Jack Horner did that in Puss in Boots 2: “Excalibur! I couldn’t get this rock off of it, but it’s still pretty cool, right?”

I’m making a campaign set in fantasy Vegas, so I took the floorplan of a casino and made it into a map of the city.

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

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.

If you REALLY want shenanigans, have them make an int or wis saving throw with DC 2 to remember nobody is up there holding the rope.

Not even 1d4. It’s just 1 + STR, which is standard for an unarmed strike.

I once had a player in my game play a changeling who swapped places with someone, then forgot they were a changeling. So naturally, I had the rest of the party meet the original without her. That was a fun reveal.

Why would a campaign not need a tabaxi journalist?

I was once explaining a rules lite system I wanted to try to someone, and he kept complaining about how difficult it would be for him to learn a new system. I had to point out that I had already fully explained the rules while we were talking, and we weren’t even talking long.

I think some people just think every system is as complex as D&D.

Dragon Age quote from Iron Bull: Some high-ranking women wear ornamental crap with tits hammered into it. One good shot, and all that cleavage gets knocked right into the sternum. Real messy. Good on you for going practical. …Leaves something to the imagination, too.

Then use your words and say “dude, stop” or “could you maybe turn it down?” If the DM let it go on and never did anything to stop it, then it’s the DM’s fault it got as far as it did. Just because someone else is a villain in the story doesn’t mean you’re not.

And this is in the hypothetical situation that the bard is the specific strange kind of person who learns of a possible gloryhole in a TTRPG and uses it without question.

All I see is a DM making a castration joke, which is a dick joke but more gruesome, while blaming a player for a situation entirely within the DM’s power to stop by any number of peaceful, less disruptive means. They could have spoken to them, but they chose to cut off their dick.