What is the worst argument you've gotten into regarding game mechanics?

>I met him on Veeky Forums so I don't want to talk shit.
was it Varg?

I figured that the writer was an ass about it and I’m sure the player was about as bad hope you found a better group also checked

you are arguing already

I had a pretty good argument with one of my regular players a while back. You see I let him use the cantrip acid splash to melt a hole in a wooden wall, which was all fine and dandy. Later on he trued it again this time with a 5ft thick stone wall he said since he had done drafting he knew that buildings had hollow walls I explained that this wall was solid and that he could use the spell however it would have little effect. After a 20 minute argument he finally used a magic item to walk up that wall and all was well but that was the worst argument I’ve had on game mechanics

In this case, the other player is probably dead by now.

Oh boy, you sure showed us, too apathetic to care, but not apathetic enough to not tell everyone about how apathetic you are.
You're truly inspiring. One day I too hope to make sure other people know how much of a shit I don't give.

Played a game of 40k where a former friend wanted to attach a character with a trait that increased their movement by a few inches. He then wanted to detach that character in the same turn to slingshot and to go his full movement towards a different target while giving the unit he was buffing the extra movement.

We argued until I had to pull out the rule book and physically find the rule for movement since "there's nothing that says I can't do it."

But, user, 60% of the time it works every time.
They've done studies, you know.

Called someone an inbred retard because they swore up and down that save or lose wasn't broken in 3.5, monks were OP, and that Fighters were perfectly fine.

>expect shenanigans about a guy who knows a chick with ESP
>instead it's a murder plot
Way to throw me for a loop OP

Rouge trader. A willful misinterpretation of combat actions and their subtypes on the part of another player made him unfairly dish out enough damage that the DM just stopped recording what he did, instakilled his mooks, and based all boss encounters around what I and our 2 other players inflicted. I must have pressed for maybe 20 minutes before eventually finding either some FAQ and example scenario to clarify on a later date. Guy left the game after his dumb power-fantasy got outed as cheating.

Got a little heated in an argument over the rules of a board game we were playing at a game night my then-girlfriend was hosting.

She dumped me because of it.

Fuck him, you're the GM. What you say goes.

I got into a minor argument once about how scoring systems handle ties because I thought it was dumb that in the case of a draw you had to add up the points for the tied positions and then divide them to each equally, i.e. if two people tied for first you added up first and second and split that in two to give to both of them. My point was that it wasted time doing math when systems where people tied for first just all get the same value for first and you skipped the other values worked just fine. The other guy insisted it was better because it meant you had the same total number of points instead of generating more points, but the game had ways for people to generate points outside of placements anyway so I didn't see the point in aiming for a fixed sum system there and nowhere else.

It was a really dumb and minor thing to argue about but I was real salty from several hours of playing board games I wasn't really interested in and getting reamed in all of them for having been like the only one who hadn't played them before.

If she's 80% accurate, and knows she is 7/2 for the day already, then she knows with perfect accuracy what her next prediction would be, even if it would have been negative, like if she was 8/1, she would know with certainty she would be wrong next time, so she could make her prediction and be correct by negating it.

>looking up hurricane rules for a giant sneezing after a psion turned into ectoplasm and tried to fly down its throat to kill it
>arguing over how Wish works and why you can't wish enemies out of existence without destroying everything and getting into arguments about Occam's Razor and entropy
>arguing over why you can't use aid another on the same person 3 times to give them a 39 AC at level 6
>arguing over why you can't use summon monster to summon a whale 30 feet over someone's head and kill them with 74d6 falling damage
>people thinking that the Running die (you roll a d6 to see how many extra squares you can move when you Run as an action) could "explode" like the other rolls in the system and have some random guy suddenly sprint at 200 mph.
>arguing over whether or not someone could move 7 squares and recounting it four times and literal shouting because the other person counted the number of squares wrong
Fucking hell....
The weird part is, RPGs probably a good 45% of why I don't kill myself, yet despite my insane emotional investment in them, I never get mad over them, even if the most frustrating shit happens. Yet these autists sperg out harder than I ever do.

Check'd

Bit embarassing, but in this one.
boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/25669/qwirkle

I was playing with my family and they just kept insisting that I was making an illegal move. The rulebook had example moves that proved I was right but none of it mattered when all my family are argumentative blockheads and my brother wanted to make me look like a raving autist when all I wanted to do was follow the rules. It's a shit game by the way, I didn't even like it before the incident but now at least nobody likes the game.

>a little heated
>She dumped me because of it.
Something's suspicious about this.

That's not how statistics works.

Well, to be fair, it wasn't *just* because of that. Things had been rocky between us for a few weeks leading up to that, it was just the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

The difference between "within" and "wholly within"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

But if she has made 10 predictions with 80% accuracy, no matter whether the 11th prediction is true or false, it would dip her accuracy% above or below the stated clean 80%. Thus her accuracy% can in no way be at 80% over every prediction.

Only way I think her system makes sense is that all her predictions so far total to 80% but in that case it doesn't matter what her record for the day is.

If her accuracy% is on per-day basis she could make any number of more predictions for the day as long as the number comes up with the stated 80% in the end and with nothing dictating the order at which the predictions come up as true/false.

3.5/PF grappling rules regarding some poorly worded 3d party archetype. I was fucking right too. But arguing with autistic self-proclaimed "powergamer", never again.

>there’s nothing that says I can’t do it
Except you, the GM, who is the end-all arbiter of any decision. The biggest problem at RPG tables seems to be the lack of understanding of how powerful the GM’s word is.

I was expecting a murder plot. If you're looking for ESP shenanigans, Hinamatsuri is good.

Or maybe he knows how to bring up a point about misinterpreted game mechanics without devolving into an argument with someone?

I once had a lengthy argument about someone wanting to take the Monkey Grip feat (to weild larger weapons) in conjunction with Powerful Build (that treats you larger) to use even larger weapons.
I told him they don't stack but he insisted it was 'the writer's intent'. He got pretty mad when I kept disagreeing because it doesn't change your actual size and both use your base size as reference.

the user you replied to seems annoyed so I guess the first user failed in that regard, which I guess means you're wrong.

I'd say "it's hard to not make an autist angry" but I'm pretty sure it was intentional.

It wasn't RPGs but some people just don't understand the proper definition of an Irish Stew.
You can change your ingredients, fine, but now it isn't an Irish Stew.

>the user you replied to seems annoyed so I guess the first user failed in that regard
user 1 posted something, user 2 replied and that was it. That's not an argument. He succeeded, you flailing brainlet.

Our D&D 4e GM made it so if we moved in front of an enemy they took an attack of opportunity on us.

You had to shift into the enemy if you want to get within striking range.

>GMs word goes against the system of rules laid out already
wrong
idiot

He was playing a game that doesn't have a GM.

That seems like a pretty major houserule. I'm assuming the reverse is true, if monsters move in front of you?
Or did you show him the book after the session so he knew his mistake?

Can you show me where the GM goes?

I wouldn't complain much if using facing rules. But this looks better for a system not so focused on melee combat or if some classes have workarounds this rule.

>Epic lvl D&D characters are the same as Exalts
I didn't have much argument since I haven't played D&D since 3.5E, but I wasn't convinced

I have meet several DMs that said," The rules are just guidelines". Fuck those guys.

>Hinamatsuri
Been following that one, it's good. Peephole is just that rare trashy series I stumble upon and was at least an captivating read from start to finish. Binged it over a couple hours.

Apparently it's ok to put a model with a 60mm base on a 25mm one.

How would it even fit?

>>arguing over why you can't use aid another on the same person 3 times to give them a 39 AC at level 6
>>arguing over why you can't use summon monster to summon a whale 30 feet over someone's head and kill them with 74d6 falling damage

And why can't you do it? Don't tell me your answer was "Because not"

Not him but
1) Bonuses of the same type don't stack (except a few explicitly stated ones, this is not one of them).
2) Summon spells always say the creature must be summoned into an appropriate environment (e.g. on solid ground).

It was totally Varg, wasn't it

>>arguing over how Wish works and why you can't wish enemies out of existence without destroying everything and getting into arguments about Occam's Razor and entropy
The book addresses this situation directly. Trying to wish someone dead or nonexistent is the equivalent of wishing for your own time travel. It's easier to fling you into the future when they're dead or gone.

Poorly.

>Dude, please understand! You can't use that feature from a 3rd edition splatbook you found on the internet on our 5e game! 3rd edition uses other rules! You can say that it's another game!

Even though most books literally say the rules are just guidelines?

Rule 0, bitch. It doesn't even matter who is right, once the GM has made his decision, that's final.

That's just wrong
Even a dragon blood would annihilate a dnd adventurer, or even a whole party of lvl20 martials. Maybe a party of wizards? But even wizards are still just mortals.

wrong
you're the autistic GM everyone hates

I'm not saying that the two are comparable, but the kind of things epic level characters can do in 3.x using rules from Epic Level Handbook go far beyond what even an optimized level 20 character can do. Especially if you include epic spellcasting.

Nah, you're just an entitled piece of shit.

...

nice buzzword
entitled to what?
A GM who isn't a spastic faggot who doesn't know/follow the game rules?

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/entitled
Now kill yourself retard.

Some dumbfuck actually tried this shit, didn't they?

If anything you're the entitled one here
You're convinced that the GM should be able to do whatever they want because of their status, regardless of the rules of the system

>You're convinced that the GM should be able to do whatever they want because of their status, regardless of the rules of the system
That's because this is the case. Don't like it, GM yourself.

>this is the case
wrong
wrong
wrong
you
are
a
terrible
gm
and
person

I reiterate: You're an entitled piece of shit and you need to kill yourself. Many systems even explicitly state rule 0 in some form.

autistic faggot

Kill yourself retard.

The GM has always been above the rulebook because in the end, if you don't like the GM's rulings, your choices are either to convince him otherwise or to start your own campaign. The only exceptions are games without one single GM. All editions of D&D have Rule Zero in the rulebook.

Yup. It's explicitly RAW that the DM supersedes all other RAW.
Typically, I follow it anyhow b/c it's easier.

Okay so this really is a stretch for you guys but I feel like you'll appreciate it anyway.

I once played Settlers of Cataan (it's technically a game) with some people and there's this rule where you build settlements along your roads. Like, you need a road to hit a point before you can have a settlement there. But, roads have to be connected to a settlement or another road.

This stupid motherfucker was insistent that this meant you could just simultaneously build a settlement and a road ANYWHERE on the game board and it was kosher because, by his reasoning "there is now road there, and the road is okay because there is now a settlement there". I carefully explained my counterargument about how not only do the rules say you can't do that, it clearly doesn't follow the spirit of the game either. It was like I was speaking Greek.

I don't know if they were just deliberately testing my patience, but I could never see this guy as anything but a moron from that point on.

I've posted this before, still salty as fuck.

>At tournament
>Playing against Chaos Dwarves
>He charges the murder train
>Aligns unit corner to corner so it blocks another unit
>wtf mate that's not maximising
>"Maximising just means two units have to be touching, so I can put it anywhere, so suck it user."
>Absolute bullshit, call for judge's opinion
>Judge agrees it's bullshit but allows it
>Outright tell my opponent that's bad sportsmanship and he's being a dick in a game of toy soldiers
>"Lol don't care user, gives me the advantage :^)"

I killed that fucking train, but still.

>Rule 0, bitch.

>The rule which reinforces that the main point of RPing is to have fun
>The rule which provides advice that should something now work/be covered, its ok to handwave to move along
>Confusing it with the "Golden rule"
>Worse, using it to imply the the GM is above the hopefully balanced or at least functional arbitration provided by the rules for no other reason then begin the GM

It's so easy to spot a power starved autistic That GM.

I've always felt that Rule 0 was meant to be used sparingly when RAW doesn't cover a situation or produces some sort of wonky effect. GMs that don't bother to learn the rules in the first place abuse Rule 0 and the entire game suffers for it.

Rules give common ground. They tell the players what they can expect out of their characters and the world. It gives them an idea that if they do X the result will be Y. A GM that relies on Rule 0 constantly is robbing his players of their ability to plan or even build characters because the rules of the universe are constantly in flux with his whims. For example, say I make a PC that is very good at climbing and acrobats based on the assumptions of the system. The book lists climbing a stone wall as rolling at -4, and I've made my guy skilled enough that he can easily climb such a wall. When a GM who hasn't read the rules gives me a -10 for climbing a stone wall and refuses to change because he's the GM and what he says goes, he's not using Rule 0 to keep the game fun, he's abusing it to shut down a challenge to his competency and the result is a less fun game.

In a way, Rule 0 is a lot like fudging the dice: good GMs use it sparingly to keep the fun times rolling, and bad GMs use it constantly to cover their own failures or to go on a powertrip.

Before anyone starts crying, I GM, and I've been GMing with the same group for three years now. Before then, I played a lot with a number of groups and seen way to many shitheads in the GM seat that confuse "I can change the rules when I need to" with "I should change the rules when I want to." I've used rule 0, because no system is perfect and we use living people as GMs so they can make judgment calls when necessary. Similarly, I've fudged dice before because sometimes the dice just decide to fuck a player. However, the amount of people I see advocating either the wholesale abuse or the total abandonment of those two meta-rules is astounding.

Why would the judge allow it if he knows its bullshit?

Asshats tend to spend the most money at the store, and owners want to keep them happy and buying. Alternatively, if the offending player is known for tantrums or other forms of emotional instability, the judge might have decided that having a salty but sane player is preferable to Autismo the Man-Child making a huge scene and disrupting the entire tournament.

I'm and
>Rule 0 was meant to be used sparingly when RAW doesn't cover a situation or produces some sort of wonky effect
Is mainly what I use it for. The "entitled player" argument ITT comes from, I think, players trying to abuse RAW to create those effects to their adventage. See "coffeelocks" in 5e---logically it shouldn't work, but in the rules it does, so the GM can reasonably Rule 0 to shut it down.

DMs who do noting but invoke Rule 0 are being almost as bad, but trying to force the DM into someone's ridiculous powergaming fantasy is a bit much.

And the idea behind the DM being the ultimate arbiter essentially means that yes, as says, the DM is above the rules by nature of being the DM. That's how it works. Ultimately it's the DM's call, even for something explicitly in the rulebook. I change the cap on falling damage, for example.
Ideally, however, a DM should explain their reasoning behind their house rules and be willing to be flexible in them.

I used to be an admin on DuelingNetwork.

YGO is one of the most ridiculous and convoluted games around when it comes to the way it is ruled, with some cards outright contradicting one another in terms of how they are ruled. The TCG was particularly retarded because they used a system of "Whatever a judge says when this first comes up at a big event is the precedent", and thereafter everything had to follow the example of said judge who would often be a total retard.

Has lead to all sorts of arguments, and people hassling me over rulings I made that either I fucked up on or they just refused to agree that I was correct on. Also a lot of fights with people who were accusing the other of cheating but couldn't prove it. Most of them were along the lines of "Mystical Space Typhoon does/doesn't negate", but there was also so much fucking bickering over how people were supposed to use Convulsion of Nature on DN, and a lot of it was in Spanish, which I can't speak, so I had to keep the translator up all the time and explain patiently why my grammar sucked and what the ruling was.

Worst one IRL was an event I was playing in where I argued with a particularly loud guy sitting next to me over whether something missed the activation timing when detatched as an Xyz material. Opponent was being very civil, but loud guy just had to interject and tell me repeatedly I didn't understand the rules. Least he shut up quickly when the official judge there looked it up and told him he was wrong.

Because of Rules as Intended vs Rules as Written. The Judge's job is to enforce Rules As Written rather than make personal decisions about what was intended that change how the game is played.

whether more dice makes everything better
whether fail with success/success with fail is stupider than Cardi B
whether pokemonifying RPGs requires a cardinal or an archbishop to absolve

Non-wargamer here. What's 'maximising'?

When two units meet, you would clip them so that maximum number of models are in contact with a maximum number of their models. The Iron Daemon and Hellpit Abomination should have been in base to base contact head on, not have the ID connected to the abomination by its corner, blocking the slaves.

You are correct! The others are wrong.

You are incorrect. Enjoy stewing in your erroneous opinions..heh.. Hehheh... A ha ha ha.. HAA
*inhales*
L-LOOOOLE.

Stop being a whiny little bitch. Do you LITERALLY NOT EVEN ACKTCHUALLY QUITE know how a GM works?
How does it feel
>being this fucking new

That's literally HOW a GM works, turbo-autist bitchboi. Cry moar.

Oooooh. With that explanation and my looking at the diagram more I get it now. What an arsehole that guy was. Thanks for helping me get it.

You are the correct one. The other guy ate shit when presented with your logic.

Lol u mad because you're wrong? Try being smart then, how about? Instead of crying out your whiny little bitch ass on the internet because you never bothered to read a god damned rule book. Fuckin casual normieplayer scum.

TL;DR.
All of this goes without being said anyway, as it is all common sense knowledge and anyone that disagrees probably should find a new hobby.

Not exactly about mechanics, but talking about software (games) development cycles, and how even if it's a dlc or expansion pack the dev cycle is more often than completely separate from the main game. Then my retarded normie friends unable to think as non-casual gamers started going full brainlets and saying "HURR SO THE DLC IS A NEW GAME, LOOK, THAT EXPANSION FOR STARCRAFT IS STARCRAFT 7, ISN'T IT? HAR HAR HAR"

I fucking hate people IRL.

>be clearing out giant ant nest
>do well enough during initial incursion
>get to queen
>suddenly dozens of ants
>was to be expected, just hold the line
>ants start shooting acid
>backliners start dropping like flies
>has DMPC make super obvious comment to make a wall of fire
>only have two flasks of oil and caster is out of spells
>GM rules that flasks of oil can not only burn two 5ft squares for no fewer than seven rounds, but provides a viable hilltop Thermopylae defense because the enemies were "mindless"
>have a few "are you shitting me"s but do so because fuck it, it's an out
>ants suspiciously forget how to shoot acid after fire goes up
>had he not explicitly told us to do so would have definitely been a TPK
>proceeds to taunt us for being so dumb
Fucking glad he's gone

-2 to hit for an extra 1d6 damage isn't exactly broken.