, but probably.
Just like I used the would "should" and "probably" rather than "Must" and "always"
|
|
@Kydeem de'Morcaine
Nice selective editing.
These are the first three lines you didn't include.
"If it looks like a loophole, it probably is one.
It really is that simple.
When you read the rules, if you realize there is something that you can do that doesn't make sense, why would your default be anything but no?"
Context matters.
Was not trying to use selective editing. You asked "...tell me how you got that?..." That was a sample of how I got that.
Also, to me loophole, doesn't make sense, and seems broken do not mean the same thing. At the begining of the thread you seem to be using them interchangeably.
The way it is commonly used, loophole usually means a rule not being applied the way someone originally thought it would be applied. It is also usually (but not always) meant advantageous. But does not always mean unintented, extreme, or wrong.
The way it seems to be most often (but not always) used on these board, broken means a huge advantage to one player such that others can't compete.
A loop hole is something not specifically covered in the rule, but clearly implied as part of the rule.
If I say you hit me, and you argue to the judge that technically you didn't hit me, the bat you were using hit me...not going to work.
But it seems like that is the logic that follows from some people on here. Not all, not even most. But some. Some people want things, and they will find a technicality that allows them to have it, regardless of the intent of the rule.
What I see a lot on here is someone trying to bend the rules, then seeming shocked anyone would accuse them of trying to bend the rules.
The bat hit him, not me.
If you look at the rule, the intent is clear most of the time. Initiative is meant to decide who goes first, even if it doesn't make logical sense in "reality". Losing 99.9% of your hit points has no real effect on your actions, but that last one and you are unconscious.
Because they had to make choices in design to make the game playable, to balance bonuses, etc...
I was very clear in the first post I was talking about loopholes. It was the first line in the first sentence. Pulling the 4th line without the context of the first three...just sayin'
|
|
*sits then gets back up*
Nope, your therapy couch isn't comfortable. Sorry.
I actually don't think "everyone" is trying to get away with something.
I do think that if you are trying to get away with something, you should be honest about it.
As to why you think of your players as children, I'm not as perceptive as to your psyche. Maybe if you tell me about your mother?
It explains alot. Your OP states that if you have to ask the answer is no, that yoru intentionally trying to break the rules. YOu assume the default is "players trying to get away with something"
That isnt the case. Again let me ask- have you ever played a game from Games Workshop- warhammer or warhammer 40k? Because there are CONSTANT rules that need interpprtation until the designers make a ruling(which in many cases in their FAQ are not clearly laid out like you think).
So no, not all of us who ask are trying to get away with something. See thats you, not the players. Not ever rule problem or one thats not clear is someone trying to get away with something
And feel free to ask about my mother. However, unlike you, *I* DIDNT bring my real world work into it. DOnt like it, dont bring it on the internet.
I like how you omitted the words "should" and "probably". Your argument is much stronger against your position than the one actually being articulated.
Gold star!
|
|
Do rogues really get Sneak Attack on every attack they make while flanking, or just the first one?
That isn't you asking your GM to allow you to do something you aren't sure is allowed, that is asking how the rule works.
I know Jiggy and carmachu are trying to create a strawman argument that I am saying asking any questions is bad and if you are asking questions you are trying to cheat. And I agree that would be a hard position to defend, since I don't agree with it.
But since that isn't what I have said/implied I don't need to defend that position. So they can keep kicking that strawman and I'll point back to the original post as to what I actually said.
I am a social worker and I do find that the method of interpretation some people use for reading rules to be uh....very creative. I remember the one time I dared discuss an issue there was an argument over what adjudicate was. It was really funny.Becoming a probation officer.What crime did you do that was so bad that you spend hours a week in court, you rapscallion?
If anything from our respective fields effects view it is the ability to smell the difference between rationalization after the fact and realization at the onset.
If you find yourself arguing backwards from what you want rather than asking what the original intent of the rule is, you are probably wrong.
Not always, but probably.
Just like I used the would "should" and "probably" rather than "Must" and "always"
I am used to interacting with people who attempt to manipulate boundaries, it has a much more different feel than someone who is attempting to understand a boundary. I think this is where this sense comes into play and while it is a learnable skill to develop this sense; I do feel it is a difficult one to teach.
In our recreation though, most people in healthier cirumstances really don't hang-out with the boundary manipulator, people tend to avoid these kind of confrontations as they make a healthy individual feel very awkward.
And yes, this commentary is more than just about finding loopholes in the same RPG.
... If I say you hit me, and you argue to the judge that technically you didn't hit me, the bat you were using hit me...not going to work ... The bat hit him, not me ...
As I understand the terms, that is sophistry not a loophole.
... A loop hole is something not specifically covered in the rule, but clearly implied as part of the rule.
... I was very clear in the first post I was talking about loopholes. It was the first line in the first sentence. Pulling the 4th line without the context of the first three...just sayin'
Agreed, you were very clear you were talking about loopholes. I did not pull the 4th line without the context of the first three.
However, I disagree with your definition of loophole. Partly because of that disagreement, I also do not think allowing a loophole is necessarily a bad thing.To me a loophole is something that is explicitly covered. However, it has an effect that the reader wasn't expecting.
Example 1
When I see someone talking about a loophole in the tax code, they are rarely talking about something that is not specifically covered. They are normally talking about something that is specifically allowed/granted that the speaker did not expect, does not understand, or thinks should not have been there. Good/bad/intended we don't really know. Some times what someone calls a loophole in the tax code was specifically intended and put there to encourage a certain behavior like investing in low income housing - good. Other times it was put in so the author or his friends wouldn't have to pay as much takes - morally bankrupt.
Example 2
Closer to a loophole would be the 'I felt threatened' defense that has been in the news recently. This seemingly CAN be applied in an unintended manner. The rule was obviously intended to allow people to take reasonable measure to defend themselves without having to wait until they have already been stabbed - good. Others seemingly trying to use it as an excuse to attack someone they don't like - bad. {Or at least that is one possible interpretation of the events that has been in the news.}
Both are loopholes. Boith are items that are very specifically covered. The second is pretty obvious about what is intended. Both can be good. Both can be bad.
That is why I disagree with your assertation that all loopholes are bad, people trying to use them really know better, and the answer should be no.
... If you look at the rule, the intent is clear most of the time ...
I agreed with that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am used to interacting with people who attempt to manipulate boundaries, it has a much more different feel than someone who is attempting to understand a boundary. I think this is where this sense comes into play and while it is a learnable skill to develop this sense; I do feel it is a difficult one to teach.
In our recreation though, most people in healthier cirumstances really don't hang-out with the boundary manipulator, people tend to avoid these kind of confrontations as they make a healthy individual feel very awkward.
And yes, this commentary is more than just about finding loopholes in the same RPG.
Aren't all good threads?
I would game with a lot of people on the boards, but I would run screaming from others.
I think some people feel like "winning" at Role Playing Game is a goal when it isn't even possible.
I love gaming. I have an entire room in my house dedicated to it. I've invested a ton of money into books, plexiglass, dice, etc...And when I have friends over to game, or just do a side campaign with my wife, winning is just a silly concept. Because who are you winning against?
The GM can always win. But they don't want to, as that ends the game.
So you can't "win" against them.
The other players are, ostensibly, on your side. So beating them...you just kind of become a douche.
The dice? They don't care. They just roll out the random.
If your table is cool with things that other tables call exploited, that is great. You will know your GM will approve the thing you want to do, so you aren't asking. You are showing.
There is no conflict. That is the table.
But if you see something you believe your GM might decline as a loophole, you know it. And when you are asking for it you are basically saying "I want this thing that will make me 'better' even if it isn't something that fits our table"
You are being selfish.
Do rogues really get Sneak Attack on every attack they make while flanking, or just the first one?
The Melbourne groups I've been a part of only allow one. That is also how I've run it.
Oh wait, that is not technically correct. One guy did allow it, and then the party fighter exploded from damage as monsters with sneak hit him over and over. He was full hp before that round started. The dm stopped using it after that, he saw the light.
Others will argue it is entirely fine for flanking invisible twf rogues to add all their sneak to every attack, but it nets too much damage for so little investment, thus the "we" of our groups find it to be cheesy (and not deliciously so). TWF, haste potion, imp invisibility potion or just get into flank and get off a full.
I don't like it when "sneak attack" becomes two weapon ginzu spam, and the rogue goes far above the other melee chars in damage via one feat and a little bit of magic juice. One precision sneak attack a round is how we do it, I don't care for the alternative.
I am used to interacting with people who attempt to manipulate boundaries, it has a much more different feel than someone who is attempting to understand a boundary. I think this is where this sense comes into play and while it is a learnable skill to develop this sense; I do feel it is a difficult one to teach.
In our recreation though, most people in healthier cirumstances really don't hang-out with the boundary manipulator, people tend to avoid these kind of confrontations as they make a healthy individual feel very awkward.
And yes, this commentary is more than just about finding loopholes in the same RPG.
Aren't all good threads?
I would game with a lot of people on the boards, but I would run screaming from others.
I think some people feel like "winning" at Role Playing Game is a goal when it isn't even possible.
I love gaming. I have an entire room in my house dedicated to it. I've invested a ton of money into books, plexiglass, dice, etc...And when I have friends over to game, or just do a side campaign with my wife, winning is just a silly concept. Because who are you winning against?
The GM can always win. But they don't want to, as that ends the game.
So you can't "win" against them.
The other players are, ostensibly, on your side. So beating them...you just kind of become a douche.
The dice? They don't care. They just roll out the random.
If your table is cool with things that other tables call exploited, that is great. You will know your GM will approve the thing you want to do, so you aren't asking. You are showing.
There is no conflict. That is the table.
But if you see something you believe your GM might decline as a loophole, you know it. And when you are asking for it you are basically saying "I want this thing that will make me 'better' even if it isn't something that fits our table"
You are being selfish.
As a dm, I find I win when I run a good game and challenge the players. Maaayyyybe if I make them sweat a bit and earn their victories. Tee hee.
Do rogues really get Sneak Attack on every attack they make while flanking, or just the first one?The Melbourne groups I've been a part of only allow one. That is also how I've run it.
Interesting. Do you play PFS, or do you mean home games? Because the text is pretty clear.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.
Emphasis mine, obviously.