Caveat

A caveat, if you will... I spent some time discussing this with a friend and there are some points I'd like to share about these posts, why I write them and what I expect to accomplish.

First, let me start by saying that probably, as a reader, you're never going to like me — or, at the very least, you'll never quite be comfortable liking me. That's because my concern is never with breaking things to the reader gently, or withholding my opinions because I know it will hurt someone's feelings, or suspend the feeling that others have of my intentionally saying something that makes them "feel stupid." That is probably what's going  on as I work my way through these White Box posts. Likely, you've read these passages a hundred times and it's never occurred to you that the light spell, for example, is as badly written as it is. And now that it's pointed out that it's barely English, that it looks like it was written by an 8-year-old, now you feel stupid for having not noticed it.

And your knee-jerk response is to think, "Fuck you Alexis for pointing it out. It was fine until you did that." The reason it was fine wasn't because you were stupid... in fact, you know that. The reason it was fine was because the rule itself was a placeholder for how you used it in your game — which was never what the rule said anyway. But since now you know the rule is written badly, you're questioning everything, and thinking to yourself, "Well fuck. How did I miss that."  To which the common response is, "I didn't miss anything, the rule's fine, fuck you Alexis." It kind of comes bang-bang-bang like that. And I'm willing to put up my hand and own that, because I don't actually give a fuck about your game. I'm not here for that. I'm here to educate. And if you don't like education, well... that's fine for you. But that doesn't affect why I write this blog.

My interest in writing stems from the desire to take things apart and examine them for what I think they are, based on subjects I've spent a lifetime studying — D&D for example, or game design, or history, or writing itself, and the various aspects of life related to these things. My process in gathering knowledge has included hundreds and hundreds of times of my "feeling stupid" because it was explained to me in not nice detail why I fucked up a print run or why the article I wrote was shit, or what a player felt about my DMing or any number of times that I've had to take stock of what I thought I knew and accept I didn't know as much as I thought I did. And while yes, those moments made me feel like shit from time to time, and brought me down, and often humiliated me, such that I didn't want to face again the person who took me to task or paraded my mistakes in front of others... on the greater whole, those moments have better shaped me for the things I want to do now. In a manner that I actively seek out content that is very, very hard to watch or listen to, because I know that looking the horror in the eye will transform me a little more each time, for the better. I want to be made to feel stupid. It's my thing.

Unfortunately for the reader, however, I'm not made to feel stupid when what I get back is self-evidently wrong. Now, I get it, the writer doesn't realise it's so; the writer thinks they're absolutely right.  I quote this from this book:

Sleep: A Sleep spell affects from 2-16 1st level types (hit dice of up to 1 + 1), from 2-12 2nd-level types (hit dice of up to 2 + 1), from 1-6 3rd-level types, and but 1 4th-level type (up to 4 + 1 hit dice).

And I say,

"The other obvious problem is, of course, that the spell assumes homogeneity among the targets. If I'm fighting an enemy human character party comprised of two 2nd-level, three 3rd-level and 2 4th-level, what dice do I roll?"

This clearly shows that I, at least, am confused about the language. In my 45 years of playing D&D, no table I ever played with, no player who ever employed this spell (and the same basic premise is repeated in AD&D), ever, ever, tried to argue with me that it meant this:

"In regards to your question about Sleep and who it effects in a mixed party: the description of who is effected is an "and" statement, meaning you roll all the dice for each level, not pick one."

Since no one ever proposed this in a game I played (and I've run the sleep spell in a combat hundreds of times), again, whether the interpretation is right or wrong, there's clearly doubt about how it's interpreted, which is the fucking point of the post. The post is not a discussion on what the interpretation ought to be, but upon the fact that interpretations are not consistent, which is a fault of the language, not a fault of mine for failing to understand the writing exactly as everyone else understands it.

This is why I am getting pissy now after writing 15 of these posts, because I have said, again and again, that the writing is the failure here, not my interpretation of it. And I have said how you interpret it is not relevant to this discussion, again repeatedly. And still regardless of this repeated point, I'm still getting people who are rushing forward to say, "I interpret it thusly." 

I'll take a breath now, because if I don't, I'll lose my temper.

You don't have to read these posts. They don't need to affect how you play your game. I am not God. I can't decide how you wish to interpret these spells. But if I were going to write it so that it clearly gave the interpretation that was offered as a correction to mine, I would have written it,

A sleep spell affects, collectively, 2-16 of any 1st level creatures in a group, plus 2-12 of any 2nd level creatures in a group, plus 1-6 3rd level creatures in a group, plus 1 4th level creature that might be in the group, should there be more than one type of hit die present.

But it doesn't say that. Which caused the people I played with to interpret it as, 

A sleep spell affects 2-16 of any 1st level creatures in a group, OR 2-12 of any 2nd level creatures in a group, OR 1-6 3rd level creatures in a group, OR 1 4th level creature that might be in the group, should there be more than one type of hit die present.

Because the original doesn't make this perfectly clear, these are but two of the possible interpretations that might exist throughout the zeitgeist. And this is the argument I'm making. NOT, as is the want of people who read and comment about D&D, "which is right," but "it's impossible to know which is right."

And the fact that a lot of people leaving comments on this post can't fucking understand this? Yes, that makes you stupid. Because you're arguing against an argument I'm not making.

This is why you're never going to like me, because I don't "fit" into the universe of your debate style. What you think these conversations are about are not what these conversations are about — and that is exactly why in my answers I have trouble not treating you like a stupid fucking child. Read all the fucking words. Not just the ones that fit with your compulsion to make a point that aren't relevant here.

Or don't read this blog. You obviously don't belong here, you don't want to learn anything and I'm not here to confirm your ignorance about D&D. If you want that, go read Maliszewski. He writes every day and he'll never challenge a thought you have. There's plenty over there to give you something to scan while you drink your coffee.

I don't want you here.