You Can Only Do What The Rules Allow

Omega · February 26, 2015, 12:55:26 AM

Quote from: talysman;817814You'd have to read their convoluted reasoning, but basically they say that doesn't say that a combat turn is 10 minutes, so 10 rounds per turn doesn't necessarily mean 1--minute rounds.

I don't agree, but I stopped arguing in those threads. It's an irreconcilable difference of opinion.

It says a movement turn is 10 min. Then rolls into explaining a combat round as being 10 in a turn. One leads into the other.

But I can guess where the argument went. "The rules for a combat round says is 10 in a turn. But NEVER says what a turn is!" which ignores the explanation of a turn on the very same page?

Gronan of Simmerya · February 26, 2015, 06:04:14 AM

"Irreconcilable difference of opinion" my fat old hairy ass. That's "You're an idiot, shut up."

Also, I adopted the handle "Old Geezer" after people on Purple Nurple were talking about "old school games way back in the early 90s."

And some people never got over the trauma of their first referee being a dink because he was 14.

Gronan of Simmerya · February 26, 2015, 06:16:47 AM

Quote from: Omega;817815It says a movement turn is 10 min. Then rolls into explaining a combat round as being 10 in a turn. One leads into the other.

But I can guess where the argument went. "The rules for a combat round says is 10 in a turn. But NEVER says what a turn is!" which ignores the explanation of a turn on the very same page?

If it's the forum I'm thinking of, there is a subset of posters there that, if a rule has two ways to read it -- one perfectly logical, and the other making no God damned sense at all -- they will argue that we have to assume that either interpretation is equally valid, because there is no definitive text.

"Common sense" or "assume the writer was not an utter fucking moron" carries no weight with them, and it drives me batshit insane sometimes.

Will · February 26, 2015, 10:20:37 AM

My favorite is 'making an object invisible doesn't necessarily mean you can see anything on the other side of the object.'

Which actually reminds me of some of the more full of shit elements of college philosophy classes (in particular, the 1900s debate over the nature of perception, which was solved by a bunch of neurologists saying 'shut the fuck up, here's how it works, you dinks')

I think that one got play on ENWorld.

mAcular Chaotic · February 26, 2015, 11:39:36 AM

Quote from: Will;817869My favorite is 'making an object invisible doesn't necessarily mean you can see anything on the other side of the object.'

Which actually reminds me of some of the more full of shit elements of college philosophy classes (in particular, the 1900s debate over the nature of perception, which was solved by a bunch of neurologists saying 'shut the fuck up, here's how it works, you dinks')

I think that one got play on ENWorld.

It wasn't actually solved. They still teach that stuff. I love those debates.

Nothing in philosophy can be solved by science.

talysman · February 26, 2015, 11:45:10 AM

Quote from: Omega;817815It says a movement turn is 10 min. Then rolls into explaining a combat round as being 10 in a turn. One leads into the other.

But I can guess where the argument went. "The rules for a combat round says is 10 in a turn. But NEVER says what a turn is!" which ignores the explanation of a turn on the very same page?

No, it's not anything that bad. These are fairly smart people, and I respect them in many ways, but they are fixated on proving that Chainmail was used as the combat system, as opposed to being merely referenced.

That particular passage, they say, is two different sections, one on movement, one on combat, and there was more combat material edited out. They cite some manuscript drafts, Empire of the Petal Throne, and Eldritch Wizardry as proof that short Chainmail combat rounds were the norm until AD&D officially changed it to 1 minute.

Shipyard Locked · February 26, 2015, 12:00:28 PM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;817892Nothing in philosophy can be solved by science.

I would have once vehemently debated this statement. These days I'm much less sure of my convictions.

Doctor Jest · February 26, 2015, 12:01:46 PM

Quote from: Will;817869My favorite is 'making an object invisible doesn't necessarily mean you can see anything on the other side of the object.'

/facepalm

That's one of the better WTFD&D? statements I've ever heard.

Also, there's the guy in a D&D 3.5 game who argued that he can cast water breathing on a red dragon to make it suffocate, and his GM didn't know what he was talking about when he said it doesn't work that way.

His GM was Jonathan Tweet.

Doctor Jest · February 26, 2015, 12:03:20 PM

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;817892Nothing in philosophy can be solved by science.

Unfortunately philosophers tend to think everything in science can be solved by philosophy.

Omega · February 26, 2015, 03:06:27 PM

That is actually worse than I guessed.

Thats like arguing a combat turn in 5e isnt really a 6 sec round because it doesnt say under turns how long a round lasts. So it must be 10 sec long because 5e is like BX and a round in BX is 10 sec.

Perfectly clear now! :banghead:

Quote from: talysman;817896No, it's not anything that bad. These are fairly smart people, and I respect them in many ways, but they are fixated on proving that Chainmail was used as the combat system, as opposed to being merely referenced.

That particular passage, they say, is two different sections, one on movement, one on combat, and there was more combat material edited out. They cite some manuscript drafts, Empire of the Petal Throne, and Eldritch Wizardry as proof that short Chainmail combat rounds were the norm until AD&D officially changed it to 1 minute.

Gronan of Simmerya · February 26, 2015, 05:38:35 PM

Quote from: talysman;817896No, it's not anything that bad. These are fairly smart people, and I respect them in many ways, but they are fixated on proving that Chainmail was used as the combat system, as opposed to being merely referenced.

That particular passage, they say, is two different sections, one on movement, one on combat, and there was more combat material edited out. They cite some manuscript drafts, Empire of the Petal Throne, and Eldritch Wizardry as proof that short Chainmail combat rounds were the norm until AD&D officially changed it to 1 minute.

Yeah. That. And no amount of "No, that isn't how we played" matters.

I stopped following certain threads there years ago.

And that isn't how Gary played CHAINMAIL either, but never mind...

And when there was a long wail about "if only we knew more about how they played back then," my list of still living players from Dave Arneson's and Gary Gygax's original groups was roundly ignored.

Except for one guy who declared that they wanted to "derive" the information, or some such horseshit.

RunningLaser · February 27, 2015, 03:46:08 PM

Quote from: Old Geezer;817958Yeah. That. And no amount of "No, that isn't how we played" matters.

I stopped following certain threads there years ago.

And that isn't how Gary played CHAINMAIL either, but never mind...

And when there was a long wail about "if only we knew more about how they played back then," my list of still living players from Dave Arneson's and Gary Gygax's original groups was roundly ignored.

Except for one guy who declared that they wanted to "derive" the information, or some such horseshit.

I think some people look at the OD&D game as a historical texts of sorts and try to decipher what was meant- kinda a sub-hobby. The fact that are people who can give them the answers, ruins that.

talysman · February 27, 2015, 05:49:44 PM

Quote from: RunningLaser;818207I think some people look at the OD&D game as a historical texts of sorts and try to decipher what was meant- kinda a sub-hobby. The fact that are people who can give them the answers, ruins that.

And to a certain extent, there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't have first-hand information, like if Old Geezer doesn't know what table Gary was using for some result,
the best you can do is guess from what's actually in written sources. Or if you want to derive a pattern for your own use, even if that pattern was unintentional, that's fine, too. (I do that a lot, myself.)

But if someone who was there says, "No, that's not how it was played," you have to accept that what you are doing is your *own* D&D, not the original. You're house-ruling it, not figuring out the missing rules that were actually in use.

Gronan of Simmerya · February 27, 2015, 08:56:09 PM

Quote from: talysman;818238But if someone who was there says, "No, that's not how it was played," you have to accept that what you are doing is your *own* D&D, not the original. You're house-ruling it, not figuring out the missing rules that were actually in use.

And there's nothing wrong with that, just don't pretend you're trying to "discover the original game."

Crom's hairy nutsack, the original game is "make up some shit you think will be fun."

Brad · February 28, 2015, 10:57:11 PM

Quote from: Will;817869college philosophy classes

You didn't go to college...who are you kidding?