Read your question back. What did YOU call them? Yeah, that’s what they’re called.

You clearly didn’t watch the Netflix adaptation where they answer that question.

Ah, so you’re in denial about your vore fetish!

I’m a little unsure why you think it’s not possible to get help. It almost always is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines

We can certainly modify rules that have proven abusive in the past, but…

There are good reasons to change rules. People breaking social norms is not one of them.

We may want to change the rule, or…

You may not be paying attention to me, but I thought you might want to pay attention to yourself. We absolutely CAN change rules at the table. It’s called a house-rule. You keep pretending the issue is one that can’t be improved with a rule change, but yes it fucking can.

…hope the official rules are changed at some point.

Are you just going to “thoughts and prayers” approach that? Or are you going to post online about the exploit to mitigate damage while letting the company behind the game know about the potential exploit? I’m going to assume the first, since you said “nothing needs to be done” unless there’s a person to kick from the table.

Check the other comments. They are absolutely in the room with us.

Oddly enough, they don’t defend it by saying it’s good. They defend it by tearing down everything else, or brushing the flaws under the carpet with “well, you can just ignore the bad stuff, so they don’t count.”

Prevention is better than cure, dude. Take your vaccine so you don’t get the disease. Set up a fire escape so you don’t burn to death. Lock your door so people don’t walk in and steal your TV. Avoid Stabby Johnson so he doesn’t stab you.

And if you notice a flaw in a game system, do what you can to fix it.

If you are aware of a potential problem and do nothing to stop it, then you are responsible for it if it happens. You can’t expect to avoid tragedy entirely, but you reduced the risk of THAT tragedy by a good amount, and that’s not worthless. A seatbelt won’t always save you, but you’re absolutely fucked without one.

For someone trying to keep all options on the table, you sure are quick to remove all options from the table.

There’s a thing in D&D forum spaces called the Oberoni Fallacy. The fallacy goes that, if someone says there’s a problem with a D&D rule, they’re wrong because they can just Rule 0 it away. It’s a fallacy because they have just proposed a solution to what apparently isn’t a problem.

People constantly saying “the rules are just guidelines” to any D&D problem is the same sort of idea. Yeah, I know you can ignore them, but I paid for the damn book, so I want what’s IN the book to actually matter.

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.

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.

If D&D isn’t a set of rules, why do they charge so much for their rulebook?

It’s also worth noting that nobody has said an actual exploit. Nobody has DONE anything toxic. Someone just noticed a POTENTIAL exploit and suggested fixing it before any problems occur. Yet ostracizing people is a more acceptable position than a rules patch?

If the rules aren’t something to be changed, why do they charge so much for the rules revision they just put out?

Not really. You’re placing blame on players using a system as written and a DM for being unable to handle an exploit in the rules. At no point do you open the rules themselves up for criticism. In fact, you deflect all criticism away from the rules, as if the impossibility of a perfect system excuses every bad decision ever made.

Just like how there is no ruleset that cannot be exploited, there is no ruleset that cannot be improved. It’s only by acknowledging the flaws that something can improve, but you seem hellbent on dismissing flaws entirely. That’s unhealthy.

You are the red box in the image.

The nirvana fallacy is to substitute a good solution (fix a broken rule or exploit) with a perfect solution that is obviously impossible (create an airtight ruleset), then use that to justify doing nothing.

So you’re American, I take it?

Not the first that comes to mind, but I have to add Nausicaa into the mix. She shows her strength through nothing but kindness and determination, without the need for violence or cold cruelty. A frightened critter bites her, and she endures the pain to keep soothing it without interruption. Ripley’s a badass, but she’d never be able to do that.

I was a young child in a Trekkie house when that show aired. I think that helped me think of women in authority as just a normal thing.

Did we fail the test because we’re wrong, or was the answer sheet wrong? Maybe we say conservatives are bad not because of some hidden bias but because conservatives are bad.

That’s not far left. “Everyone is equal” is left-wing, but adding “except the leaders” is right-wing. It’s not that the far left is like the right, but that those claiming to be far left and doing right wing stuff aren’t as far left as they say they are.

But when they say they’re left-wing, I’m sure you’ll trust the soviet leadership. Why would they have a reason to lie?

I wouldn’t.

In fact, I would try to deprogram anyone who thinks anyone should.