View profile maxperson – morrus’ unofficial tabletop rpg news

It’s not about doing what you want. It’s about not doing things that someone at the table doesn’t want to do. It’s about the table, as a group, putting forth the things that they don’t want to do and then the group agreeing not to do those things.

Now, that being said, I would say that there are differently levels of justification for things. I don’t want X because I don’t like X and I’m the DM so, what I say goes, is a pretty darn weak argument. If that’s the best justification you can come up with, well, at that point, I’m of a mind that I’ll just suck it up and let the player have their way because it means that the player will be more invested in the game.

No, Maxperson, it’s not about power tripping. It’s about DM’s who are incapable of checking their ego at the door.


Consciously deciding not to force their preferences on the players is the hallmark of a great DM, IMO. The ability of a DM to take what the players want and mold that into a campaign is what makes someone a great DM. Anyone can put on the Viking Hat and dictate to the group. That’s easy. There’s no challenge to the DM there. The DM sits perched comfortably in the middle of his or her comfort zone, secure in the knowledge that nothing can disturb the carefully crafted campaign.

… DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

The description of (3) makes it clear that the outcomes of action resolution feed back into (1). In other words, the outcomes of action resolution are one crucial source of shared fiction. Step (2) is therefore the crux of it – it is the presence of step (2) that distinguishes the game as an RPG from (say) the GM just telling a story about some stuff that happens to some people.

It’s interesting to note that the full statement of Step 2 – including the bits that Maxperson left out upthread – includes the missing steps I identified, of (i) working out what actions the adventurers take, and (ii) working out what the results of those actions are. We can see this in the examples of opening the east door and perhaps having to deal with locks and traps.

Moreover, and again quite consistent with what I posted earlier, nothing in the description of step (2), nor in the step (3) phrase the GM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions, states or even implies that the GM just makes stuff up about what happens to the PCs when their players decide that they want to do something.

… Weapon Fighting Style fighter potentially REROLLS damage AFTER the roll. No magic involved whatsoever. Rolled a 1 on your damage with your greatsword? No problem, reroll and get a 10. Whoohoo, your minimum damage attack now deals maximum damage. But, apparently that’s time travel?

Someone brings up an idea and adds an example to clarify – spend the next several pages taking the example to extremes that were obviously not intended. So, now backgrounding a bear companion results in the DM being forced to allow T-Rex’s in every town. :uhoh:

On and on and on. It would be nice if there was just a smidgeon less bad faith arguing going on here, so we could actually have a discussion without screwing around page after page correcting faulty assumptions and blindingly stupid interpretations.

Oh, and btw, Maxperson, since someone else has also corrected you on your English usage, it’s no longer an appeal to authority since multiple sources have been stated. I didn’t bother, because, well, I have been teaching English for about 20 years and feel no real need to provide my bona fides. A more reasonable response on your part would be a reexamination of where you went wrong in your use of the language, rather than, again, ignoring the point, and simply attacking me. But, hey, that’s been pretty much par for the course for this entire thread.

But the key part is A2A can be reasonable- if the source is credible and supported by evidence.An argument that can be reasonable is not a logical fallacy. It’s not even an informal fallacy. As Wikipedia notes, it’s defeasible. Given that basically every argument anyone ever runs outside of mathematics is defeasible, that’s not a very telling blow against it.

(1) Either Hussar’s an English teacher, or has been working hard to maintain the online facade of being an English teacher for over a decade. Given that there’s little reason for someone to do the latter, and given that his reports about English teaching and challengs of cross-cultural education have always seemed coherent enough to me, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

(2) I’m not an English teacher – I’m an academic lawyer and philosopher – and I know that Hussar is 100% correct when he says that Maxperson is 100% wrong to say that " ‘On a hit, roll damage‘ is equal to ‘On a miss, don’t roll damage.’ It’s just the way language works."

The instruction that, on a hit, one must roll damage, doesn’t forbid anyone from rolling damage on a miss. It probably implies that "On a miss, you don’t need to roll damage" but the absence of an obligation isn’t the same thing as being forbidden – the absence of an obligation is consistent with a permission. Which was Hriston’s point.

Of course if there is not hit, and damage is rolled, no hit point reduction will take place. But that’s a different thing. Hriston’s point is that the combat rules don’t forbid rolling to hit and damage together (and the absence of doubt about this is simply reinforced by the fact that the DMG advises rolling them together!).