I really hate whenever I try to explain how some bad rules can be abused and immediatelly get someone say shit like “If this happens in your group, change it” as if that would solve the problem. And whenever it is not soemthing you witnessed personally, then it means it never happens and could never happen.
Yet ostracizing people is a more acceptable position than a rules patch?
Yes. If you can’t get someone to knock off bad behavior, the rules do not matter.
If the rules aren’t something to be changed, why do they charge so much for the rules revision they just put out?
There are good reasons to change rules. People breaking social norms is not one of them.
Once again, nobody has done anything. There is no bad behaviour anyone needs to stop. You don’t even know what the exploit is, or how the group feel about using it. You are inventing a hypothetical person to punish for a hypothetical misdeed while the actually flawed rules (by WotC’s admission, as proven by the erattas and rules revision) are right in front of you.
What we infer from it all is that someone is using a rule in a way that’s detrimental to the group. We may want to change the rule, or it may be time to have a talk, or it may be time to kick them out.
As far as assumptions go, that cuts both ways All I’m saying is that we don’t take any of the options above off the table.
Quick question: Who do you mean by “them”? Who are you saying to kick?
Because the only information given is that an exploit exists. Nobody has said, at any point, that anyone has used an exploit at a table where the others found it to be detrimental. You invented that scenario. You invented the person acting badly, and you specifically imagined them to be toxic and ruining everyone’s fun.
A person who doesn’t exist cannot be kicked. A ruleset that exists can be changed. And changing a ruleset doesn’t mean I can’t also kick a person.
