|
Basically what this is saying is why are you punishing me for finding a clever, and misleading way to cheat?
I know we have all come across some of these individuals on these boards and I just want to say WTF?
I'm not sure when and where this started but everytime we have someone come up with this crazy combo that can't 100% be denied or confirmed, we have someone telling people to stop trying to punish them for their creative idea when the boards start pulling it apart trying to findways to discredit it.
I was always taught to never reward someone for cheating. Now I'm not talking about someone using material to do something cool and legit, I'm talking about the things that could or could not work, depending on the way you read it, but either way wasn't intended to work that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're always going to have people who are trying to kill things by expanding a folding boat in their gullet, regardless of the creatures size. It happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically what this is saying is why are you punishing me for finding a clever, and misleading way to cheat?
I know we have all come across some of these individuals on these boards and I just want to say WTF?
I'm not sure when and where this started but everytime we have someone come up with this crazy combo that can't 100% be denied or confirmed, we have someone telling people to stop trying to punish them for their creative idea when the boards start pulling it apart trying to findways to discredit it.
I was always taught to never reward someone for cheating. Now I'm not talking about someone using material to do something cool and legit, I'm talking about the things that could or could not work, depending on the way you read it, but either way wasn't intended to work that way.
Serveral reasons...
1) People like to 'get away' with things.
2) Your ideas are like a parents child...you'll defend them no matter what.
3) Not everyone is socialy adapt.
4) When everyone is yelling at you that it does not work...it is like being backed into a cornor.
5) The problem is...sometimes...ocassionaly you are 'punishing them for their creative thinking'. Not saying always...or that you have to let it in your game...but different rules interpertations are possible.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I feel that when an individual insists on the legality of a silly outcome in the rules, they're trying to prove their superiority to the game's designers and players. It belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what the role of the rules even is.
They're trying to prove they know how to play the game better than anyone else, and all it means is that they don't know how to play the game at all.
All rules systems have their limitations, and the great players play around those limitations so the whole thing doesn't screech to a halt. Some people like to be disruptive, and love to push the big red button labeled "Don't Push."
The thing is, we all know the button's there. Pushing it doesn't prove that nobody else saw it.
Basically what this is saying is why are you punishing me for finding a clever, and misleading way to cheat?
I know we have all come across some of these individuals on these boards and I just want to say WTF?
I'm not sure when and where this started but everytime we have someone come up with this crazy combo that can't 100% be denied or confirmed, we have someone telling people to stop trying to punish them for their creative idea when the boards start pulling it apart trying to findways to discredit it.
I was always taught to never reward someone for cheating. Now I'm not talking about someone using material to do something cool and legit, I'm talking about the things that could or could not work, depending on the way you read it, but either way wasn't intended to work that way.
And somehow magically you know what was 'intended'? I mean sure lots of people try to make end runs around the rules, but in most of these cases I think short of Jason Bulman or Sean K Renolds posting in the thread, how its 'supposed to work' is usually a matter of opinion.
And I could definately see people defending and attacking an idea that has ambiguous RAI. What you call cheating, other people call building a good character. Putting a +2 to attack for weapon focus, thats cheating. Trying to use armor spikes or unarmed strikes with dervish dance, thats up for debate untill its in the faq.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
When did , "Not getting it your way" become a punishment?
Probably somewhere around the same time that someone decided not getting XP for a gaming session they didn't show up to was a punishment.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Example 1: Player claims Spring Attack + some obscure feat lets him continuously blink and fart fireballs.
My Interpretation: Probably as the OP states.
Example 2: Player rolls up a barbarian character but writes backstory that PC was raised in a monestary, attempts to use barbarian class as a viable "monk."
My Interpretation: Good thinking.
Typical Alternate Interpretation: "He's cheating! Cheater! Cheater!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And somehow magically you know what was 'intended'?
Some people actually have somewhat decent critical thinking skills.
I mean sure lots of people try to make end runs around the rules,
Glad to see the acknowledgement.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a fan of creative play, but I think the danger is stumbling into some tactic that proves to be too strong and then is used over, and over, and over again. A folding boat exploding in the dragon's belly is cool when the party is low on resources and desperate for a way to survive the encounter. It's less cool as the first volley in the fight. It's stupid when the party carries 10-15 boats and uses them on every creature with the swallow whole ability.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before accusing anyone of cheating, maybe ask them where they got their interpretation of rules intent from?
You might be the one who didn't get the memo from the FAQ staff.
Your book might be the earlier printing, with the typos in.
Even if the other person is in the wrong, they may not be aware the rules changed, and be genuinely confused.
Last year, PFS ape companions could wear armor and wield weapons. This year, they can't. No-one who did it the old way was cheating. No-one had their chronicles torn up. The VCs just said "We've changed our minds. Can we all not do it that way in future?", and the public said "Sure".
OK, so there was a load of b%+@!ing and moaning. But the point is, the rule was one way. Now it's another. Anyone who has been away from the boards might turn up at an event with an old PC, and find themselves asked to make some changes. If they shrug and ask for an eraser, then no harm done. No need to lock them in the pillory and throw rotten eggs at them.
|
|
Before accusing anyone of cheating, maybe ask them where they got their interpretation of rules intent from?
You might be the one who didn't get the memo from the FAQ staff.
Your book might be the earlier printing, with the typos in.Even if the other person is in the wrong, they may not be aware the rules changed, and be genuinely confused.
Last year, PFS ape companions could wear armor and wield weapons. This year, they can't. No-one who did it the old way was cheating. No-one had their chronicles torn up. The VCs just said "We've changed our minds. Can we all not do it that way in future?", and the public said "Sure".
OK, so there was a load of b&@$~ing and moaning. But the point is, the rule was one way. Now it's another. Anyone who has been away from the boards might turn up at an event with an old PC, and find themselves asked to make some changes. If they shrug and ask for an eraser, then no harm done. No need to lock them in the pillory and throw rotten eggs at them.
If it's something like that then fair enough but when you have people trying to break combos down word for word with very loose interpretation then that's not on.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny, this is one of those topics that I both agree with and hate at the same time.
On the one hand, yes, sometimes folks "interpret" things in ways that leave me dumbfounded.
On the other hand, I have far more often witnessed occasions where the thing people were calling "cheese" or "obviously not the intent" turned out to be exactly how it's supposed to work. And I'm not talking about things that I just believe to work that way, I'm talking about when a multi-page thread ends with an actual FAQ and/or developer commentary (or occasionally, someone finally quoting an explicit rule that no one in the first half-dozen pages bothered to look up).
So I feel conflicted every time this topic comes up, with someone saying "that's pretty obviously not how it was intended to work", or something equivalent. I don't want to dismiss that possibility (because I've seen it too), but in my experience the "that's not the intent" claim has been wrong FAR more often than it's been right.
|
Basically what this is saying is why are you punishing me for finding a clever, and misleading way to cheat?
I know we have all come across some of these individuals on these boards and I just want to say WTF?
I'm not sure when and where this started but everytime we have someone come up with this crazy combo that can't 100% be denied or confirmed, we have someone telling people to stop trying to punish them for their creative idea when the boards start pulling it apart trying to findways to discredit it.
I was always taught to never reward someone for cheating. Now I'm not talking about someone using material to do something cool and legit, I'm talking about the things that could or could not work, depending on the way you read it, but either way wasn't intended to work that way.
In essence, you are saying that YOU know how things were intended to work and that anyone with a different take on it is cheating.
|
In essence, you are saying that YOU know how things were intended to work and that anyone with a different take on it is cheating.Basically what this is saying is why are you punishing me for finding a clever, and misleading way to cheat?
I know we have all come across some of these individuals on these boards and I just want to say WTF?
I'm not sure when and where this started but everytime we have someone come up with this crazy combo that can't 100% be denied or confirmed, we have someone telling people to stop trying to punish them for their creative idea when the boards start pulling it apart trying to findways to discredit it.
I was always taught to never reward someone for cheating. Now I'm not talking about someone using material to do something cool and legit, I'm talking about the things that could or could not work, depending on the way you read it, but either way wasn't intended to work that way.
And if he's the GM he's right.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I said "in my experience". And in my experience, yes, it IS far more often.I can only think of one example your way. I can think of dozens the other way.
I think the FAQ page reflects this rather well, actually.
So is it that you're telling me I'm incorrect about what my experience has been? Or is it that you don't get that I'm only talking about my own experience?
And if he's the GM he's right.
GM's can be wrong. I've had plenty of GMs who've been wrong. That's another thread though.
I don't know what to comment on. Sometimes people do have legitimate ideas, other times they are just trying to cheat. Going one way or the other seems a little too polarizing. Sometimes creative is just a word, sometimes its not. I'd say depends on the situation. I will say people like to legitimize themselves and defend their ideas, and they aren't always wrong, nor always right.
|
|
Let us use an example from another thread that reflects the issue of "Good" vs "Bad" fiat.
In another thread, it was proposed that a wizard make his hat using shrink item on a structure of some sort, so that if the wizard enters a dead magic zone, the hat will immediately revert back to the structure, with the wizard inside, protected from the emination of anti-magic.
"Good" GM fiat might allow this.
However, if you really think about what is being proposed, you are wearing an item on your head that will revert into a structure.
On your head. At best you have something that was worn tight enough on your head to not fall off suddenly explode outward into a structure.
At worst, it was attached to your head in some way to not easily come off...
The problem isn't with creative solutions as much as it is with the seeking of only the positive benefits of creative solutions and reasoning, and declaring any negative effects "Bad" GM fiat.
You are already asking for GM fiat to approve something wacky that is outside of the book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My rule of thumb is "If the GM had the BBEG do this, would I think it was BS?" If yes, I can't do it.
Maybe off-topic, but I hold myself to the same rule, as the DM. Anything I wouldn't let the players "get away with," the NPCs generally can't do, either -- which includes things like "just happening to escape" when I want to keep them as recurring villains, but the dice indicate that the PCs have killed them.
TOZ will recall one instance in which I forgot to give a bad guy the Precise Shot feat...
Yeah, dead henchman. Just as the PCs aren't allowed to add or change feats mid-adventure, so too I don't do that with NPCs.
I believe my trousers were soiled after that encounter.
I said "in my experience". And in my experience, yes, it IS far more often.When you say "Often", do you mean "Often" as in a person who has lost their parents, or Often, frequently?
Frequently
Yes you repeated Often, frequently.
No, I only repeated it once.
Yes! You repeated Often, frequently, once!
Look, I'm from Rhode Island, and I make an effort to pronounce "Awfhen" without a T; just don't ask me about Waw-wick. :P
EDIT: Never mind thinking, why are you punishing me for my creative spellong and pronunciation?!
|
|
Maybe off-topic, but I hold myself to the same rule, as the DM. Anything I wouldn't let the players "get away with," the NPCs generally can't do, either
Thing is, you don't need to go dumpster diving through supplementary books or third party material for obscure combos, when some of the most egregious cheese is hiding in plain sight.
Like Explosive Runes. Don't bother asking for it.
If you want long-lasting fireball trigger items, that you can set off remotely, you can pay the correct crafting price for them.
That has to be one of the spells that has me going "What were they thinking?".
If a player wants to argue the point, and start researching it, he can deal with an imp leaping out at him covered in 100 post-it notes, and tell me how he intends healing the 700d6 damage he just took.
Four short phrases that end any doubt that there are people out there who, when they can't get the answer they want to fit their ridiculous uber-kill interpretations of the rules, will actually twist and torture the English language into a pretzel to get their way. In this case, by refusing to recognize that "a" and "an" are synonymous with "one," despite repeatedly being linked to the Merriam-Webster site, then later by refusing to understand what the word "one" meant in context to the rules.
Cleave.
Great Cleave.
3.5.
Wizards' boards.
Cheaters prospered. Prospered real nice. Happens when they can gang up and cheat as a community. When everybody feels like they have something to gain from the cheat.
That was the argument that involved bringing a bag of rats to every fight, right? Rather "creative" thinking, definitely.
In essence, you are saying that YOU know how things were intended to work and that anyone with a different take on it is cheating.
Well... I've seen people on these boards bring up that being 'Dead' doesn't say anywhere RAW that you can't take actions....
so YEAH, I'm confident in my interpretation of how it was 'intended' to work ;)
I think a big problem is trying to lump EVERYONE into specefic groups. Not EVERYONE who has a creative idea is trying to cheat... or is a Rules Lawyer... or whatever other title people want to shackle them with....
but a lot of them CAN be ;)
Basically what this is saying is why are you punishing me for finding a clever, and misleading way to cheat?
I know we have all come across some of these individuals on these boards and I just want to say WTF?
I'm not sure when and where this started but everytime we have someone come up with this crazy combo that can't 100% be denied or confirmed, we have someone telling people to stop trying to punish them for their creative idea when the boards start pulling it apart trying to findways to discredit it.
I was always taught to never reward someone for cheating. Now I'm not talking about someone using material to do something cool and legit, I'm talking about the things that could or could not work, depending on the way you read it, but either way wasn't intended to work that way.
And somehow magically you know what was 'intended'? I mean sure lots of people try to make end runs around the rules, but in most of these cases I think short of Jason Bulman or Sean K Renolds posting in the thread, how its 'supposed to work' is usually a matter of opinion.
And I could definately see people defending and attacking an idea that has ambiguous RAI. What you call cheating, other people call building a good character. Putting a +2 to attack for weapon focus, thats cheating. Trying to use armor spikes or unarmed strikes with dervish dance, thats up for debate untill its in the faq.
I'd just like to point out, you responded to a guy who has (more than once) told SKR that he had it wrong.
|
|
Basically what this is saying is why are you punishing me for finding a clever, and misleading way to cheat?
I know we have all come across some of these individuals on these boards and I just want to say WTF?
I'm not sure when and where this started but everytime we have someone come up with this crazy combo that can't 100% be denied or confirmed, we have someone telling people to stop trying to punish them for their creative idea when the boards start pulling it apart trying to findways to discredit it.
I was always taught to never reward someone for cheating. Now I'm not talking about someone using material to do something cool and legit, I'm talking about the things that could or could not work, depending on the way you read it, but either way wasn't intended to work that way.
And somehow magically you know what was 'intended'? I mean sure lots of people try to make end runs around the rules, but in most of these cases I think short of Jason Bulman or Sean K Renolds posting in the thread, how its 'supposed to work' is usually a matter of opinion.
And I could definately see people defending and attacking an idea that has ambiguous RAI. What you call cheating, other people call building a good character. Putting a +2 to attack for weapon focus, thats cheating. Trying to use armor spikes or unarmed strikes with dervish dance, thats up for debate untill its in the faq.
Here's the ultimate problem. When you are doing a build or class comparison argument and you start using combos that can't be proven to work or not work, which would then need a GM's approval, and then trying and spin it as hard evidence as to being proof that class A is better than class B because of this one thing. When you point this out you have people claiming that they are being punished for thinking creatively. You can't hide behind creativity when you are trying to cheat.