What are some of the biggest uproars/flamewars over rules interpretations or loopholes in published games that you've seen over the years? We're talking about Rules As Written, not houseruling or homebrew. It can be for either online communities or your own gaming table.

One of the funniest was the whole cavalier vs. fighter debate that raged in The Dragon forum for quite a while. A flamewar at the speed of a monthly print magazine is fun to go back and re-read.

This multi-thousand post beast in rec.games.frp.dnd from the early 2000s that involved whether or not casting Invisibility on a door would allow you to see through it.

People kept trolling that thing (and by people I mean different handles used by werebat) and keeping it going and going and going.  Hilarious.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;616645This multi-thousand post beast in rec.games.frp.dnd from the early 2000s that involved whether or not casting Invisibility on a door would allow you to see through it.

People kept trolling that thing (and by people I mean different handles used by werebat) and keeping it going and going and going.  Hilarious.

Was there a centralized argument for/against?

Discussions involving Alignment and the Paladin's Code of Conduct are some of the most infamous and timeless of rules arguments on the 'net.

Also, Fighter vs. Wizard threads.  No matter the message board, they just never seem to go away.

Quote from: Libertad;616709Also, Fighter vs. Wizard threads.  No matter the message board, they just never seem to go away.

I'd disagree with the last part. I know at least one D&D message board that rarely has Fighter vs. Wizard arguments.

Several arguments around abstraction levels are perennial favorites: Are hit points a measure of damage? Are one-minute rounds too long? Should attributes be tied to real-world measurements? The hit point argument in particular has a recurring variant "9th level Fighter jumping off a cliff". The one-minute round argument sometimes surfaces in the form of "should a thief with a dagger get more attacks per round than a fighter with a greatsword?"

Does anyone have issue references for these great Dragon wars of old?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;616645This multi-thousand post beast in rec.games.frp.dnd from the early 2000s that involved whether or not casting Invisibility on a door would allow you to see through it.

Uhu? I missed that, but I guess that you CAN see through an invisible door. What are supposed to see instead: a rerun of the original Star Wars Trilogy?

IIRC in many fables things are made invisible so that people can see through them - often with dire results. It is one of the two classics uses of the spell.

Quote from: Zachary The First;616652Was there a centralized argument for/against?

I can't recall; I think common sense kicked in fairly quickly but one of the biggest douchebags who used to post there (he was so much of one I'm amazed he's not a mod at rpg.net these days) wouldn't let the "nay" side go, and a couple of trolls stepped in to periodically throw dry kindling and dump gas so it kept going like the energizer bunny.

Alignment arguments would be right up there. Not only Paladin code but also any discussion involving Druids and 'true neutral'.

Throwing in real world physics is a sure fire winner too.

Quote from: Piestrio;616733Does anyone have issue references for these great Dragon wars of old?

The whole "Forum" department during almost the whole (print) run of Dragon Magazine?

I remember many year-long, ongoing discussions about diverse things -- alignment, invisibility, female characters in D&D, (sexist artwork in D&D) etc. When one of them lost steam another one came up.

Alignment wars, and their variations.  The "what is Compassionate/Temperate/Valorous?" is particularly bad, because the game specifically says there's not a right answer, and I've still seen circles argue over it for thirty-plus minutes.  Least it actually means something, unlike the druid neutrality bull.

Stupidest one, bar none, Scrabble.  Yeah, that board game.  Can you use proper nouns?  Folk have written death threats over this.  Why the hell would you care?

As a less conventional rule matter, the Mind's Eye Theatre licensing fee/pay-to-play thing from 2005 was ridiculous.

Quote from: Piestrio;616733Does anyone have issue references for these great Dragon wars of old?

At least judging from (un)reason's Let's Read of early Dragon magazine issues, the answer's going to be "most of them", given that they ran into unending pedantry over converting Tolkien's elves to D&D by issue 5.

Quote from: Reckall;616856Uhu? I missed that, but I guess that you CAN see through an invisible door. What are supposed to see instead: a rerun of the original Star Wars Trilogy?

I could see Invincibility through illusions, technology, or similar trickery-based stuff conceivably result in seeing what the caster or technique expects is in the next room, but it's certainly not be my first interpretation of the rules in a D&D-derived universe.

I still don't know exactly how the burst rules are supposed to work in RIFTS, but I know if I ask the wrong person about it I'm going to get in a fight.

Rules discussions can be pretty antagonistic.  One that I've seen that can get pretty bad is probably over what...exactly...wish is supposed to be capable of.  I see a lot of DMs (bad ones) that make what a wish can do very, very, very limited, but if the wish is phrased badly, it can remake all of reality to screw the players.  

I've seen lots of disagreement over how stealth should work and/or sneak attack.  Particularly from people that seem to think that it would be 'fair' if they completely ignore the 'non-rogue' attacker and focus all their attention on the rogue, so that he can't get sneak attack...  Of course, if they're completely ignoring the other opponent, it seems like he'd have little trouble completely decapitating you since you ignore him completely.  

Discussions of how intelligent 'mindless' creatures can be also gets ugly - usually comes up when the DM is being a dick.  Mindless creatures solve complex problems to give the PCs 'trouble' when such things should probably be beyond them.

Quote from: Zachary The First;616641What are some of the biggest uproars/flamewars over rules interpretations or loopholes in published games that you've seen over the years? We're talking about Rules As Written, not houseruling or homebrew. It can be for either online communities or your own gaming table.

Not RAW, but the TML is full of awesome flamewars over things like Space Pirates (can they exist economically with realism), Near-C Rocks (ultimate weapons or just a great name for a rock band), and Female Aslan in Comfortable Shoes (with a 3 to 1 female to male ratio in Aslan society, does this mean that bisexuality/lesbianism is rampant in Aslan society?).