With this question in mind, there are others, I'd like to suggest a cheese tag as a clear identifier of people looking for fun exploits. This particular question, and the comments in response, is why I am asking.

We support a plurality of play styles. Munchkin/cheese merchant is a play style.

Proposal: tag [cheese] with the deliberate intent of asking for cheese/rules exploiting fun. We play games for fun. Here is the kind of fun answer that is perfectly suited for a cheese tag kind of question.

I now don my helmet and flak jacket

NOTICE #1: nothing in this question has anything to do with the RAW tag. Zero. Zip. Nada. Do not even go there. This is about fun, because Pun-Pun was silly fun when whomever came up with it arrived at the formula.

NOTICE #2: For reasons (?) two different mods removed / edited the reference to cheese in the title of the post, but did leave the text at the end. This happened after this meta was posted.

  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Probably from someone lactose-intolerant. </rimshot> "I'm here all week, people!" \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60 Mod
    Jun 13 '17 at 2:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast I find the term 'cheese' mildly offensive, and it's a very edic way of approaching things. Don't really want to perpetuate negative discourse here. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 20 '17 at 17:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer I find cheese mildly amusing, the occasional exploration of cheesy loopholes part of the fun of the RPG hobby, and I see no reason that I should not be able to speak freely on meta. Censorship request understood (where we sit determines what we see) and politely declined. If this is "negative discourse" then I will have to review whether I wish to have any discourse on this site at all in the future. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 21 '17 at 14:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer: I have no idea at all what you mean by "edic", and dictionary/web searches turn up nothing relevant. (I noticed you used a related word, "edically", recently, presumably for similar reasons.) \$\endgroup\$
    – user17995
    Jun 21 '17 at 19:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ @TuggyNE Emic and edic are words for talking about kinds of descriptive discourse, especially as regards cultural elements. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic Also, apparently I've been pronouncing/spelling the word wrong and it's etic not edic :/ Ah well. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 22 '17 at 3:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer Glad you cleared that up, as I wasn't sure if I was being called e dic. 8^D At some point, stretching the vocabulary boundaries impinges upon clarity. Having looked up the proper term, I am not convinced that it was correctly used unless you meant that "etic" described your complaint rather than my usage. When clarity suffers, simpler prose is sometimes in order. Erudition is at times off-putting. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 22 '17 at 3:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast They are words that come up pretty often in normal conversation where I'm at. In context, I believe that 'cheese' as a term is generally used to positionally locate something the speaker identifies as Other. A such, an etic perspective is belied through the use of the term. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 22 '17 at 4:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer Slang is not necessarily that loaded. See also the entire category of language known as jargon. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 22 '17 at 13:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast right, I think this specific term is loaded. Apparently that sentiment is not shared by anybody else around here, so I'll drop it, though. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 22 '17 at 21:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @thedarkwanderer I am personally familiar with being the one voice crying out in the wilderness, IRL and in various on line venues. We may disagree, but I know where you are coming from. Know that I get wary of "you can't say that" because the sub text is far too often "you are not allowed to think that, or even consider it." Not necessarily the case in this matter, but I've long since lost confidence in honest discourse on the internet. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 23 '17 at 0:14

We support a plurality of playstyles, but we're really super careful about introducing tags for them because they're probably meta tags--to the point that we arguably don't have any yet. If we want to experiment with playstyle tagging, I don't think "fun" is a good concept for the first try (no matter what we call it) and [cheese] is a term which has vastly different connotations for various corners of the RPG community: it's already caused unnecessary confusion on this very page.

  • \$\begingroup\$ [cheese] not [fun] is the proposed tag \$\endgroup\$ Jun 13 '17 at 2:55
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Honestly "cheese" would be a worse test of the concept, as it's even more likely to mean vastly different things to different users (see above, where you and mxy are disagreeing that "cheese" is associated with strict close reading of the text). \$\endgroup\$
    – BESW
    Jun 13 '17 at 2:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ OK, I'll let this attract up and down votes, and the hive mind of meta shall do its thing. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 13 '17 at 2:59

If someone explicitly wants cheese, let them ask for it.

Let's not use a tag as a substitute for asking, in a question, for exactly what we are looking for to solve a problem or achieve an objective. The emphasis on what is wanted needs to be clear in the text of the question, not a tag.

In the example question, in both the title and in the body of the question (before edited out by two mods), the person asking for some cheese explicitly spelled out that cheese was desired content in an answer. This is a good thing. It is similar to questions that include criteria for how to evaluate answers, such as:

  • "a good answer will address {points X, Y, and Z}"

  • "as I am the DM, please don't say talk to the DM" .

A sample criterion in seeking exploit/cheese might read:

  • "Any exploit is welcome, the cheesier the better. I want my DM's eyes to roll."

Like at Burger King, you need to ask for cheese on the Whopper to have it your way.



"Fun" is subjective. We already have a tag for "exploits," the rules-as-written tag, which is on that question already.

More than that, we shouldn't even have that tag in the first place - we don't have tags for other playstyles, because doing so is a meta tag, not describing the actual question.

Removing that tag has proven problematic for reasons everyone knows all too well, but compounding that error is pointless.

I'm not sure why you would propose something and then shout "I don my helmet and flak jacket," as if you already know it's a bad idea but want to stir up arguments and passions about the RAW topic. Maybe reconsider.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I do NOT want anything to do with RAW in this discussion. I shall add that to the question. Are you saying that this would be a synomym for [exploit] tag? \$\endgroup\$ Jun 13 '17 at 2:52
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ No, I'm saying exploits are what RAW is for. So there already is a tag for this, and it's already on the question. Saying "this isn't about RAW" is not helpful, because it is. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Jun 13 '17 at 2:56
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Hmm, that's not how I see it, since the whole point of cheese is to find silly ways to get something out of the game, often in a very meta way. I don't see RAW as its equivalent, and indeed I think that tag has a different idea behind it. OK, I'll let this attract up and down votes, and the hive mind of meta shall do its thing. if it's a bad idea, so be it. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 13 '17 at 2:57
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Further that point, I see the RAW tag as how we end up trouble shooting a process document. (How is it that those cars all got painted green, not orange? What rule got in the way?) that's a fair part of it "why is it I can or can't do this?" is another piece of it. I don't see it as "let's break the game for fun tonight" or "let's get the DM to roll her eyes" which is where my question came from. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 13 '17 at 3:09
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ -1 I disagree that RAW==Exploits \$\endgroup\$
    – Wibbs
    Jun 13 '17 at 7:06
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I do agree that RAW is not the tag for cheese and exploits -- RAW is about a single shared source of truth, and other non-RAW playstyles can do things people would call cheese and exploits as well. Certainly the RAW world contains some cheese and exploits for fun, e.g. theoretical charop exercises like the Jumplomancer or the Omniscifier or Pun-Pun, but they're not synonymous. I agree on it being a meta tag though, and a deeply subjective one at that. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 13 '17 at 8:55
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm not saying they're synonymous, but if you want exploits RAW is the way to do it (there's no such thing as a non-RAW exploit, the whole point is exploiting the rules as written). "Exploit" is a goal, not something to tag a question with. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Jun 13 '17 at 12:13
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk An example of a non-RAW exploit is BESW's bag of holding demilich: in one campaign he exploited some narrative additions to the game world about how bags of holding were handled to make a virtually immortal lich with a phylactery nobody would realistically be able to reach and destroy. There was no notable RAW exploit involved in this result; items and spells were used within their normal parameters. My gist is that not all RAW is about exploits, and not all exploits are about RAW. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 13 '17 at 12:52
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk I see where you are coming from, I didn't initially. Your point being that if you are looking for cheese, put it in the text of the question (as the querent in the linked question did) not in a tag. \$\endgroup\$ Jun 13 '17 at 14:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .