8 ms·

A metaphor: I once played in a D&D campaign where a player tried to create an extremely overpowered but technically legal character. His justification was that

A metaphor: I once played in a D&D campaign where a player tried to create an extremely overpowered but technically legal character. His justification was that he would only use the extreme powers in moderation, so it would not be unfair or unbalanced. But why would he ask for such unprecedented powers if he didn't intend to use them?

varispeed 1y ago
Another one: someone buys a sports car and promises to drive within legal speed limits at all times.
- dgfitz 1y ago
  Nobody does that.
  - swiftcoder 1y ago
    I mean, every person who purchases a car does so, at least implicitly. The very act of obtaining a driving license contains an (often explicit) promise to abide by the rules of the road.
    - dgfitz 1y ago
      You’re conflating two things and ignoring the thrust of the point: nobody buys a fast car to drive it slowly. Maybe some people do, the vast majority do not. If promises about licenses meant a damn, we wouldn’t have speeding cameras.
      - swiftcoder 1y ago
        The promise is still made, regardless of whether one plans to keep it
        dgfitz 1y ago
        No, the “promise” is forced. It’s like an arranged marriage.
  - Kim_Bruning 1y ago
    Except in Germany! (Technically correct is the best kind of correct)
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      I believe the Autobahn still carries the legal requirement to drive at a safe speed at all times. Pedal to the floor racing is not often safe speeds for a public road.
      - criemen 1y ago
        Yes, yet [1] happened where someone took precautions to drive safely at >400 km/h speed. [1] https://www.drivencarguide.co.nz/news/no-charges-laid-on-bugatti-chiron-driver-who-exceeded-400kmh-on-autobahn/ https://www.drivencarguide.co.nz/news/no-charges-laid-on-bug...
        pxc 1y ago
        It sounds like an investigation was quite reasonable, and then it cleared him before charges were pressed. Seems pretty good!
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
- cyanydeez 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - cyanydeez 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ronsor 1y ago
      Sir, this is a comment thread about speed limits.
    - tomhow 1y ago
      > Looks like I upset the manosphere. Please. Your comment was plain old flamebait that's clearly against the guidelines, particularly these ones. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer... Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Users did the right thing to flag that comment, simply because it's against the guidelines and the intended use of this site. Please take a moment to read them and make an effort to observe them if you want to keep participating here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Integrape 1y ago
  A better one: the large number of individuals who drive super-duty pickup trucks only for commuting to their office jobs.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  IMO that's a little different since many of them also buying the utility of appearances, which be flaunted at entirely legal speeds or even while parked. In contrast, an expensive speedy car disguised as a cheap slow one would be much more suspicious.
  - collingreen 1y ago
    There are also ways to drive fast legally
  - westmeal 1y ago
    Allow me to introduce you to sleepers which are somewhat expensive cars disguised as cheap pieces of shit. Most I've been in are absolutely terrifying but seem like lots of fun.
- nine_k 1y ago
  A sports car could be bought just for the looks.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Based on how often I find myself watching laden work vans pass vehicles that can easily "do better" this, or something like it, is likely a common reason for purchase
- wiseowise 1y ago
  You can buy fancy sports car for looks and status.
- delaminator 1y ago
  "and my successors will all do the same"
DelightOne 1y ago
The threat already silences the opposition. You don't have to use it to silence people.
biotinker 1y ago
I actually think that a role playing game is exactly the soft of situation where this is in fact reasonable. There is a lot of mythology about gods walking among men, hiding their true nature, etc. And more recent examples include the TV show Lucifer. Someone wanting to roleplay that sort of being is entirely plausible. Without knowing the person's personality (which you presumably did) it's hard to say whether they would have genuinely wanted to do that or if it was an excuse.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago
  Yeah, if you have a huge amount of trust between player and DM that can work. There are both in-game and out-of-game ways to manage issues if they arise: in-game a DM can always limit or restrict something after the fact, out-of-game a problem can spark a conversation and ultimately a D&D game is a set of people who voluntarily get together and play. (That said, another approach is to have a conversation about "what are you trying to achieve", and find a way for everyone to have the fun they'd like to have without risking something game-breaking.)
- joe_the_user 1y ago
  As GM, I strongly disagree. Any player who wants a character with "I can overrule the GM but I will do that only occasionally" power is a very big red flag. A D&D game isn't a mythological story or TV show. It's a community told story where one character having an "OP" (over powered) character basically destroys the balance between player and GM as well as between player and player, both of which are extremely important. To make it clearer, the players and the GM will be struggling against each - in a controlled way, yes, but also a meaningful way. I'm not a super deadly GM but players will be risking death in at least low-key way and so everyone will sooner or later be "using everything they have". Edit: basically, saying "this rule/power/etc exists but won't have an impact" is more or less saying that the "rules aren't serious", in either the 'Chat Control' or the DM situation. But the very nature of rules is that we wouldn't have them if they weren't serious.
  - biotinker 1y ago
    I of course agree that the player should not be able to overrule the GM. I don't think that was the situation here. If you're playing an off-the-shelf campaign this is problematic. If the GM is creating the game as you go, then a good GM should be able work with the player to make this reasonable. The GM can always use GM-power to prevent a player from doing something, even if it involves a literal hand of God reaching down to stop them. A conversation with the player beforehand to make sure you're on the same page about this sort of thing would go a long way. Let them know under what circumstances you're willing to allow them to use whatever the power is. Let them know the consequences if they don't follow those rules. Unlike with ChatControl, a D&D game is a situation where the necessary trust is able to exist. An example: agree the player character is some trickster djinn sent from another plane to learn to be a human and how to trick people. They have immense cosmic powers of life and death, but as part of being sent over, they can only use the power for immediate comedy. Violations result in the djinn getting yanked back to their plane and disincorporated. Boom done. Now you have a massively OP character that can only use their power in humorous situations that don't affect the storyline, and if they try to abuse that then that's instant-death.
b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago
I actually did that for a campaign. It wasn't extremely overpowered but I did have some abilities that could have been extremely OP if abused. I don't even think it was really legal as far as RAW was concerned. In the end I was probably one of the least effective characters, but I was able to do some cool things with those powers and we had fun roleplaying it.
sharken 1y ago
I understand the metaphor, but there is a huge difference between a D&D player and an entity such as a government. For starters the government is not in the habit of releasing these new powers, once it's established it will stay for a very, very long time. And you can be sure the new powers will be used in unintended ways, which the citizens will have a hard time blocking. So it's actually very simple: No to Chatcontrol, now and forever.

varispeed 1y ago

Another one: someone buys a sports car and promises to drive within legal speed limits at all times.

dgfitz 1y ago
Nobody does that.
- swiftcoder 1y ago
  I mean, every person who purchases a car does so, at least implicitly. The very act of obtaining a driving license contains an (often explicit) promise to abide by the rules of the road.
  - dgfitz 1y ago
    You’re conflating two things and ignoring the thrust of the point: nobody buys a fast car to drive it slowly. Maybe some people do, the vast majority do not. If promises about licenses meant a damn, we wouldn’t have speeding cameras.
    - swiftcoder 1y ago
      The promise is still made, regardless of whether one plans to keep it
      - dgfitz 1y ago
        No, the “promise” is forced. It’s like an arranged marriage.
- Kim_Bruning 1y ago
  Except in Germany! (Technically correct is the best kind of correct)
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    I believe the Autobahn still carries the legal requirement to drive at a safe speed at all times. Pedal to the floor racing is not often safe speeds for a public road.
    - criemen 1y ago
      Yes, yet [1] happened where someone took precautions to drive safely at >400 km/h speed. [1] https://www.drivencarguide.co.nz/news/no-charges-laid-on-bugatti-chiron-driver-who-exceeded-400kmh-on-autobahn/ https://www.drivencarguide.co.nz/news/no-charges-laid-on-bug...
      - pxc 1y ago
        It sounds like an investigation was quite reasonable, and then it cleared him before charges were pressed. Seems pretty good!
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
cyanydeez 1y ago
[flagged]
- cyanydeez 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ronsor 1y ago
    Sir, this is a comment thread about speed limits.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    > Looks like I upset the manosphere. Please. Your comment was plain old flamebait that's clearly against the guidelines, particularly these ones. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer... Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. Users did the right thing to flag that comment, simply because it's against the guidelines and the intended use of this site. Please take a moment to read them and make an effort to observe them if you want to keep participating here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Integrape 1y ago
A better one: the large number of individuals who drive super-duty pickup trucks only for commuting to their office jobs.
Terr_ 1y ago
IMO that's a little different since many of them also buying the utility of appearances, which be flaunted at entirely legal speeds or even while parked. In contrast, an expensive speedy car disguised as a cheap slow one would be much more suspicious.
- collingreen 1y ago
  There are also ways to drive fast legally
- westmeal 1y ago
  Allow me to introduce you to sleepers which are somewhat expensive cars disguised as cheap pieces of shit. Most I've been in are absolutely terrifying but seem like lots of fun.
nine_k 1y ago
A sports car could be bought just for the looks.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  Based on how often I find myself watching laden work vans pass vehicles that can easily "do better" this, or something like it, is likely a common reason for purchase
wiseowise 1y ago
You can buy fancy sports car for looks and status.
delaminator 1y ago
"and my successors will all do the same"

DelightOne 1y ago

The threat already silences the opposition. You don't have to use it to silence people.

biotinker 1y ago

I actually think that a role playing game is exactly the soft of situation where this is in fact reasonable. There is a lot of mythology about gods walking among men, hiding their true nature, etc. And more recent examples include the TV show Lucifer. Someone wanting to roleplay that sort of being is entirely plausible. Without knowing the person's personality (which you presumably did) it's hard to say whether they would have genuinely wanted to do that or if it was an excuse.

JoshTriplett 1y ago
Yeah, if you have a huge amount of trust between player and DM that can work. There are both in-game and out-of-game ways to manage issues if they arise: in-game a DM can always limit or restrict something after the fact, out-of-game a problem can spark a conversation and ultimately a D&D game is a set of people who voluntarily get together and play. (That said, another approach is to have a conversation about "what are you trying to achieve", and find a way for everyone to have the fun they'd like to have without risking something game-breaking.)
joe_the_user 1y ago
As GM, I strongly disagree. Any player who wants a character with "I can overrule the GM but I will do that only occasionally" power is a very big red flag. A D&D game isn't a mythological story or TV show. It's a community told story where one character having an "OP" (over powered) character basically destroys the balance between player and GM as well as between player and player, both of which are extremely important. To make it clearer, the players and the GM will be struggling against each - in a controlled way, yes, but also a meaningful way. I'm not a super deadly GM but players will be risking death in at least low-key way and so everyone will sooner or later be "using everything they have". Edit: basically, saying "this rule/power/etc exists but won't have an impact" is more or less saying that the "rules aren't serious", in either the 'Chat Control' or the DM situation. But the very nature of rules is that we wouldn't have them if they weren't serious.
- biotinker 1y ago
  I of course agree that the player should not be able to overrule the GM. I don't think that was the situation here. If you're playing an off-the-shelf campaign this is problematic. If the GM is creating the game as you go, then a good GM should be able work with the player to make this reasonable. The GM can always use GM-power to prevent a player from doing something, even if it involves a literal hand of God reaching down to stop them. A conversation with the player beforehand to make sure you're on the same page about this sort of thing would go a long way. Let them know under what circumstances you're willing to allow them to use whatever the power is. Let them know the consequences if they don't follow those rules. Unlike with ChatControl, a D&D game is a situation where the necessary trust is able to exist. An example: agree the player character is some trickster djinn sent from another plane to learn to be a human and how to trick people. They have immense cosmic powers of life and death, but as part of being sent over, they can only use the power for immediate comedy. Violations result in the djinn getting yanked back to their plane and disincorporated. Boom done. Now you have a massively OP character that can only use their power in humorous situations that don't affect the storyline, and if they try to abuse that then that's instant-death.

b_e_n_t_o_n 1y ago

I actually did that for a campaign. It wasn't extremely overpowered but I did have some abilities that could have been extremely OP if abused. I don't even think it was really legal as far as RAW was concerned. In the end I was probably one of the least effective characters, but I was able to do some cool things with those powers and we had fun roleplaying it.

sharken 1y ago

I understand the metaphor, but there is a huge difference between a D&D player and an entity such as a government. For starters the government is not in the habit of releasing these new powers, once it's established it will stay for a very, very long time. And you can be sure the new powers will be used in unintended ways, which the citizens will have a hard time blocking. So it's actually very simple: No to Chatcontrol, now and forever.