# Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read



## Water Bob (Apr 23, 2011)

THIS IS A TREATISE that every GM should READ!

I believe, as the author of this document does, that modern roleplaying lends itslef to being "stale" and "boring" more often than old school gaming. I haven't been able to express that comment as well as it is expressed in the document linked above. 

I've even found myself running games that look more like the "modern game" examples in the document rather than the style of exciting play that I grew up on, as expressed in the document with the "old style games". 

I think that the Ye Olde Style game can be used with modern game rules. 

The hard part is getting players to trust their GMs to be more than just arbiter of the printed rules. GMs should be, as this document says, *THE RULEBOOK*. 

This is a fantastic commentary on styles of role playing. 

It's worth the read.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Apr 23, 2011)

In case people are trying to figure out what it is that he linked to, it's "A quick primer for Old School gaming".

I have no comment about the article itself because I think arguing about playstyles is about as useful as arguing whether chocolate or strawberry is a better flavour.

*shrug*

YMMV


----------



## Hautamaki (Apr 23, 2011)

I've read the article before, I liked it, it had some good ideas.  I don't know that it's necessarily accurate to define 'old school gaming' so monolithically, there were as many different ways to enjoy the game then as there are now.  But either way, fun is fun, and if you really feel that your own gaming is starting to get 'stale' then there might be something in there that you find useful.


----------



## frostburn (Apr 23, 2011)

I'm glad Scurvy posted before me. He helped me have a Zen moment, before I started a flame war. SP and H is right nobody can tell you how/what you fun at the table can if 10ft poles is r u idea of fun. have at it and enjoy. 

I have read more/better helpful "old school" advice in other places. which is growth for me bc as little as 6 months I would have told you all my wisdom is new school.

I need to go drink the blood of a few doves to feel better, now


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 23, 2011)

Just to be clear, I'm not telling anybody how to play.  What I am saying is that, in my opinion, the game has blown up a bit with a rule for everything.  

Player: "I've got an enemy in front of me and an enemy behind?  I've got initiative.  I'm going to dodge to the right and see if there's a chance they'll strike each other!"

DM:  "Um...no.  Sorry.  Not a chance.  There's the Pantherish Twist combat maneuver, and it says you have to have Improved Uncanny Dodge.  I know you don't have it, so there's absolutely no chance you can pull that off."

Player:  "Not even a 5% chance?  If I roll a d20 and get a 20?"

DM:  "No sorry.  No cool moves today.  Roll your regular attack."

In an old school game, the DM might think it unlikely, but might still give the player some sort of chance just because it was "fun".



And, that's probably a bad example.  Turn it around.  Two PCs are flanking an NPC badguy.  Both PCs have initiative, and, as luck would have it, the first rolls a natural "1" on his attack, followed by the second rolling a "1" one.  Neat conincidence.  Doesn't happen that often at all, both rolling a natural "1", back-to-back.

So, the DM says, "The Bad Guy dodges to the right, and the two of you have to make attacks at each other!"

Player:  "Wait!  That's the Pantherish Twist combat maneuver!  I saw it one the blah-blah-blah sourcebook.  Let's look it up, but if I remember, you've got to have Improved Uncanny Dodge to pull that one off.  Does the NPC have Improved Uncanny Dodge?"

DM looks at his NPC notes.  "Um...no."

Player:  "Whelp, can't do it.  Sorry."

DM:  "Hey...who's DMing who here?"



What I'm suggesting is, with all the rules bloat and such (and I like all versions of D&D that I've played), at least in some games, the creative give-n-take might be sucked out of a game.

It becomes an excercise, sometimes, in numbers.  I roll this.  What's your roll?  OK, this happens.  Then I do this.  If you do, you need to roll that.  OK, I rolled.  Do I make it.

That sort of thing.



I'm not saying that YOU play the game like this (YOU = to whomever is reading this).  I'm saying that the fading of the free-form play in favor of a-rule-for-everything play has, in some cases, reduced the power of the DM to an arbiter of the rules instead of being *The Rulebook*, as he was in the more abstract days.

Play the game as you wish.  I'm not going to stop you.

I'm just opening up a discussion here.


----------



## lostingeneral (Apr 23, 2011)

Reading through that (and note that I might be biased since I started with 4e), I would personally strongly prefer something halfway between the two play styles ("modern" and "old" style) described.

The modern style examples are all flat and without flavour, and seem to just boil down to either mechanical shortcuts or rules arguments. Meanwhile, the old style examples are colourful but occasionally just arbitrary. Though my games tip more towards modern style than old style, I certainly don't go to the extreme where everything is described and acted on in terms of numbers.

I think it's important to note that the main purpose of this primer is to elaborate on the _differences_ between old- and new-school gaming, and not to say that the former is better than the latter. It does highlight some points that could be improved upon in a general sense (more of a story focus versus rules focus) but it absolutely should not be taken as a way of saying "this is why modern gaming is terrible, and you should always play the old way." In other words, I think this is one of many perspectives that can (and should) be looked at to compare play styles and interpret what might be good to borrow, and likewise, should perhaps be strayed away from.

That's just my thought on it, though.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 23, 2011)

lostingeneral said:


> Meanwhile, the old style examples are colourful but occasionally just arbitrary.




That touches the point I'm making.  "Arbitrary" DM calls have become a "bad thing" in many people's eyes.  Players don't seem (to me, anyway) to trust their DMs they way they had to in the old days when there wasn't a rule for everything.

I'm a big proponent of "arbitrary" judgements by the DM in the game.  I don't call it "aribtrary", though.  I call it "creative".

I believe that a good, creative DM can make a game unbelieveable (good) with his description, sense of pace, and arbitrary judgements.

It doesn't matter if he would make the same call three months down the road when the same situation popped up again.  As long as he makes the game fun and exciting, who cares if you rolled 4d6 for a number under your STR score to force open a sealed tomb back during January's game, but in tonight's game, you rolled a d20, plus your STR mod, for a DC of 15+.

Heck, maybe the two tombs took varying amounts of energy to open due to the weather and swelling.  Or, maybe one was just plain harder to open than the other.

Arbitrary DM calls should not be a "bad thing".





> I think it's important to note that the main purpose of this primer is to elaborate on the _differences_ between old- and new-school gaming, and not to say that the former is better than the latter. It does highlight some points that could be improved upon in a general sense (more of a story focus versus rules focus) but it absolutely should not be taken as a way of saying "this is why modern gaming is terrible, and you should always play the old way." In other words, I think this is one of many perspectives that can (and should) be looked at to compare play styles and interpret what might be good to borrow, and likewise, should perhaps be strayed away from.




Well said.  And as I said earlier, I like all the versions of D&D that I've played.  I probably prefer d20 3.5 games over earlier versions of D&D, but I try to play them with an Old School tact.  And, if you slipped a 2E or 1E AD&D game in front of me, I'd embrace it.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 23, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> That touches the point I'm making.  "Arbitrary" DM calls have become a "bad thing" in many people's eyes.  Players don't seem (to me, anyway) to trust their DMs they way they had to in the old days when there wasn't a rule for everything.




Some DMs are total dicks, though. I cut my teeth on "old school gaming." My first character to survive to 2nd level got killed by turning down the wrong corner into a "magic missile crossbow trap."

I am, at heart, an old school player, but I do happily enjoy some advancements in the art, such as having vague awareness of how tough an encounter is, letting players understand their own capabilities to some extent, and not make the game about _my_ sense of whimsy, but about the environment itself. I consider myself fairly Gygaxian in outlook; I like to test the players, and to improvise, and to narrate interesting results, but I also don't like to strip away player's powers, which is what you do if their success depends mainly on your inclinations.


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 23, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> That touches the point I'm making.  "Arbitrary" DM calls have become a "bad thing" in many people's eyes.  Players don't seem (to me, anyway) to trust their DMs they way they had to in the old days when there wasn't a rule for everything.
> 
> I'm a big proponent of "arbitrary" judgements by the DM in the game.  I don't call it "aribtrary", though.  I call it "creative".
> 
> ...




I agree with both you and the article.
I don't have it in front of me, but the 1e and 2e rule books all have a paragraph in the beginning that reads(paraphrase) these are just guidelines, feel free to change them to fit your game


----------



## Crothian (Apr 23, 2011)

I've yet to run into a game that did not allow me to play the style of gaming I wanted.  Some make it easier then others but none completely prevent it.  Also, this seems to ignore many new games systems that do are fast moving and don't get bogged down in the rules.  Claiming all modern games are like 4e is very inaccurate.  It's almost as bad as claiming all older gamers are like 1e.


----------



## chaochou (Apr 23, 2011)

Well, I think play-styles and GM-ing styles changed precisely because some players found the 'old school' style a complete chore. If everyone had loved it we'd still all be playing that way, but some people bring other values to their games.

The example in the link shows a player 'checking' for a trap because he is 'suspicious' in a place where there *is*  a pit. It's typical of games of this style to give examples which allow a character to succeed and make the play and mechanics look like they work - but to disguise the fact that they only work because of the specific set-up in the example. 

Why had the player not checked 10 feet back? Would that not also be 'good play'? What about the 10-feet before that? And before that? Do you want to play that  scene out for every single 10-foot section of corridor? If you do, fine.  I don't.

Frankly, I can't think of anything worse than having to check every door, corridor, hinge and torch bracket with a pole and waterskin and torch and bag of dust to ensure my character's survival. Utter dullness for me. If others see it as 'good play' - more power to them.

But if I play for 4 hours, I want important things to happen in that 4 hours. I don't want to spend two of those hours inching down a corridor behind a paranoid thief.

IMO it doesn't take 'skill' to find a thing in an arbitrary place, it takes grind - relentless, repetitive checking. I think it's easy to look back 30 years with a sense of nostalgia but, for me at least, the reality of gaming in the early 80s is best left long behind.

As for rules.... rules are the mediator by which the GM and players agree what's happening in the fiction. More rules means more mediation in more situations. Some players and groups like that certainty. Others don't feel they need it.

But I simply don't buy that 'old school' games had fewer rules. It's demonstrably untrue. I was flicking through the original DMG yesterday - and there's a table for EVERYTHING. Gem value, morale levels of retainers, matrix grids of results for psionics, the effect of Bigbys Crushing Hand on castle fortifications... jeez, where's the room for GM improvisation in that lot?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 23, 2011)

TheUltramark said:
			
		

> I don't have it in front of me, but the 1e and 2e rule books all have a paragraph in the beginning that reads(paraphrase) these are just guidelines, feel free to change them to fit your game




Funny thing; 3e and 4e also have this speech.



chaochou said:


> But I simply don't buy that 'old school' games had fewer rules. It's demonstrably untrue. I was flicking through the original DMG yesterday - and there's a table for EVERYTHING. Gem value, morale levels of retainers, matrix grids of results for psionics, the effect of Bigbys Crushing Hand on castle fortifications... jeez, where's the room for GM improvisation in that lot?




Maybe the real reason 2e seemed to have fewer rules are that DMs had to ignore many of them!

I think old-school did some things well and some things poorly. I wouldn't want to go back to old-school though. I'd rather modify modern games to have the "good parts" of old-school.


----------



## amerigoV (Apr 23, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Just to be clear, I'm not telling anybody how to play.  What I am saying is that, in my opinion, the game has blown up a bit with a rule for everything.
> 
> Player: "I've got an enemy in front of me and an enemy behind?  I've got initiative.  I'm going to dodge to the right and see if there's a chance they'll strike each other!"
> 
> ...




No, it is a fine example. Some systems support this better than others (D&D 3.x and above do not naturally, but that is not to say a GM cannot get it to do so). In Savage Worlds, that is a simple Agility trick against the two opponents. If the PC wins, the enemy will either have lower defenses for a round or if a Raise (rolls much better than the enemy) it will stun them.

I am sure other systems have examples as well. 

Rules are hard to balance to actions. The more you define, the more it shifts from GM arbitration to player system mastery. Both have their plusses and minuses.


----------



## amerigoV (Apr 23, 2011)

Another thought on your example. In D&D 3.x+, its just not advantageous to do it. Since the classes are all good in combat, its just better tactics to burn them down. In older D&D and in other systems, each class/concept is not equally good in combat. The old saying Necessity is the Mother of Invention holds true. If I am a 1/2 Orc Barbarian with a 22 str, I am just going to crush whatever is in front of me. If I am playing a scholar with little combat ability, I will have to be creative to contribute to combat. 

For example,  pushing a stack of boxes over or cut the rope holding a chandelier is a suboptimal action for a class good in combat. But that might tip the balance in a 1e fight if the thief does it instead of firing his 1d6 damage bow into the fray.


----------



## Hautamaki (Apr 23, 2011)

amerigoV said:


> Rules are hard to balance to actions. The more you define, the more it shifts from GM arbitration to player system mastery. Both have their plusses and minuses.




This last is a great point.  A lot of players, myself included when I play, get enjoyment out of devising effective tactics and figuring out how to defeat enemies in combat using the least amount of resources possible.  In order for this play-style to be meaningful, it absolutely must rely upon predictable, consistent rules.  If your plans and tactics must perforce come down to DM ruling fiat, and he rules against you for whatever reason, it's a crushing blow to your ability to enjoy that battle.  Equally frustrating would be when you work out excellent tactics according to the RAW but then another player comes in and attempts something you think is downright silly (I distract the opponent by flashing him my bare buttocks then stab him in the eye while he gapes), but the DM rules in his favor and your plans come to nothing, once again, it's taking me out of the moment.

Without a predictable and consistent structure, where all decisions become arbitrary, the game system loses a lot of meaning.  Why have character sheets and statistics at all?  Why even play a game if your real goal is just to imagine yourself exploring a dungeon and doing incredible stunts?  You can do that just by chatting.

Not saying of course that anyone actually does that or goes that far, just pointing out that the opposite extreme isn't any more attractive than the caricature of the 'mechanics only numbers is everything' stifling play that the new school is accused of supposedly devolving into.


----------



## ThatGuyThere (Apr 23, 2011)

Re: The Rogue Example in that document...

The problem here is that the Rogue's success (in the "classic" example) does not represent an excercise of skill; it represents the player being Clever.

What if the man-at-arms, or wizard, had poured the water? Would they notice it flowing down? Or can they not notice that, because they're not rogues? Can they ever learn how to notice it? Can they improve their ability to notice it?

What if the party's ranger is played by a city slicker? Does he have to learn, out of character, how to light a fire and put up a tent?

Does the player of the wizard have to learn how to cast spells? Does the player of the fighter have to learn how to swing a sword?

I used to engage in the type of gameplay described here - until I realized, no matter how good the rogue gets at Find Traps, if I require him to narrate finding the trap, his skill will never matter - it'll all be based on his description.

Characters, in the type of gaming described, have no skills their players lack. That's a blow to versimilitude, and to fun.

Edited to add: The modern guy is also terribad at flavour text. When the Rogue succeeded, why didn't he say, "You get down on your knees, and go along the rim of the tile with your theives' tools. It quickly becomes obvious it's a concealed pit, and you disable it"?  ...mostly, because the writer of the document wanted the "classic" version to seem cooler.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 23, 2011)

Water Bob said:
			
		

> Player: "I've got an enemy in front of me and an enemy behind? I've got initiative. I'm going to dodge to the right and see if there's a chance they'll strike each other!"
> 
> DM: "Um...no. Sorry. Not a chance. There's the Pantherish Twist combat maneuver, and it says you have to have Improved Uncanny Dodge. I know you don't have it, so there's absolutely no chance you can pull that off."
> 
> ...




A creative DM like Piratecat can make this work in 4e. In fact, it works even better than in 3e.

Piratecat used the damage expression figures/level bonus to help. If a PC wanted to do that, they play the "cool thing" card. I believe that cost an encounter ability or possibly an action point. Doing so gave them the ability to do a "cool thing" like that.

While I don't recall that particular maneuver from his reports, there were maneuvers that did damage, equal to a standard attack +50% damage of a monster of their level for that card. Same thing if there's something special in the background, like an explosive barrel: it would deal AoE damage based on level, and could be set off by either side. (Realistic to base damage on level? No. But then surviving standing next to an exploding barrel isn't realistic either.)

I've done that once in my game. The PCs had rescued a bunch of ex-slaves, and a fight broke out. They told the ex-slaves to push over a giant wagon onto the bad guys (who being soldier-types had high AC scores). I made it attack (vs Reflex) and do damage as a 1st-level monster's AoE encounter power (the ex-slaves were 1st-level). One of the bad guys got very flat.

It's even easier for other maneuvers not covered in the rules. You want to do a flying tackle? Make it up as you go; a consistent rule system actually helps with this. Make a standard Strength non-weapon attack vs your victim's Fort defense (or Reflex, if you think that makes more sense). If you hit, you knock them on their behind, but you do low damage (as an unarmed attack). I came up with that example in about five seconds.

While that deadly dodging thing got praise from another poster, as a DM I'd be a little annoyed by that particular example. It's almost like the bad guys are taking penalties for flanking a PC. I've had players who are always trying to extract a no-cost benefit like that, and it's irritating.


----------



## Mark Chance (Apr 23, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Maybe the real reason 2e seemed to have fewer rules are that DMs had to ignore many of them!




DMs didn't have to ignore them, but the DM could without borking the entire system. OS D&D was sort of like a pyramid made out of alphabet blocks. You could knock a block out here, a block out there, and the pyramid stayed standing. D&D today, it seems to me, is more like a house of cards. The system has been so slavishly "balanced" that there almost literally must be a rule to cover every possible contingency.



(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> A creative DM like Piratecat can make this work in 4e. In fact, it works even better than in 3e.
> 
> Piratecat used the damage expression figures/level bonus to help. If a PC wanted to do that, they play the "cool thing" card. I believe that cost an encounter ability or possibly an action point. Doing so gave them the ability to do a "cool thing" like that.




That is indeed cool. But it's not actually part of the rules, right?


----------



## nedjer (Apr 23, 2011)

Crothian said:


> this seems to ignore many new games systems that do are fast moving and don't get bogged down in the rules.  Claiming all modern games are like 4e is very inaccurate.  It's almost as bad as claiming all older gamers are like 1e.




Very true.

It's surely an oversimplification to frame RPGs as Old School or New School:

Old School: surely most of us moved beyond pure hack and slay 30 years ago

New School: hexy D&D appeared in TSR's Dragonquest and Sniper 30 years ago

Middle School: looked for a balance between 'old' and 'new' over 30 years ago

Future School: delivers browser supported, quick turn, naturalistic setting, mesh mechanic, accessible systems that promote collaborative play and challenge focused missions.

Take AD&D 4e in transition as an example, browser-based DDI, design team talking about speeding up combat, Essentials adding accessibility, Wrath of Ash's collaborative model . . .


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 23, 2011)

Mark Chance said:


> That is indeed cool. But it's not actually part of the rules, right?




Neither were those DM calls in old-school games the thread is talking about. In either case, the DM is allowed to be flexible.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 23, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Some DMs are total dicks, though.




Why would you play with a total dick, no matter if he was curbed in via a rule for everything or given free reign to judgement call every circumstance?

Dicks are dicks.  Don't play with them.

(I know...we'll see what kind quips come from those two last statements  )





> I cut my teeth on "old school gaming." My first character to survive to 2nd level got killed by turning down the wrong corner into a "magic missile crossbow trap."




DM's have to learn how to be good DM's.  Many are young when they start out and they don't have a grasp on what makes a good game, and they haven't realized yet that the game is not a competition between the DM and players.

A young, inexperienced DM will mostly likely be a bad DM no matter the play style.









Crothian said:


> I've yet to run into a game that did not allow me to play the style of gaming I wanted.




In the end, sure.  That's correct.  But you've got to make a conscious decision if you're not just going to roll dice and look at the numbers--especially if there's a stat on the charcter's sheet that says the character is very good at a task.

"I'm checking for secret doors!  I rolled an X.  Did I find it.?"

That's the point being made.









chaochou said:


> Well, I think play-styles and GM-ing styles changed precisely because some players found the 'old school' style a complete chore.




I think that TSR, and then WotC, are basically book publishers.  Rule books always sell better than books that focus on other aspects of the game.  A majority of the people playing the game will buy the new Fighter's Guide, but only a smaller subset of total buyers will get the new sourcebook on the Jungles of Chult.

More rules = more sold books = more $.



I think, with 4E, we're seeing a bit of a rebellion against the old d20, crunchy market--an attempt to get back to the more rules lite days as most  games were 20 and 30 years ago.








ThatGuyThere said:


> The problem here is that the Rogue's success (in the "classic" example) does not represent an excercise of skill; it represents the player being Clever.




I've got two things to say to that.  First, you're not playing a computer game.  A player's play should always trump a dice roll.

This type of thing would even pop up in Ye Olde School type games.  Characters had the CHA stat.  So, when the character walked into the local tavern and pissed off the barkeep, some player may cry, "But, my character has an CHA 18!  Give me a roll!", after that player had role played a real jerk that insulted the barkeeps mother.

In my game, role play is king, regardless of stats on a page.  I try to use the throws to guide me in how I roleplay NPCs.  If the player makes a high CHA check, I'll make the NPC friendly.  If the check is low, I'll make the NPC not so friendly.

But, no matter the outcome of the throw, I'm not going to allow a high CHA score and a good roll trump a player's roleplaying.


----------



## Henry (Apr 23, 2011)

Mark Chance said:


> That is indeed cool. But it's not actually part of the rules, right?




It's kind of a losing game to get into the _"what's in the rules versus outside the rules"_ in an old-school vs. new-school thinking debate, because no edition of D&D has this kind of thing in the rules, and in fact the oldest versions of D&D only inferred in the broadest terms that such a thing was possible. (To me, "it's your game, do with it what you will" is pretty far from strong advice on improvised stunts, keeping good session pacing, inspiring your players -- stuff that I had to learn from sharing with others.)

The only reason I used to do these things in Basic D&D and Advanced D&D years ago was because I was used to games of "make-believe" and "let's pretend"; the rules in many places were contradictory and hard to understand, and talking with Gary Gygax years later I came to the glaring truth that he rarely used the rules as written, either! Not even for combat, the most detailed structure in the game!

I've played every edition so far, from Original D&D down to 4E, and the best DM skills I've learned have not been from a D&D book, it's been from talking to other DMs, observing their tricks, and sharing notes. It's true that some of the later DMGs have been picking up and including some of this "advice of the ages", but that's because people like Chris Perkins, Monte Cook, James Wyatt, and Jason Buhlman learned those cool DM tricks through the School of DM Hard Knocks, and wanted to pass them along to others.


----------



## nedjer (Apr 23, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Dicks are dicks.  Don't play with them.




Fair takes me back to life in the convent school


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 23, 2011)

The _Primer_ is a good read, but it's important to bear in mind that it's written in support of _Swords and Wizardry_, Matt Finch's _OD&D_ retroclone; it's a guide to playing _S&W_, and as such I think it's very well done.

But I disagree with the notion I've heard expressed by a number of gamers, particularly in the last few years, that 'old school' begins and ends with _OD&D_.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 23, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> In the end, sure.  That's correct.  But you've got to make a conscious decision if you're not just going to roll dice and look at the numbers--especially if there's a stat on the charcter's sheet that says the character is very good at a task.
> 
> "I'm checking for secret doors!  I rolled an X.  Did I find it.?"
> 
> That's the point being made.




That's how the 1e did it though.  There was a number characters needed to roll to find secret doors.  That hasn't changed.  It's when you move away from D&D that you get away from this.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 23, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> But I disagree with the notion I've heard expressed by a number of gamers, particularly in the last few years, that 'old school' begins and ends with _OD&D_.




I don't think that at all.  I've never played OD&D.  I've never layed 4E, either.  As for the other editions, I really like AD&D, 2E, and 3.5, all three of them.

But, I do think the skills and Feats and all the numbers on the 3.5 character sheet lends itself to what is described in the document as "modern gaming".

What I'm saying is, if you find yourself in that rut, there's no reason why you can't run a game using what the document refers to as "old school play" but still use modern day mechanics.






To illustrate what I'm saying, let's take the traps example in the article. Run the scenario as shown under the Old School Style. 

"But...!!! What about my Spot skill!" The player says, "Did I put those skill points in it for nothing?" 

No, Mr. Player, your character will still benefit, mechanically, from your high Spot rating, and you'll still be able to use it to detect traps and such. Except, now, the DM rolls your Spot secretly behind his screen and uses the result to guide how he describes the scene and answers your questions as you roleplay it out, Olde School Style.





*Example:* 

*GM:* “A ten-foot wide corridor leads north into the darkness.” 

*John the Roguish:* “We move forward, poking the floor ahead with our ten foot pole.” 

*GM:* Is about to say that the pole pushes open a pit trap, when he remembers something. “Wait, you don’t have the ten foot pole any more. You fed it to the stone idol.” [if the party still had the pole, John would have detected the trap automatically] 

*John the Roguish:* “I didn’t feed it to the idol, the idol ate it when I poked its head.” 

*GM:* “That doesn’t mean you have the pole back. Do you go into the corridor?” 

*John the Roguish:* “No. I’m suspicious. Can I see any cracks in the floor, maybe shaped in a square?” 


*HERE, THE PLAYER HAS BASICALLY CALLED FOR A SPOT CHECK. THE GM ROLLS THE SPOT BEHIND HIS SCREEN AND GIVES THE PLAYER NO IDEA OF THE RESULT--AS THE RESULT WILL BE ROLEPLAYED WHEN ANSWERING THE PLAYER'S QUESTIONS.* 

With a failing result, the DM will not offer any description the player does not ask for. He'll answer the player's questions, but the player has to be specific, and the DM will make discovering the trap as reasonably hard as he can. 

With a successful result, the DM will be more willing to provide broad information based on the player's questions, and the rest of the scenario might go like this on a successful Spot check.... 




*GM:* “No, there are about a million cracks in the floor. You wouldn’t see a pit trap that easily, anyway.” 

*John the Roguish:* “Okay. I take out my waterskin from my backpack. And I’m going to pour some water onto the floor. Does it trickle through the floor anywhere, or reveal some kind of pattern?” 

*GM*: “Yeah, the water seems to be puddling a little bit around a square shape in the floor where the square is a little higher than the rest of the floor.” 

*John the Roguish:* “Like there’s a covered pit trap?” 

*GM:* “Could be.” 

*John the Roguish:* “Can I disarm it?” 

*GM:* “How?” 

*John the Roguish:* “I don’t know, maybe make a die roll to jam the mechanism?” 

*GM:* “You can’t see a mechanism. You step on it, there’s a hinge, you fall. What are you going to jam?” 

*John the Roguish:* “I don’t know. Okay, let’s just walk around it.” 

*GM:* “You walk around it, then. There’s about a two-foot clearance on each side.” 




So....how would it be different if the secret Spot check had been failed? 

It might go like this... 




*John the Roguish:* “No. I’m suspicious. Can I see any cracks in the floor, maybe shaped in a square?” 


*GM:* “No, there are about a million cracks in the floor. You wouldn’t see a pit trap that easily, anyway.” 

*John the Roguish:* “Okay. I take out my waterskin from my backpack. And I’m going to pour some water onto the floor. Does it trickle through the floor anywhere, or reveal some kind of pattern?” 

*GM*: “No, it just puddles there on the floor, making muddy seams between the cracks." 

(See...this is hard on the player. The G\DM decides that, since the Spot check failed, that the Player's idea of trying water has a result that is not obvious as with the success example above. There is years of dirt and grim in those floor cracks, so thick that the water is not penetrating. Yet, the DM still gives the player an "out" by drawing attention, albeit slim attention, to the "mud" between the cracks. If the player catches on and pulls his dagger to scrap through the mud, then the DM should allow the water to sink down through the cracks.) 

*THIS IS WHAT YOU DO WITH A FAILED CHECK.* YOU MAKE IT HARDER FOR THE PLAYER. 

NOTE THAT A PLAYER CAN STILL USE HIS NOGGIN AND FIND A SUCCESS EVENTHOUGH HIS DICE THROW FAILED. 

USE THE DICE THROW TO DETERMINE HOW YOU GIVE OUT INFORMATION, BUT STILL ALLOW THE PLAYER TO USE HIS PLAY SKILL TO OVERCOME SITUATIONS. 

DON'T BE RULED BY DICE THROWS. LET ROLEPLAYING, FUN, EXCITEMENT, AND COMMON SENSE PREVAIL. 

*John the Roguish:* “Hmm...no indication of a trap.?” 

*GM:* “Not that you can see.” 

*John the Roguish:* “Can I disarm it?” 

*GM:* “Disarm what?” 

*John the Roguish:* “I don’t know, maybe make a die roll to discover the trap and jam the mechanism?” 

*GM:* “You can’t see a mechanism." 

*John the Roguish:* “OK, I'm going to hold on to Frank The Cleric with my left hand, put all my weight on my left foot, and then lean in with my right foot, allowing the tip of my boot to put some pressure on the center of the corridor." 

*GM:* “It's hard, but you seem to feel like the floor gives a little as you push on it." 

*John the Roguish:*"I push harder." 

"*GM:*It pops quickly. It's been closed so long that the mud and dirt were sealing it in place, but, yes, indeed, there is a trap door there. When it gives, you jolt, but since Franks' got a hold on you, he keeps you from tipping forward when you put your weight on the trap. What do you want to do now?" 

"*John the Roguish:*Is there room to walk around it." 

"*GM:*There is. There’s about a two-foot clearance on each side.” 

*John the Roguish:*"We walk around it, then." 

*NOTE HOW THE SPOT CHECK FAILED BUT THE PLAYER'S ABILITY TO PLAY THE GAME ALLOWED HIM TO OVERCOME THE BRICKED THROW AND STILL DEAL WITH THE TRAP.*



*Of corse that's just one way to do it.  You may enjoy a different approach.*


----------



## Greg K (Apr 23, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> I agree with both you and the article.
> I don't have it in front of me, but the 1e and 2e rule books all have a paragraph in the beginning that reads(paraphrase) these are just guidelines, feel free to change them to fit your game




Yes, they do.  The 3.0 DMG basically states the same in a few places and it gives lots of variants  for customizing the game.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 23, 2011)

Greg K said:


> Yes, they do.  The 3.0 DMG basically states the same in a few places and it gives lots of variants  for customizing the game.



As does the 3.5 DMG, and the 3.5 MM too (more or less, in some ways).

Don't make me go chapter and verse on y'all. AGAIN! 



Water Bob, I regret to inform you that your decision to run a d20 game, S&S in flavour though it indubitably is, has dictated that your OS card be forfeit.

Hand it over, buddy.


----------



## chaochou (Apr 23, 2011)

*John the Roguish:* “OK, I'm going to hold on to Frank The Cleric with my left hand, put all my weight on my left foot, and then lean in with my right foot, allowing the tip of my boot to put some pressure on the center of the corridor." 

*GM:* “Nothing happens"

Rinse and repeat for the next 10 feet of corridor. And the next and the next and the next and the next and the next and the next and the next. And the next and the next and the next. And the next.

When suddenly

*John the Roguish:* “OK, I'm going to  hold on to Frank The Cleric with my left hand, put all my weight on my  left foot, and then lean in with my right foot, allowing the tip of my  boot to put some pressure on the center of the corridor." 

*GM:* “Okay, as you put pressure on the floor you hear a click and the entire ceiling section drops down on you and Frank the Cleric for 20d10 damage. Ooops."

I don't suppose these make such good examples though.

It's built into the original example that the player is looking in exactly the right spot for exactly the right type of trap.

But with no trap there the whole things dissolves into an exercise in searching repetitively, every 10 feet, for the non existent. And with anything other than a pit trap there the player can still get killed despite 'using his noggin'.

This doesn't encourage any sort of gameplay that I want to experience. In my experience it results in player caution and paralysis as they check every flagstone for pits, pressure plates, poisoned bdarts, hidden crossbows, sprung blades, magical wards, secret doors, concealed doors, illusions, etc etc etc.

Sorry, but it ain't for me.


----------



## Greg K (Apr 23, 2011)

Aus_Snow said:


> As does the 3.5 DMG, and the 3.5 MM too (more or less, in some ways).
> 
> Don't make me go chapter and verse on y'all. AGAIN!
> 
> (




Lol. I never owned the 3.5 core books (I just use the srd with my 3.0) so I couldn't state with certainty.


----------



## the Jester (Apr 23, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I believe, as the author of this document does, that modern roleplaying lends itslef to being "stale" and "boring" more often than old school gaming.




I hate to tell you this, but this whole thread is just an inch shy of an edition war. Not only that, it comes across as pretty "one-true-wayist" and basically sounds like you played early editions with a good dm but have only had crappy dms in later editions.

Let's take the whole "I'm flanked and want to dodge out of the way so they hit each other" thing as an example. There's this page in the 4e DMG that is there so that pcs can do "stunts" rather than just relying on their powers. The tools are already there. A good dm will use them. And a crappy dm won't allow the pc to be creative, _regardless_ of edition. Are you seriously positing that every old school dm would automatically do for the dodge-hit-each-other thing? Of course not. And would you seriously tell me that no new school dm would? You can't, because I just pointed to the new school page that says, "Here's how!"

The key to good, or at least one key, is a good dm. Period. A crappy dm runs a crappy game, even with a good system. A good dm runs a good game with even a poor system- and a _great_  dm runs a great game even with a crappy system. 

I definitely agree that there's a difference between old school style and new school style, _but it isn't the stuff you're pointing at._ To me, it's more an attitude. An old school style dm isn't afraid to destroy your gear, kill your character, remove your limbs, give you cursed items, and all without checking with the player first. An old school style dm uses your magic item wish list for scratch paper and then throws it away. An old school style dm is a referee and adjudicator. A new school style dm helps make sure that everyone is having a good time even if it means that he pulls his punches and limits his dirty tricks (_Mordenkainen's disjunction,_ I'm staring you in the face). A new school style dm doesn't use many random encounters, because they throw the game off track.  A new school style dm tries to ensure that the party is relatively balanced so nobody is useless, makes sure they have appropriate gear for their level and doesn't use encounters 19 levels above the party. 

Each type has advantages and disadvantages, and some people prefer each. Nothing wrong with that, and with discussing it. But I think you're doing the new-school guys a disservice in the entire framing of the thread.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 23, 2011)

Chaochou just explained why following the rules strictly in any edition can be a bad idea. Was it so hard to just have one check per room/hallway, even if the rules didn't strictly "allow" this?

In late 3.5 and now in 4e, traps are more interactive once combat starts.

What? Yes, traps can be part of combat. Ideally, a lot of traps are _not_ hidden and don't require a check to spot. They're right there in the open... on the other side of the room, between the PCs and the treasure in the next room, and perhaps there are kobolds who ensure it's targeting the PCs and not them.

Quite often, the rogue will be frantically working on the "disarm panel" (a skill challenge in 4e parlance) while the rest of the party is keeping him alive by killing kobolds (if there are any) and using magic to heal and/or resist the effects of the trap.

While the newer editions have featured encounters of this type, you could of course use such an encounter in 2e.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 23, 2011)

chaochou said:


> But with no trap there the whole things dissolves into an exercise in searching repetitively, every 10 feet, for the non existent. And with anything other than a pit trap there the player can still get killed despite 'using his noggin'.
> 
> This doesn't encourage any sort of gameplay that I want to experience. In my experience it results in player caution and paralysis as they check every flagstone for pits, pressure plates, poisoned bdarts, hidden crossbows, sprung blades, magical wards, secret doors, concealed doors, illusions, etc etc etc.
> 
> Sorry, but it ain't for me.




The author of the article (and myself) do not advocate boring gameplay.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Part of the DM's job is to keep the game moving and interesting.

So....the DM knows there's a trap the PCs are about to walk over.  He's got notes on all the PCs with skills listed.  Behind his DM screen, he does a quick Spot roll for the players.

They don't know what he's doing.  Heck, he's always rolling dice behind his screen and then not saying anything.  Sometimes, he does it just to increase tension.  "You're opening THAT door?"  Rolls dice.  "OK, it's unlocked.  You pull it open.  The room is dark beyond."

The DM looks at the result of the Spot check and then plays off of that.  If it's a failure, he doesn't say anything to the players.  It's up to them to "use their noggin" or just walk over the trap.

If the Spot check is a success, then the DM gives the players a clue, out of the blue, to tip them off that "something is up".

"You get to rrrriiiigggghhhhtttt HERE, when you notice that the floor seems to be cleaner--more free of dirt and grime--in the space before you."

The DM is thinking that those who fall into the trap "clean" the floor a bit when they slide on by to their doom.

Still, the DM is giving the PCs a clue, and game is interesting.

It's not:  "Hey, I rolled a Spot check for you and you noticed a trap right here."

And, a good DM will sometimes go through the exact same procedure when there is no trap.  Just roll some dice and tell the players that the floor looks a little cleaner beneath their feet.

Heck, maybe the last drunk goblin that walked through that corridor spilled some of his wine there.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 23, 2011)

chaochou said:


> But with no trap there the whole things dissolves into an exercise in searching repetitively, every 10 feet, for the non existent.



*Referee:* "You see a ten-foot wide, forty-foot wide corridor ahead of you ending in a wooden door with iron bands."

*Caller:* "Okay, we'll do 'The Usual.'"

*Referee:* "So, the dwarf will take a moment to detect slanting passages, unusual rockwork and all that, then you'll head off down the hall, probing carefully with the ten-foot pole ahead of us as you go to detect pressure plates, loose rocks, and tripwires, and the elf will scan for secret doors as you move, right?"

*Caller:* "Yep, unless or until we find something out of the ordinary."​
See, 'The Usual' was a feature of pretty much every roleplaying game I ever played. Luke Crane created Instincts for _Burning Wheel_ so that 'The Usual' was actually part of the character. 'The Usual' limits exactly the sort of grind you're talking about.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 23, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> But, I do think the skills and Feats and all the numbers on the 3.5 character sheet lends itself to what is described in the document as "modern gaming".



So 'modern gaming' began with _Traveller_ (1977), _RuneQuest_ (1978), _Top Secret_ (1980), and _The Fantasy Trip_ (1980)?

There are gamers out there who believe this to be true. They also see 1e _AD&D_ as 'not-old school' as well.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 23, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Why would you play with a total dick, no matter if he was curbed in via a rule for everything or given free reign to judgement call every circumstance?
> 
> Dicks are dicks.  Don't play with them.




1. You often have to play with someone one time to find out they're dicks.
2. I was eight years old.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 23, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> 'The Usual' limits exactly the sort of grind you're talking about.​





Ooooo.  I've got to disagree here.  When the DM asks, "What do you want to do?"  And the Caller yells out, "The Usual"....man, that doesn't sound too far removed from, "Roll a Spot check.  What'd you get?  A 16?  OK, you found the trap.  Roll to deactivate it.  What'd you get?"​ 





pawsplay said:


> 1. You often have to play with someone one time to find out they're dicks.
> 2. I was eight years old.




LOL, and understood.



I'm guess your dickified DM was 9 years old at the time?


----------



## chaochou (Apr 23, 2011)

I'm honestly struggling to see any modern vs old school distinction in the pdf linked to in the OP.

I can see a numerical vs descriptive style of GM-ing and play in the  examples. But play based on crunch has been around as long as gaming  itself - I don't associate a desciptive style as being 'old school'.

Maybe even the reverse - the indie game rejuvenation over the last 10  years has seen lots of games published in which stats and system mastery  are pretty much irrelevant, and that actions, decisions, conflicts,  goals and stakes are the drivers.



Water Bob said:


> So....the DM knows there's a trap the PCs are about to walk over.  Behind his DM screen, he  does a quick Spot roll for the players.
> 
> They don't know what he's doing.  Heck, he's always rolling dice behind  his screen and then not saying anything.
> 
> ...




I find it baffling that a GM would make dummy dice rolls (to prevent  players from making meta-game decisions based on the fact a roll was made) but  then expect a player to actively make a meta-game decision to continue  looking for a trap which the character has absolutely no knowledge of or  reason to suspect, having already made, and failed, a spot check.

That may be an interesting game for you. Personally I find it tedious and incoherent.

Which isn't to denegrate anyone's idea of fun, just to say that mine is something considerably different.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 23, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> *Referee:* "You see a ten-foot wide, forty-foot wide corridor ahead of you ending in a wooden door with iron bands."
> 
> *Caller:* "Okay, we'll do 'The Usual.'"
> 
> ...




There are some players who now go so far as to . . .


*Referee:* "You see a ten-foot wide, forty-foot _long_  corridor ahead of you ending in a wooden door with iron bands."

*Caller:* "Okay, we'll _Greyhawk_ the corridor. [ _- ed_]

*Referee:* "So, the dwarf will take a moment to detect slanting passages, unusual rockwork and all that, then you'll head off down the hall, probing carefully with the ten-foot pole ahead of us as you go to detect pressure plates, loose rocks, and tripwires, and the elf will scan for secret doors as you move, right?"

*Caller:* "Yep, unless or until we find something out of the ordinary."​

I find this shorthand disturbing and generally am not as accommodating as the Referee in the example, letting the players spell it out.  It doesn't take any more time, really, and I also make sure to let them know how the clock is ticking (and try to devise scenarios where time is of the essence).

I think the treatise has a lot of good things to say, by way of reminder, about what makes any old school or modern game fun.  The author was very careful to point out that this was a treatise on GMing styles and not about editions, as any RPG can be run to embrace the more immersive conduct being engendered in the examples of play.  It's just that with rulesets that define the details of mechanics more there is sometimes less leeway for GMs to draw in players, since they can more easily fall back on the mechanics as a way to get from point A to point B.  When I go to see a 3D IMAX movie I like to sit close enough so that the edges of the screen are not quite in the field of vision I have through the 3D glasses.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 24, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I'm guess your dickified DM was 9 years old at the time?




Like, 12, I think.


----------



## nedjer (Apr 24, 2011)

B-)
 
I'm guess your dickified DM was 9 years old at the time?[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Between this and the minotaur's dick thread - enough with the dicks for one week


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 24, 2011)

nedjer said:


> Between this and the minotaur's dick thread - enough with the dicks for one week




I understand. You're tired of getting dick. 



This post edited for exceeding the maximum allowable Dick Per Post limit.  - Rel


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 24, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Ooooo.  I've got to disagree here.  When the DM asks, "What do you want to do?"  And the Caller yells out, "The Usual"....man, that doesn't sound too far removed from, "Roll a Spot check.  What'd you get?  A 16?  OK, you found the trap.  Roll to deactivate it.  What'd you get?"



Which is why a number of posters are calling what's in the _Primer_ something of a false dichotomy. Dwarves and elves have had the ability to identify secret doors and such on a die roll since _OD&D_, without describing how they are searching, frex.

"Roll a Spot check" requires nothing more than consulting one's character sheet. Explaining how a character will use a ten-foot pole to detect trip wires as well as pressure plates is pretty much the opposite of that - in the first, the player is playing the character sheet, in the second the player is trying to imagine the game-world and describing her character's actions therein.

In my experience, roleplaying games have always been a blend of the two.

I believe it's on the referee's shoulders in traditional play-styles to turn rolling a skill check into something which makes the players' think: "Yes, you found the outline of what appears to be a covered pit of some kind, but there's no obvious means for disabling it - what do you do?" is an entirely valid response to, "I roll to deactivate." If the _Primer_ teaches anything about old school play, it is that.







Mark CMG said:


> I find this shorthand disturbing and generally am not as accommodating as the Referee in the example, letting the players spell it out.



And I find it odd that a group of professional murder-hobos would not have a set routine for proceeding in an environment in which death can come from any direction and any moment in untold gruesome forms.

And I get tired of hearing the same things over and over again.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 24, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> And I get tired of hearing the same things over and over again.





I hear ya.  Tough to keep it fresh.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Apr 24, 2011)

When I started reading the first "zen moment" I experienced a zen moment of my own.

The author basically lives in a different universe than I.  I found something to object to in almost every sentence.




> The referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens or rolls a die if he thinks there’s some random element involved, and then the game moves on.



The only thing about common sense is that it isn't.

The GM will make a call, and if it isn't what the players want to hear, the game will not move on, it will stop immediately for an argument that can only by won by excellent debate or more probably by, "Because I'm the GM!"

The issues caused for so many years in RPGs by not having rules to cover those situations is why rules were created to cover those situations, and it is my personal opinion (read, "common sense", </sardonic smile>) that this is by far the best situation.




> Many of the things that are “die roll” challenges in modern gaming (disarming a trap, for example) are handled by observation, thinking, and experimentation in old-style games. Getting through obstacles is more “hands-on” than you’re probably used to.



Players frequently have no idea how to do what their character's abilities and powers allow.  Asking for them to describe what they do off the cuff and then arbitrarily ruling on the described actions is not going to work most of the time, at least from most players' perspectives.


The "example" of "modern gaming" was hyperbole.  When I think of my "old gaming" sessions back in the early 1980s, the given example is what I think of.  Older gaming sessions weren't brighter and better, they were colder, more emotionless, and mechanical.

Old school to me: "You're at the Dungeon."  "We go in and kill stuff."  "You loot the last monster and then you're back in town."

I read further, but I kept running into continuing near-insurmountable levels of disagreement.  I was unable to finish.  I may try to get through it tomorrow.




Water Bob said:


> And, that's probably a bad example.  Turn it around.  Two PCs are flanking an NPC badguy.
> 
> Player:  "Does the NPC have Improved Uncanny Dodge?"
> 
> DM looks at his NPC notes.  "Um...no."



In all the games I have ever GMed, I have never answered any questions about NPC stat blocks or capabilities to just a random question like that.  Typically speaking, most GMs I know also wouldn't answer.  Maybe it's a local thing.  If a player had a specific capability that let them know, fine.  Otherwise, at best, the player would get, "You have no way of knowing."


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 24, 2011)

RainOfSteel said:


> The GM will make a call, and if it isn't what the players want to hear, the game will not move on, it will stop immediately for an argument that can only by won by excellent debate or more probably by, "Because I'm the GM!"




If this is true, then you play with players who do not trust the GM.  Bottom line is that players have to accept the GM's call as final.  They may object or suggest something different if they disagree with the GM, and a good GM will listen to what they have to say.  But, if the GM doesn't agree with the player, the players have to accept that, right or wrong in their opinion, the GM's word is law.  Let's move on.

I ran a 7 year campaign back in the 90's, with five players, and a decent dose of GM arbitrary rulings.  It was one of the best, most interesting campaigns I've ever run.  Remarkably, in the entire 7 years, we didn't have one argument.  Not a single argument.

Did we have some disagreements?  You bet.  Did the players always agree with my calls 100% of the time?  Nope.  But we just had a great group of guys who realized that the game needs a strong GM, and by playing, they accept the Ref's rulings.

In short, I had their trust.

Sometimes I'd change my arbitrary call based on some objection, and sometimes I wouldn't.  I ran the game as fairly as I could, and it was fantastic.  We still talk about that campaign today.

I've got some different players today, and one in particular is a "loud complainer" when he doesn't see things are going the way he would Ref the scenario.  His "loud complaining" sometimes influences the other players, and I've got to keep him in check.

And, when it comes down to it, he doesn't trust me.

I'm trying to figure ways to earn his trust and have him accept Me AS RULEBOOK rather than just the guy who intperprets all the 3.5 printed rules.

If I'm not successful in getting him to trust me, I'm going to have to boot him from the group. 

And, I really hate doing that because he's a great role player who really "gets into" the game.


----------



## nedjer (Apr 24, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I understand. You're tired of getting dick.




Don't want to go all Dickensian on you, or dicktate what gets posted in forum. 

But thanks, I'll be more than happy if I haven't spotted another dick all day long.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Apr 24, 2011)

So someone left the comment:


> Discussing play styles is useful, advocating one over others is not.




Discussing player styles _can_ be useful. The problem is that it doesn't ever actually stop at discussing; you get this thread. Arguing. The difference between a discussion and an argument being defined by me as "A discussion is an exchange of ideas. Additionally, a discussion sometimes also contains a possibility of one person influencing another.

An argument is one or more people (possibly forcefully) stating how their opinion is correct and attempting to get others to acknowledge it, while not being interested in having their opinion changed."

Discussions, I dig. Arguments... *shrug*... I've got a cat.

This thread? I really don't see anything positive coming from it. Just folks gettin' all het up about nothin' and ever more firmly entrenched in their opinions about how the earlier days of rpgs sucked/rocked.

One quick thing before I go...


Mark Chance said:


> That is indeed cool. But it's not actually part of the rules, right?




If I understand both what (Psi)SeveredHead was talking about and what you asked...

Yeah, actually what Piratecat appeared to be doing _is_ explicitly covered by the rules. His specific implementation of it is his own, but when the discussion already is about whether or not a GM is making the rules their own, it seems like a bit of a funny quibble.

But the effects seem to be relying straight off page 42 of the 4E DMG, which explicitly says, "Actions the Rules don't cover". It discusses use of a Circumstance bonus, DCs for a check depending on the level and whether the GM determines whether it's Easy, Moderate, or Difficult, Improvised Damage (book explicitly offers stumbling into a campfire or a vat of acid as an example) and whether to use a Normal or Limited damage expression; the normal and limited expressions are explicitly mentioned as being comparable to a monster's At Will (normal) or a monster's special powers (limited).

Page 42 is a singularly fantastic tool for a GM to use in 4E. Having played and GMed D&D from Basic up through 4th, I gotta say that it's one of the greatest little tools a 4E GM has. It allows for a GM to both be a rules keeper as well as an adjudicator or whatever you wanna call it. It lets a GM both reward player creativity, as well as ensure that they have a _consistent_ approach to how that creativity is rewarded, and as a bonus it's explicitly set up so that it's on-par with what other effects (attack, checks, whatever) are doing too.

Page 42 is the sort of thing that _all_ rpgs ought to have and almost none of them do; I'd say "none" but there probably is at least one other somewhere, I just am not aware of it. If all else fails and a GM isn't sure quite what to do with something... page 42 it baby. It might not seem like much for old hands at GMing but for folks new to it or new to the system? That's a mighty comforting tool to have.

I now return this thread to its regularly scheduled program.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Apr 24, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> If this is true, then you play with players who do not trust the GM.



Attempting to frame the discussion as one of trust for the GM is incorrect.

When players have to "trust" the GM, this is really saying that players have to accept negative rulings based solely on an arbitrary GM decision, especially when it might not make any sense, and when it is almost certainly going to be different the next time around, and also be affected by favoritism.  I don't call it trust.  I call it surrender.

If Gandhi were running the RPG session, I might trust him.  But the reality is that most gamers are genuine geeks and nerds, and social grace isn't found at the surface or core of our beings.  In my experience, anti-authoritarianism also tends to run strong among gamers.  These things do not lend well to trusting anyone, nor establish one to be placed into a position of trust.

The following situation: "I shot you!"  "Nuh, uh!  I shot you!"  "Nuh, uh!" ...is why the rules exist in the first place.  When you remove those rules, you have one person making all the decisions.  I want nothing of it because I want my own degree, no matter how small, of control over the story myself.

A classic maxim of GM advice is to avoid being be the adversary of the players, to present a world and its challenges, but not to personally fight against the players.  A very rules light primarily-trust game environment encourages the adversarial relationship by placing too much in the hands of the GM.

Those who wish to play Amber RPG-style games can do so.  I will avoid them.

What is "common sense" to one person isn't to another.  Rules exist to smoothly bridge the gap.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 24, 2011)

nedjer said:


> Don't want to go all Dickensian on you, or dicktate what gets posted in forum.
> 
> But thanks, I'll be more than happy if I haven't spotted another dick all day long.




LOL! 

Dickensian, huh?

As Oliver said, "Please, sir, may I have another?"







Scurvy_Platypus said:


> Discussing player styles _can_ be useful. The problem is that it doesn't ever actually stop at discussing; you get this thread. Arguing. The difference between a discussion and an argument being defined by me as "A discussion is an exchange of ideas. Additionally, a discussion sometimes also contains a possibility of one person influencing another.




It all depends on how you read the thread, I guess.  I'm not heated or trying to argue things--just simply stating my case.

I do notice that some come back a bit forceful, and some seem to take my comments as "argument".  But, I think that's the nature of a forum.

Especially when you're talking about something people feel strongly about.





> Discussions, I dig. Arguments... *shrug*... I've got a cat.




My sentiment exactly, except I've got a dog.  My dog loves me.  My cat is dead.







> Page 42 is a singularly fantastic tool for a GM to use in 4E.




If you have to say that the GM has power because it says so on pg. blah blah of the rulebook, then you are missing the point of this thread.

If I had to sum down the point of this thread into as few words as possible, I'd do it in just one sentence:  *The GM IS THE RULE BOOK*.

That's the point of this thread.

Get that.  Get the thread.







RainOfSteel said:


> When players have to "trust" the GM, this is really saying that players have to accept negative rulings based solely on an arbitrary GM decision, especially when it might not make any sense, and when it is almost certainly going to be different the next time around, and also be affected by favoritism. I don't call it trust. I call it surrender.




Then you don't understand the point of this thread, either.

You've got to play with a GM that you know will treat you fairly and won't be subject to favoritisim.  (I can't figure how playing with a GM under any style of play can be fun and good if your GM is playing favorites.)





> If Gandhi were running the RPG session, I might trust him.




Good lord!  You'll never trust your GM!

I think that's more your problem based on this statement.







> But the reality is that most gamers are genuine geeks and nerds, and social grace isn't found at the surface or core of our beings.




Good gosh, brother, who are you playing with?  My group isn't any of those things.  I wouldn't characterize us with any of the terms you use.

I'll say that we are very aware that there is a stigma about role players out in the world, and my group tends to hide what we do from the world.  I work for a large financial firm downtown.  Nobody has a clue that I game.  One of my other players actually hides it from his wife.

Some people embrace it, I know, but I've been down that road before and lived to be sorry for it.

It's a shame, though, that me and my group have decided to "stay in the closet" so to speak.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Apr 24, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> THIS IS A TREATISE that every GM should READ!




It's a long-winded defense of using GM fiat as your resolution mechanic wrapped up with a pretty bow on top. It then attempts to slyly claim that detailed descriptions, player-initiated action, and GM rulings all depend on using GM fiat as your resolution mechanic... which is patently and obviously untrue.

Furthermore, its general thesis that "modern games include mechanics for resolving stuff that old school games didn't" is severely selective in its sampling of reality. As a simple example, OD&D included explicit resolution mechanics for monster morale; 4E doesn't.



Water Bob said:


> In the end, sure.  That's correct.  But you've  got to make a conscious decision if you're not just going to roll dice  and look at the numbers--especially if there's a stat on the charcter's  sheet that says the character is very good at a task.
> 
> "I'm checking for secret doors!  I rolled an X.  Did I find it.?"
> 
> That's the point being made.




But in all editions of D&D -- dating back to OD&D in 1974 -- secret doors have been detected by rolling a die and looking at the result.



Water Bob said:


> *HERE, THE PLAYER HAS BASICALLY CALLED FOR A  SPOT CHECK. THE GM ROLLS THE SPOT BEHIND HIS SCREEN AND GIVES THE PLAYER  NO IDEA OF THE RESULT--AS THE RESULT WILL BE ROLEPLAYED WHEN ANSWERING  THE PLAYER'S QUESTIONS.*




That's how 3E recommends handling Spot checks and a passive Spot check with no roll at all is the default in 4E, IIRC.

Your examples are actually making my point for me: There is no division between editions here. The Primer is fetishizing OD&D's lack of certain resolution mechanics and holding up the lack of resolution mechanics as this marvelous and wonderful thing... while ignoring all the resolution mechanics OD&D does possess.

In short: I would recommend that _no one_ read the linked treatise. It's a poor premise misleadingly presented. Whatever good advice it contains can be found in more productive forms in many different places.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 24, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> But in all editions of D&D -- dating back to OD&D in 1974 -- secret doors have been detected by rolling a die and looking at the result.




At what point did you take this thread to be anti-die roll?

I don't think you're getting the point at all.





> In short: I would recommend that _no one_ read the linked treatise. It's a poor premise misleadingly presented. Whatever good advice it contains can be found in more productive forms in many different places.




That confirms it.  You really don't get it.

But, that's OK.  You don't have to.  Nobody's trying to force you to get it.  It's there if you want to embrace it.  If not, nobody's mad at you, and nobody's telling you that you can't have fun doing it some other way.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 24, 2011)

Beginning of the End said:


> In short: I would recommend that _no one_ read the linked treatise. It's a poor premise misleadingly presented. Whatever good advice it contains can be found in more productive forms in many different places.




I recommend everyone read it. It's a useful window into the mind of the self-serving GM. It must be admitted that, yes, the philosophy presented on resolution in general is largely irrelevant to the thrust of the essay.


----------



## Dannager (Apr 25, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> That confirms it.  You really don't get it.




I think it's probably fair to say that he understood what he read. That was largely my takeaway from it as well. It would be _just_ as easy to turn it around on you, and say, "You still think that treatise is valid? Wow, *you really don't get it*."

In the future, when you tell someone who disagrees with you that _they don't get it_, you should make an effort to explain your point in a way that can be more easily understood. If you don't, it just lends the appearance that you aren't familiar enough with your own argument to break it down for someone who doesn't understand it.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 25, 2011)

Dannager said:


> In the future, when you tell someone who disagrees with you that _they don't get it_, you should make an effort to explain your point in a way that can be more easily understood. If you don't, it just lends the appearance that you aren't familiar enough with your own argument to break it down for someone who doesn't understand it.




There are four pages in this thread where I've commented on that document several times.

You're asking me to repeat myself again?


----------



## Dannager (Apr 25, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> There are four pages in this thread where I've commented on that document several times.
> 
> You're asking me to repeat myself again?




No, I'm telling you that when you say "Psh, you just don't get it," that isn't _at all_ productive on its own. If you're not going to follow that up with an earnest effort to explain your position, you're probably better off not saying it in the first place.


----------



## Mercurius (Apr 25, 2011)

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if I repeat what others have already said. I think the whole Old/New School thing has less to do with the game or edition or rules than it does with both when one started playing, and what the basic assumptions were in those formative games and years, but also the way a group relates to the system, whether as strict rules or as flexible guidelines. I started in the early 80s and it may not have been until 3E that I played fully by the "RAW." Even then, DM's discretion always trumped rulebooks (and still does).

That said, I think the New School approach has added something in that it better allows players to advocate for themselves (through the rules). Now of course this can and does get obnoxious, so as long as it is understood that the DM is the final arbiter, not the rule books, it works out OK.

So I suppose I'm a 70/30 Old/New school style gamer.

One side note. Despite my feeling that this is more a matter of game style than rules system, I do think that the 4E rules--because of the vast array of power options--subtly discourages free-form actions by players. I've tried to introduce the option for players to take improvisational actions with variable bonuses and damage, sort of like "stunt powers," but they rarely take up on it. I'm thinking of changing this to a free encounter power that players can use.


----------



## Thasmodious (Apr 25, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> If you have to say that the GM has power because it says so on pg. blah blah of the rulebook, then you are missing the point of this thread.
> 
> If I had to sum down the point of this thread into as few words as possible, I'd do it in just one sentence:  *The GM IS THE RULE BOOK*.
> 
> ...




That's not what the poster or pg. 42 is saying at all.  It has been pointed to, both in the primer and in this thread that the earlier editions empowered the GM by stating things along the lines of Rule Zero, the DM had the final call, the rules are guidelines, etc.

In 4e, all "page 42" is, is a look at the core math of the system, so that when the DM makes the many judgment calls that come up in a game, he has a way to easily and consistently handle the mechanical side of that judgment call.

For example, your scenario of the PC dodging to make two opponents possibly hit each other.  I'd call for an an athletics check against an appropriate DC from the chart on page 42, and if successful have the two foes roll basic attacks against each other or use the damage expressions from the same chart.

The point is that the chart and advice on page 42 is there to aid the DM in doing exactly what you are talking about, while keeping it balanced and making the numbers make sense based on the core mechanics of the game.  Yes, you can do it without such a chart, but it's there to encourage the DM to allow for creative play on the part of the players by making the mechanical side of such rulings a piece of cake.

And, as an aside, it comes off as fairly condescending to dismiss others as "just not getting it".


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 25, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> That said, I think the New School approach has added something in that it better allows players to advocate for themselves (through the rules). Now of course this can and does get obnoxious, so as long as it is understood that the DM is the final arbiter, not the rule books, it works out OK.




The whole "Old School vs. New School" thing really muddies up the point I was making with this thread. People see those words in the article and naturally assume this is a thread about one edition being "better" than the other.

This is what I mean when I say someone *"just doesn't get it"* (to answer the the last couple of challenges on this).



The point of this thread is quite simple:

*I'm saying that I think the game is 10 times more interesting when action is focussed on what the players DO as opposed to what they ROLL.*

DM: You turn the corner and see a long corridor before you. It's dark. No light. You can't see beyond your torchlight. What do you want to do?

Player: Hmmm....I'm suspicious. I want to check for traps.

DM: OK, roll it.

Player: I got a 17 with all my bonuses.

DM: You see a hair thin, almost invisible line, about ankle height, stretching acorss the corridor five feet past the corner you're at.

Player: Oh yeah? I'll disable it. (Rolls dice.) I rolled a 22 on my Disable Device skill.

DM: You snip the line with your dagger. The hair-thin string snaps to the sides. What do you want to do now?



See...whether that's Old School or New school gaming, it's FREAKIN' BORING! 

This thread isn't about what rules set you play. If you "get it", then you know its about getting back to how the game was usually played back in the old days when players didn't know what to roll to disable traps. They had to wait for the DM to describe the situation to them and try different things.

One of the points of the article--the one that I'm keying in on--is that new editions of D&D and a lot of other games are rules heavy with a rule for everything. When the player is forced to wait and listed to the DM, trying to figure out what he needs to do, the game is so much more enjoyable.



*Here's the POINT of this thread, in a nutshell...*

Let's say that there was no Disable Device skill in d20 3.5. And, let's take the scenario that I made up as I wrote it above: You've just turned a corner and the DM has told you that you see a hair-fine filament stretched across the corridor. He asks you what are you going to.

Well, what are you going to do?

You can't just say, "I'm going to roll on my Disable Device skill," because, remember, we took it out of the game. It doesn't exist.

So...you're standing there...looking at that then, almost invisible line stretched across the corridor...what are you going to do?

You've got to tell the DM something. Study it. Get more information. Try to cut it with your dagger. Step over it.

You've got to say something.

And you don't know the outcome. If you step over, will it not release the trap? Do you have to break the filament? If you do cut the filament, will the trap release? And, what kind of trap is it? Does something fall from the ceiling? What can you see when you look "up"? Are there fine holes in the walls where poison darts shoot out at you? Will a big, giant, Indianna Jones style ball of rock come tumbling towards you from the other end of the corridor? Will a trap in floor collapse, dropping you on a bed of spikes or into the nest of some eddercaps?

ALL OF THAT IS MOUNTAINS MORE INTERESTING THAN...."Um....I rolled a 22 on my Disable Device. Can I keep walking now?"

That's the point.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Apr 25, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> At what point did you take this thread to be anti-die roll?




Man. You make a good point. Where on earth could I have gotten the impression that you were advocating not having mechanics for certain actions?



Water Bob said:


> One of the points of the article--the one that I'm keying in on--is that  new editions of D&D and a lot of other games are rules heavy with a  rule for everything. (...) If you "get it", then you know its about getting back to how the game  was usually played back in the old days when players didn't know what to  roll to disable traps.






> You can't just say, "I'm going to roll on my Disable Device skill,"  because, remember, we took it out of the game. It doesn't exist.




Oh. Right. It was the part where you said exactly that. Repeatedly. And in many different ways. And then continued to say it even after you had just gotten done implying you had never said it.


----------



## Thasmodious (Apr 25, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> The point of this thread is quite simple:
> 
> *I'm saying that I think the game is 10 times more interesting when action is focussed on what the players DO as opposed to what they ROLL.*




You kind of keep moving the point of the thread, from trusting to the DM, to the DM is the rulebook, to now the old argument of player skill versus character skill.  But I'll bite on this point.  

The single thing I hated most about early edition play was sitting around a table for an hour while describing all the different things we did to a magic ring to try and figure out what it did or all the different ways we searched a room or all the thing we did to try and find or disarm a trap.  It was a huge time sink with very little reward.  "Whew, it only took us 3 hours to play it out, but I finally figured out this dagger has a slightly magically increased chance to hit! What was that Mr. DM, during the 37 turns of game time I used up in my attempts, the dragon ate the princess?"

I, Thasmodious the player, am not a highly skilled thief in a world where magic exists.  My character is.  I, Thasmodious the player, have no idea all the steps I would need to take to disarm an animated clockwork poison spore trap embedded in a treasure chest.  My character does.  If the DM wishes to detail what my highly skilled thief has to particularly do to disarm said trap, that is great.  If he wants to design a whole skill challenge around it and make it tense, scary and exciting, while that's even better.  But the game is not best served by me sitting there for an hour trying variations of "I poke it with a stick" and "I'll poke it with one of the tools from my thieves kit, does that work?"


----------



## RainOfSteel (Apr 25, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Then you don't understand the point of this thread, either.



I do.  The author of the linked material wants people to accept arbitrariness based upon the hope that it will be justly applied.  That is ridiculous.




Water Bob said:


> You've got to play with a GM that you know will treat you fairly and won't be subject to favoritisim.



There is no such thing.




Water Bob said:


> (I can't figure how playing with a GM under any style of play can be fun and good if your GM is playing favorites.)



Game rules exist to help prevent this situation.




Water Bob said:


> Good lord!  You'll never trust your GM!



Not if I am expected to accept continuing arbitrariness that is almost guaranteed to be inconsistent.

In old-school gaming, you accepted this sort of treatment, which did exist quite widely, and you dealt with it, or you didn't play.

In modern gaming, additional (but not infinite) rules help both players and GMs resolve situations more fairly and with consistency.  This decreases conflicts and increases harmony.  I will take a harmonious game that is going well over a conflicted game than is riding atop the clouds of greatness (that is to say, where game play is great, but social interaction between the players is strained).




Water Bob said:


> I think that's more your problem based on this statement.



It isn't a problem at all.  I accept reality and deal with it.




Water Bob said:


> Good gosh, brother, who are you playing with?



Ordinary gamers for 31 years now.  Geeks and nerds, all of them.




Water Bob said:


> My group isn't any of those things.
> 
> I wouldn't characterize us with any of the terms you use.



There are no geeks and nerds in your groups and all the members interact together seamlessly and well on a social level?  I've never seen or heard of such a thing in RPGs (or MMORPGs), but I will take your word for it that your group has achieved gamer Nirvana.  I have to say: congratulations! (No, I am not being sarcastic.  My statement is genuine.  Heck, I'm jealous.)

-----------------------------



Water Bob said:


> I don't think you're getting the point at all.
> 
> That confirms it.  You really don't get it.
> 
> But, that's OK.  You don't have to.  Nobody's trying to force you to get it.






Water Bob said:


> There are four pages in this thread where I've commented on that document several times.
> 
> You're asking me to repeat myself again?



You're not being asked to repeat yourself.  You are discovering that large numbers disagree with the linked material, and when given the reasons for why, your response has been:

1 -- "My gamer group is happy with the necessary requirements to achieve the state of gaming described in the linked material," with the apparent assumption that other gamers will also be happy with those requirements.

2 -- "You don't get it."  Yes, we get it.  You're just running into people who disagree with it and who are telling you why in a way that basically states, "That will never work for us."  There really isn't a response you can come up with for that and, "You don't get it," as has already been noted, can be turned back on you, and that leads nowhere.

------------------------



Mercurius said:


> [..] this is more a matter of game style than rules system,



You're right, it is.




Mercurius said:


> I've tried to introduce the option for players to take improvisational actions with variable bonuses and damage, sort of like "stunt powers," but they rarely take up on it.



I ran Exalted for a while, and despite mentioning it several times, almost no one used Stunts, a built-in part of the game.  You get extra dice just by putting some extra description into what you're doing, and they didn't do it.

As one gamer friend of mine pointed out to me, "I work 60+ hours a week and I am exhausted by every Friday.  I come here on Saturday, half-braindead, to have a little fun by running my character around, getting into some fights, and using some powers.  It's hard enough to remember the major plot points of the campaign, much less every mechanics corner of the scores of RPGs I have ever played.  Sorry about that."  Not everyone is sufficiently energetic or relentless in power gaming to exploit every available option, no matter how easily obtained.

Every member of that group had at least a 40 hour a week job (including me), often more, and often with irregular hours or odd shifts.  Some of them stumbled into the game on Saturday, bleary-eyed from lack of sleep, so it was understandable and I didn't beat up anyone for being hours late, no matter how annoying.  The hosts of the game sometimes were not available and this caused skip weeks, and this really stretched out people's ability to get back in-game when we next met.

I consider these types of issues, and similar variants, to be common.  If you are out there and you have an absolutely perfect gaming group, where everyone gets along, is always present, is bright-eyed and totally enthusiastic, who remember every aspect of what has happened in every game session, and who thoroughly understand the rules (or lack of rules), you need to consider yourself lucky.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 25, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> You kind of keep moving the point of the thread, from trusting to the DM, to the DM is the rulebook, to now the old argument of player skill versus character skill.




No, those are all expressions of the same point.

The DM is the rulebook.

And because the DM is the rulebook, players have to trust him.

Why do they have to trust him?  Because he'll make arbitrary calls, and it's up to the player to accept these calls even though the DM made it up.  It's not in the printed rulebook.  It came from THE rulebook, the DM.

And, why is the DM making arbitrary calls?  Because you're not just throwing dice, speaking a total, and moving on.  You're not more involved with the game and have to use your player skill to get past obstacles instead of just rolling dice and moving on.*

It's all the same thing.  You either "get it", or you don't.




*And...yes, you still roll dice.  Or, the DM does.  Somebody does.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 25, 2011)

RainOfSteel said:


> There is no such thing.



I'm in no position to question your personal experiences as a gamer.

I will say, however, that your experiences are very, very different from mine.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 25, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> No, those are all expressions of the same point.
> 
> The DM is the rulebook.
> 
> ...




The implication is that since we MUST trust the DM, that all DMs are equally good. All are trustworthy, and to benefit from their DMing, we must trust them. 

What is the purpose of this trust? To what end does the DM put it, apart from the same ends as would be served by a satisfactory resolution within the rules?


----------



## nedjer (Apr 25, 2011)

RainOfSteel said:


> I do.  The author of the linked material wants people to accept arbitrariness based upon the hope that it will be justly applied.  That is ridiculous.




Codswallop dude! All those rules were created by an arbitrary brain in the first place and the case you're making is that a set of arbitrary thoughts written down is in some way different from another set of arbitrary thoughts not written down. 

Oddly enough, both the designers of these rules and those arbitrary GMs invariably decide to get arbitrary and not write out a set of rules for PCs who need to cut their toenails.

You're simply dressing up extreme rules lawyering and tired simulationist thinking in a not so new set of clothes and arguing for the removal of the thought, negotiation, interpretation and collaboration that makes RPGs different from playing cricket or darts.

You're also bloody rude dude


----------



## nedjer (Apr 25, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> The implication is that since we MUST trust the DM, that all DMs are equally good. All are trustworthy, and to benefit from their DMing, we must trust them.
> 
> What is the purpose of this trust? To what end does the DM put it, apart from the same ends as would be served by a satisfactory resolution within the rules?




The implication is that the GM is mature enough for players to place trust in the GM. A GM is the balance, not one of the weights.


----------



## chaochou (Apr 25, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> If this is true, then you play with players who do not trust the GM.  Bottom line is that players have to accept the GM's call as final.
> 
> But, if the GM doesn't agree with the player, the players have to accept that, right or wrong in their opinion, the GM's word is law.  Let's move on.




No, let's not move on. One of the repeated themes of this thread is your desire to express your preferences for a game as universal truths for everyone. The Jester warned as much a few pages ago - kudos to him for his prescience.

Bottom line is the players don't have to accept the GMs call as final. I haven't GMd like that in 25 years. And I've played in maybe 2 games in that time where it was true. And those 2 games sucked.

If you want to portray absolute authority as a trust issue, then fine. But I don't think you understand the implications of doing so. Because if me not granting a GM absolute control represents me not trusting him - then a GM who seeks absolute authority is one who doesn't trust me, or any of his players.

I think your trust argument is specious. But if you're going to make it one way, it's going to come back at you the other.



Water Bob said:


> This thread isn't about what rules set you play. If you "get it", then you know its about getting back to how the game was usually played back in the old days when players didn't know what to roll to disable traps.




Ahh. That would be the 'old days' before AD&D (Find/Remove Traps) or Runequest (Spot/Disarm Trap). Maybe you were a big T&T player.

And usually played? You're now an authority on everyone's gaming sessions in 1981? Bold claim.



Water Bob said:


> One of the points of the article--the one that I'm keying in on--is that new editions of D&D and a lot of other games are rules heavy with a rule for everything.




Hell yeah. It's not like AD&D had a table for how much damage I take from my armour when I change into wereform or anything. I mean, that would be ridiculous.



Water Bob said:


> ALL OF THAT IS MOUNTAINS MORE INTERESTING...




Interesting is your value judgement. What I find interesting in a game is not what you do. It's not that I 'Don't get it'. I get it completely. I, and the people I game with, much prefer something else.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 25, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> I'm in no position to question your personal experiences as a gamer.
> 
> I will say, however, that your experiences are very, very different from mine.




I have to say my experience with GMs has generally been positive (particularly when I think back on the total experience over time). Obviously no GM is perfect (just like no referee in a sport is perfect); for me the key trait of a good GM is reasonableness. If the GM makes a questionable call, that isn't a big deal. It is a subjective thing. A reasonable GM is open to the possibility that the call was bad when the issue is raised (and for the most part, my GMs have been this way). 

I think there are advantages to both approaches here. One assures consistency of play and expectations. Which can be a good thing. The other allows for an openness and fluidity of play, that can be very rewarding as well. 

If you are going to take the old school approach, one way to avoid some of the pitfalls people have been describing, is to offer a rubric before hand so there are no misunderstandings.


----------



## nedjer (Apr 25, 2011)

chaochou said:


> No, let's not move on. One of the repeated themes of this thread is your desire to express your preferences for a game as universal truths for everyone. The Jester warned as much a few pages ago - kudos to him for his prescience.
> 
> Bottom line is the players don't have to accept the GMs call as final. I haven't GMd like that in 25 years. And I've played in maybe 2 games in that time where it was true. And those 2 games sucked.
> 
> ...





Don't you find it a tad contradictory to insist that we must stick to the designer's letter of the law while arguing that we mustn't stick to other laws, e.g. consensus around the table?

In addition, you're commenting without regard to or respect for the intention of 'the designer'. You may choose to assume that an RPG designer wants or expects you to stick rigidly to the rules as set out. Mike Mearls - I think it was - (post The Weem pointed us to) recently stated quite clearly that he'd like to look at faster combat in 4e amongst other rule changes. 

Does that not make the original designer guilty of Water Bob's heinous crimes. It gets worse, as an RPG designer and concept artist I deliberately leave meanings and interpretation open to the GM, player, viewer. This is the only way to make RPGs which are RPGs or art that's art; otherwise it's just another set of boardgame rules or reproductive art with fixed inputs and rigid outcomes?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 25, 2011)

Read it before, disagreed with it then.

Looked at it now, recognized it, and still disagree with it.

And I am old enough to be 'old school', so don't try to tell me how much better it was then. A good GM can run a good game with bad, incomplete, or just plain silly rules - this does _not_ make them good rules, nor will playing with those old, bad, incomplete, or just plain silly rules make a mediocre GM a good one.

And a bad GM can run a bad game with the best of rules.

Giving a bad GM the option  to make up things in an arbitrary fashion will not make him a good GM.

The Auld Grump


----------



## chaochou (Apr 25, 2011)

nedjer said:


> Don't you find it a tad contradictory to insist that we must stick to the designer's letter of the law while arguing that we mustn't stick to other laws, e.g. consensus around the table?




Eh? I'm genuinely confused that you have read either of those arguments into what I wrote.

I haven't expressed an opinion on the letter of the law. The OPs assertion - that 'modern' rulesets have a 'rule for everything' and the result is 'boring' - implicitly assumes following those rules. I haven't insisted anyone does. But if the OP doesn't he has no basis to complain about the constraints they impose on gameplay, and his assertion falls to pieces.

I haven't argued against consensus at the table. Quite the opposite. I said I've played using group consensus in place of GM fiat for 25 years. If your group agrees to total GM authority, that's fine. Just don't tell me - as the OP has attempted to - that it is a prerequisite of 'interesting' play.


----------



## Rel (Apr 25, 2011)

First up, let's keep our tone friendly and civil, folks.

Personally, I have no problems making rulings at the table as needed, no matter the rule system.  However here's the thing for me:  My creativity is not boundless and when I must expend it constantly to come up with methods to adjudicate situations in the game, it is probably causing a drain on my creativity in other places.  I'd generally rather spend that creativity to make the emergent game world more interesting and fun than I would on adjudication.

Thus my "sweet spot" is games that have mechanics that are elegant and simple but are there when you need them.  I prefer to have more rules than six stats, an AC and some Hit Points (though I've had a hell of a good time playing OD&D).  And I prefer to have few enough rules that I don't have to crack a book to figure out ones that seem to crop up just often enough for me to forget the last time we had that situation (I'm looking at you, Grapple!).

I'll point to Savage Worlds as my current game of choice that sits in the middle of this sweet spot precisely because when I need to go to the system for an answer, that answer is almost always very obvious to me because it is a very tight system with little fat on it and a unified mechanic.  I'll point to AD&D as a system that I have zero interest in running precisely because it has a lot of disparate sub systems that you either have to ignore, memorize or look up (I say this in full acknowledgment of the fact that I had a metric ton of fun with that game back in the day.). 

The guys I game with trust me I think.  Or else they've been putting up a really good front for the last 20 years.  I think part of the reason it's been easy to maintain that trust (apart from the fact that we're all really close friends outside of gaming) is that I am happy to let the system handle most of the heavy lifting while I just nudge it once in a while with (hopefully fair) arbitration.


----------



## Mercurius (Apr 25, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> *Here's the POINT of this thread, in a nutshell...*




All of which I agree with, to an extent...I certainly can agree that the 3.x system went too far (for my tastes, at least) in the direction of "a rule for everything." 4E backed away from that in some ways--in terms of simplified skills and monster and NPC creation and stat blocks--but it essentially did the same thing with Powers, which negated the need to "try something out" or even really to come up with unique character actions. 

The approach of both 3.x and 4E has been to _play your character _rather than _be your character. _I am wondering if this has something to do with 20+ years of video games, in which the gap between the player and the character (or avatar) is much more distant than it is in tabletop RPGs. Hmm....maybe this warrants its own thread. But the idea being, the player as puppetmaster and the character as puppet, rather than the player as actor and the character as role. This is unfortunate, imo.


----------



## Oryan77 (Apr 25, 2011)

> GMs/DMs Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read




I never read anything. In fact, I struggled trying not to read the title of this thread.

First of all, I'm already the greatest DM to ever live. That's why so many players play with me, and then leave. They just can't handle how good I am and it intimidates them.

Second of all, reading another DM's opinion is only going to ruin my own skills, not improve them. One guy says to do this, then another guy says to do the exact opposite. Then both of them argue about it until their voices get so high pitched that it's hard to tell if they are speaking English. It's very confusing trying to figure out which way I should DM. So rather than trying to figure out who is right, I go download illegal Smurf snuff films. I figure it will all work itself out.


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 25, 2011)

so, if i got this correctly, 1e and 4e are different games designed to cater to different styles of play????
how shocking

[MENTION=6957]TheAuldGrump[/MENTION] - spot on

[MENTION=18701]Oryan77[/MENTION] - it will indeed work itself out


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 25, 2011)

I have yet to see a discussion of "player skill" that allows for the fact that telling the DM what he wants to hear, wheedling the DM into changing his mind, convincing all the players to follow your lead whether you're right or wrong, even stealing glances at the DM's notes or currying the DM's favor with careful use of cleavage or rippling biceps are all literally player skills. If a player manages to get his or her character to legendary status by flirting with the DM and gaining favoritism, that is a skill just as much as reading up on Grimtooth's Traps is. It's not fair, and shouldn't be endorsed, but it's a skill just as being eloquently persuasive and therefore excelling in roleplay or in talking the rest of the group into following your plan is a skill.

There is no player skill without context. If you have developed the skills to survive the Tomb of Horrors, and carefully check every 10' x 10' section of hallway with a 10-foot pole and a rented sheep, those skills may actively hinder you in a rollicking swashbuckler of a game. The skills that kept you alive in one game are making the rest of the players bored and restless, and the GM irritated. Similarly, the DM who asks for creative and florid description of actions will get different results on a day when everyone's well-rested and a day when people are tired, sleepy and kind of just want to blow off some steam. 

Rules are there largely to minimize the effect context has on a situation. This is a problem if you use them to override _every_ context, such as the players getting enthusiastic and creative and wanting to try stuff out of the box. This is not a problem if you use them to let the players know ahead of time what they need to roll if they're worn out from a long day's work and aren't as sharp as they were last week. A really skilled GM counts the ability to switch back and forth between "let's check the rulebook" and "I'll make a ruling": relying on only one or the other is just leaving possible solutions on the table.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 25, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> And because the DM is the rulebook, players have to trust him.




Using a specific rulebook and sitting behind the screen doesn't make you a trustworthy person.  Generally speaking, you must *earn* trust.  By the time you've earned it, what ruleset or style you're using is moot.


----------



## Thasmodious (Apr 25, 2011)

nedjer said:


> Codswallop dude! All those rules were created by an arbitrary brain in the first place and the case you're making is that a set of arbitrary thoughts written down is in some way different from another set of arbitrary thoughts not written down.




No, they weren't.  The actual rules of a game are not arbitrary decisions.  Games are built and designed, not just a compilation of whatever popped into the author's head as a way to respond to a situation.  Numbers are balanced, the interplay of the mechanics are considered, systems are playtested.  A published ruleset is not a series of arbitrary thoughts, but a cohesive system developed over time.  Pretty much the opposite of arbitrary.  Yes, even old school games had these considerations.  The adventure design guidelines for 1e explained the math behind the system, expected wealth, encounter design, and other expectations of the system.  The difference today is that the math is usually in the GM guides rather than in-house memos or author guidelines.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Apr 25, 2011)

While I do miss those "golden" era game days, I call BS.  The flavor text is so inflated it just does nothing but try to say, my fun is better than your fun....

Even if I were to think ruling not rules was better (which I do) the example described is STILL bogus. It has more to do with DMing skill than rule sets.  

I have no problem discussing differences, what one person says they like versus another, but, please, don't spread poop on my cake and call it icing.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 25, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> Rules are there largely to minimize the effect context has on a situation. This is a problem if you use them to override _every_ context, such as the players getting enthusiastic and creative and wanting to try stuff out of the box.



For me this is really important - I want the players to feel like they have the freedom to try whatever they want and the rules can be referenced or ginned up as needed to adjudicate the attempt.







Barastrondo said:


> This is not a problem if you use them to let the players know ahead of time what they need to roll if they're worn out from a long day's work and aren't as sharp as they were last week.



Simpler: it's about making informed choices.







Barastrondo said:


> A really skilled GM counts the ability to switch back and forth between "let's check the rulebook" and "I'll make a ruling": relying on only one or the other is just leaving possible solutions on the table.



This, which is how it's been since the very start.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 25, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> The whole "Old School vs. New School" thing really muddies up the point I was making with this thread.



Perhaps citing a document titled _Quick Primer for *Old School Gaming*_ (emphasis added) as something you think every referee should read was the first double-handful of silt to muddy those waters.







Water Bob said:


> This thread isn't about what rules set you play. If you "get it", then you know its about getting back to how the game was usually played back in the old days when players didn't know what to roll to disable traps.



Which goes back to what I noted earlier - what you're describing as "how the game was usually played in the old days" is limited to pre-_Supplement I_ _OD&D_, or basically gaming before the Thief class was introduced in 1975, and largely limited to traps, as even _OD&D_ contained rules for 'roll-to-find.'

For the _Primer_, that makes sense; the _Primer_ is a guide to playing an _OD&D_ retroclone. As a declarative on 'non-modern' gaming, I think that's an extraordinarily narrow window.







Water Bob said:


> Let's say that there was no Disable Device skill in d20 3.5. And, let's take the scenario that I made up as I wrote it above: You've just turned a corner and the DM has told you that you see a hair-fine filament stretched across the corridor. He asks you what are you going to.
> 
> Well, what are you going to do?



If you're playing 3e, you could start with what the Disable Device skill description says.







			
				d20 SRD said:
			
		

> _*Other Ways To Beat A Trap*_*
> It’s possible to ruin many traps without making a Disable Device check.*
> 
> *Ranged Attack Traps*
> ...



Cutting or bypassing a tripwire doesn't call for a Disable Device check; in fact, many commonly-used traps don't require Disable Device checks.

You're not the first to make the argument that skills and the like - feats, powers, class abilities, and such - should not be a substitute for challenging the players' faculties as well as those of their characters, and on that we agree to some extent. 

For me, however, the use of skills and class abilities doesn't take away from making the players think and plan and improvise.


----------



## Mark Chance (Apr 25, 2011)

Scurvy_Platypus said:


> Yeah, actually what Piratecat appeared to be doing _is_ explicitly covered by the rules. His specific implementation of it is his own, but when the discussion already is about whether or not a GM is making the rules their own, it seems like a bit of a funny quibble. ....




Thanks. I'd forgotten about the Page 42. Mea culpa. That sort of built in improvisational flexibility is indeed cool.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 26, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> The implication is that since we MUST trust the DM, that all DMs are equally good. All are trustworthy, and to benefit from their DMing, we must trust them.




Not nearly.  Being the DM is a hard job.  That's one of the reasons most people prefer playing.

A DM has to learn to be a good DM.

If you've got a bad DM, don't play with him.




> What is the purpose of this trust? To what end does the DM put it, apart from the same ends as would be served by a satisfactory resolution within the rules?




The purpose of the trust is to not have an argument because his call is not listed in a book somewhere.

Allow your DM to make your world intriguing and exciting.  He's not there to "win".  He's there to help you live in a fantasy world.

If you just got hit with a massive blow and was knocked down to 2 hit points and your DM says to make a CON check vs. the a DC equal to the damage you just took, do it and don't bitch if you fail the throw and drop your weapon because of the force of the blow.

It's not a rule in the book.  It's one your DM just made up.  Accept the challenge and move on.  

Good DMs will do similar stuff to the bad guys, too.







Umbran said:


> Using a specific rulebook and sitting behind the screen doesn't make you a trustworthy person. Generally speaking, you must *earn* trust. By the time you've earned it, what ruleset or style you're using is moot.




That's true.  So, you're saying that you'd play with an untrustworthy DM if he followed the rules in the book?

I don't think I'd play with him at all.


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 26, 2011)

Trust is the number one thing to have at a table.  Not trust the DM to know all the rules, or even to be fair, but trust the DM to, at the end of the day, make the adventure fun for everyone!
If you are playing and a DM you trust says, "No, you can't do that" you need to trust that there is a reason other than {I'm a crappy DM and I didn't see that coming} but rather there is a reason, it will become clear why you cannot do your thing, and we'll all have fun despite the fact you cant do your thing right now.
I've always said a good DM can run a perfectly entertaining game without dice, meaning he can determine if you hit the monster, the monster hits you, and how much damage gets done in his head, spinning the yarn such that the action you 'see in your head' is so vivid the idea of looking up some modifier seems ridiculous.


---There is the lob...now everybody tee off


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 26, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> A DM has to learn to be a good DM.
> 
> If you've got a bad DM, don't play with him.




Out of curiosity, how does the bad DM learn to be a good DM if no one plays with him?

I would say instead:  

Take ownership of the games you play in; they are yours as much as they are anyone else's at the table.  It is your job to make it fun, as much as it is anyone else's job at the table.  Help you Game Master improve.  Help the other players improve.  Accept that you could improve as well, and let them help you.

If you are having enough fun that you want to keep playing, don't whine when things don't go your way....for whatever reason.  If you are not having enough fun that you want to keep playing, don't whine....but don't keep playing, either.

Life is too short for bad games.​YMMV.

RC


----------



## pemerton (Apr 26, 2011)

I've read the Primer. I liked the Rule of the Ming Vase and used it in my 4e game (actual play account here).

Given that implmenting the Rule of the Ming Vase in my 4e game relied upon use of page 42, I don't agree with the OP's assertion (which I gather is also found in the Primer - other than the Ming Vase bit, my memory of it isn't that good) that dice-based action resolution mechanics get in the way of engaging or evocative gaming.

Most of the OP's examples of why free-form description and resolution is more evocative than dice-based resolution seem to involve searching for traps and similar features in a classic dungeon. I've not been that excited by this sort of dungeon play since about 1986, and so don't find the examples very persuasive.



Water Bob said:


> TI'm saying that I think the game is 10 times more interesting when action is focussed on what the players DO as opposed to what they ROLL.



I assume that "what the players do" here really means "what their PCs do".

The idea that because a game has dice-based action resolution mechanics, it is more about what the players roll than what their PCs do, is one that I find pretty implausible. It seems pretty obvious to me that what the PCs do frames the context for dice rolls, and hence for the consequences of action resolution.


----------



## Rel (Apr 26, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I assume that "what the players do" here really means "what their PCs do".
> 
> The idea that because a game has dice-based action resolution mechanics, it is more about what the players roll than what their PCs do, is one that I find pretty implausible. It seems pretty obvious to me that what the PCs do frames the context for dice rolls, and hence for the consequences of action resolution.




I am not attempting to speak for Water Bob here but I'll put forth something that I think he implies, which is that, _description by the player_ should provide context for the roll of the dice.

To use an example that is not a feature of a classic dungeon crawl, how about Diplomacy.  I've seen this handled all sorts of ways.  I've seen GMs who simply let the players put forth their plea to whomever they are trying to diplomacize and base the NPC's reaction purely on that.  I've seen GMs allow players to simply say, "I'm doing Diplomacy.  I rolled a 23." and base the NPC's reaction purely on that.  I've seen GMs (and I'm one of these) who listen to the urgings the players make on behalf of their PCs and then have them roll.

I'm not of the belief that a player needs to be a good orator in order to have his character persuade an NPC.  But I like for them to at least make some effort at explaining the reasoning they are using with the NPC before they roll the dice because it lets me portray the NPC's reaction better (and, given what I know of the NPC's motivations, I may apply a bonus or penalty).  And of course it gives them a reason to pay attention to the game world factors that might influence things.

I won't say that if a player says, "I want the King to give us some Men at Arms to aid in our quest." and the GM says, "Roll Diplomacy." they're "doing it wrong".  But I'll say that I think this is the kind of thing that some "old school" gamers contend has resulted in loss of flavor since the advent of Diplomacy as a PC skill vs. a player skill.

I'm not sure that contention is valid however because I bet there were plenty of GMs back in the day whose players said, "I want the King to give us some Men at Arms to aid in our quest." and the GM said, "Roll vs. Charisma."


----------



## Thasmodious (Apr 26, 2011)

Rel said:


> I am not attempting to speak for Water Bob here but I'll put forth something that I think he implies, which is that, _description by the player_ should provide context for the roll of the dice.




I agree with the sentiment 100%, but I don't take that as waterbob's implication.  I took his statements to say "rolling dice at all is a bad way to handle searches, traps, and, likely, diplomacy".


----------



## NewJeffCT (Apr 26, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> currying the DM's favor with careful use of cleavage




Hmm, I must have been doing something wrong my last campaign - neither of the two women tried to curry my favor with cleavage...



(I must spread XP around again before giving to Barastrondo again)


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 26, 2011)

Rel said:


> To use an example that is not a feature of a classic dungeon crawl, how about Diplomacy.I've seen this handled all sorts of ways.  I've seen GMs who simply let the players put forth their plea to whomever they are trying to diplomacize and base the NPC's reaction purely on that.  I've seen GMs allow players to simply say, "I'm doing Diplomacy.  I rolled a 23." and base the NPC's reaction purely on that.  I've seen GMs (and I'm one of these) who listen to the urgings the players make on behalf of their PCs and then have them roll.



I'm in that latter group as well.







Rel said:


> I'm not of the belief that a player needs to be a good orator in order to have his character persuade an NPC.  But I like for them to at least make some effort at explaining the reasoning they are using with the NPC before they roll the dice because it lets me portray the NPC's reaction better (and, given what I know of the NPC's motivations, I may apply a bonus or penalty).  And of course it gives them a reason to pay attention to the game world factors that might influence things.



Exactly.

The player doesn't need to be eloquent - that's what the skill roll is for - but she does need to frame the argument being used to persuade, and that argument is weighed in the context of events in the game-world, the personality of the npc, and opposition arguments.

For me, it's not dissimilar from the way most roleplaying games resolve combat. The player rolls to hit, but first the player must choose what her character is going to do and how she is going about it, and the results are shaped by what the referee does with the opponent as well.


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 26, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> Hmm, I must have been doing something wrong my last campaign - neither of the two women tried to curry my favor with cleavage...




My own _wife_ won't do it, so I feel your pain. (Last thing she wants is to be seen as being given unfair advantage due to our relationship.) 

But that tangent aside, I agree that a blend of description and die-rolling is just about ideal; description for the most part, die-rolling for when the outcome is genuinely in question or the character's abilities really should outstrip the player's perception of things. The description (some of which comes in after the die roll) paints the picture; the dice are there to make that final call.

And of course, there's also the tension of making that physical die roll. There's a lot to be said for the allure of the gamble -- particularly when you have the opportunity to alter the odds.


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 26, 2011)

NewJeffCT said:


> Hmm, I must have been doing something wrong my last campaign - neither of the two women tried to curry my favor with cleavage...
> 
> 
> 
> (I must spread XP around again before giving to Barastrondo again)




It is even common knowledge I am vulnerable to cleavage attacks...still....nothin!...they know there is favor to be curried, yet that club remains in the bag -


----------



## NewJeffCT (Apr 26, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> But that tangent aside, I agree that a blend of description and die-rolling is just about ideal; description for the most part, die-rolling for when the outcome is genuinely in question or the character's abilities really should outstrip the player's perception of things. The description (some of which comes in after the die roll) paints the picture; the dice are there to make that final call.
> 
> And of course, there's also the tension of making that physical die roll. There's a lot to be said for the allure of the gamble -- particularly when you have the opportunity to alter the odds.




Ideally, there should be a balance between the rolling of the dice & description.  However, my group is mostly old-timers and sometimes we're just too tired after a long week of work to put a lot of effort into lengthy description - either me as the DM, or some of the players.

Most of the time, when it comes to description, the players will start to describe what they do, and then if it gets beyond a certain point, I'll ask for a roll for whatever the appropriate skill is:  Example - "I slide up to the guard and try to curry his favor with my cleavage..." ok, just kidding on that.  But, if it is a Diplomacy situation, I'll let the player try to speak his or her mind first before asking for a roll - but, I'd also take into account that the guy playing the Sorcerer with a 20 CHA in the last campaign was generally a pretty quiet and sometimes moderately surly guy at the table (meaning, not exactly a 20 CHA IRL).  I would also take into account what the player actually said as well.

And, I don't mean just diplomacy, either.  Could be for an Arcana roll, Religion, History, etc.  Example - "I look through some books in the old sage's library and try to find out what the runes on the 7 pointed star mean."


----------



## Beginning of the End (Apr 26, 2011)

Rel said:


> I won't say that if a player says, "I want the King to give us some Men at Arms to aid in our quest." and the GM says, "Roll Diplomacy." they're "doing it wrong".  But I'll say that I think this is the kind of thing that some "old school" gamers contend has resulted in loss of flavor since the advent of Diplomacy as a PC skill vs. a player skill.
> 
> I'm not sure that contention is valid however because I bet there were plenty of GMs back in the day whose players said, "I want the King to give us some Men at Arms to aid in our quest." and the GM said, "Roll vs. Charisma."




There are actually explicit mechanics in OD&D for "roll to see if the NPC accepts the offer / what their reaction is to the PCs". In combination with morale rolls and monster reaction checks (which both used the same die roll and very similar resolution tables), in some editions it comes pretty close to providing a universal mechanic for resolving social interaction.



> I'm not of the belief that a player needs to be a good orator in order  to have his character persuade an NPC.  But I like for them to at least  make some effort at explaining the reasoning they are using with the NPC  before they roll the dice because it lets me portray the NPC's reaction  better (and, given what I know of the NPC's motivations, I may apply a  bonus or penalty).




It becomes a question of specificity. There's another article at the Alexandrian on this topic:



			
				Justin Alexander said:
			
		

> My approach has largely evolved out of trial and error, but as I put it  to analysis I suspect one of the reasons it works is because it tends to  naturally find the right “sweet spot” not only for everybody involved,  but for the particular situation under consideration. As a GM I set a  relatively high threshold of “that’s enough specificity for me to make a  ruling”, but if the players want more specificity than that — if there  are more detailed choices that they feel are meaningful to the situation  or to their character — then they are free to make those choices. (At  which point I will assume they’re meaningful and take those details into  account.)


----------



## Mythmere1 (Apr 26, 2011)

As the Primer's author, just a couple of points:

1) I'm glad that people aren't still reading it as a polemic against later versions of D&D. The reason I wrote it was in response to a flood of posts here on ENWorld, years ago, that ran roughly like, "We tried OD&D and it was just like 3e, but we had to put in the 3e rules because they weren't in OD&D." So the main intention of the Primer was to illustrate how to try out OD&D on its own terms. It's not easy to play a simpler version of a game after you've played a more complex version. It wasn't intended as being "the only way to play old school," or "why you should play old school," or even "this is a complete statement of what old school is." Just: "here's how to try out OD&D on its own terms when you're used to a more structured and detailed system."

2) It was also written before the whole old-school/new-school thing had become serious edition war territory, so the title sounds inflammatory now, but wasn't so much back when it was written.

Cheers!


----------



## NewJeffCT (Apr 26, 2011)

Mythmere1 said:


> 2) It was also written before the whole old-school/new-school thing had become serious edition war territory, so the title sounds inflammatory now, but wasn't so much back when it was written.
> 
> Cheers!




Edition wars were much slower-paced in the old days, too.  No email or internets around...  however, if you look at old Dragon magazines from when 2E came out,  you'll see letters to the editor in there accusing TSR of selling out or dumbing down the game.  Not too different than today or back in 2000 when 3E came out - just that it took a month or two to respond after each monthly issue of Dragon back in the day.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 27, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> I agree with the sentiment 100%, but I don't take that as waterbob's implication. I took his statements to say "rolling dice at all is a bad way to handle searches, traps, and, likely, diplomacy".




Then you haven't read my words, then.  Misinterpretation happens when  you skim.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2011)

Rel said:


> To use an example that is not a feature of a classic dungeon crawl, how about Diplomacy.  I've seen this handled all sorts of ways.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm not of the belief that a player needs to be a good orator in order to have his character persuade an NPC.  But I like for them to at least make some effort at explaining the reasoning they are using with the NPC before they roll the dice because it lets me portray the NPC's reaction better (and, given what I know of the NPC's motivations, I may apply a bonus or penalty).





NewJeffCT said:


> Most of the time, when it comes to description, the players will start to describe what they do, and then if it gets beyond a certain point, I'll ask for a roll for whatever the appropriate skill is
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I agree with all this. In my earlier post, I said:



pemerton said:


> It seems pretty obvious to me that what the PCs do frames the context for dice rolls, and hence for the consequences of action resolution.



Description by a player of what his/her PC is doing is one of the things that provides the context for the dice roll, and hence for the consequences of action resolution.

The more sparse the player's description of what his/her PC is doing, the less context for action resolution. Therefore, presumalby, the less complex/sophisticated the consequences. A game that uses sparse descriptions for diplomacy is, presumably, one in which the participants don't especially care for complex consequences of social encounter resolution. In my own game, the descriptions for searching for hidden things tend to be pretty sparse, because as a GM I don't especially care for complex consequences of searching for hidden things. (And none of my players cares enough to push for more of it.)

But it still seems to me that the notion that depth is facilitated by abandoing dice rolls is not true. In a more simulationist game, the dice rolls tell us what is happening in the gameworld (for example, Rolemaster's famous crit charts). They don't get in the way of fictional depth - they give rise to it. In a more narrativist game, the dice rolls distribute permissions to describe what is happening in the gameworld. They don't prevent those descriptions being rich, and shaping the context for further dice rolls.

And action resolution by way of free-form description is not necessarily rich or deep. Descriptions can still be given that are sparse or uninteresting, both by GM and players. And neither a long litany of descriptions of tripwires, and ways to cut them (in the context of disabling a trap), nor of forms of greeting, and precise descriptions of gestures and formalities (in the context of persuading a noble to loan a contingent of men-at-arms) strikes me as contributing very much to richness or depth.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But it still seems to me that the notion that depth is facilitated by abandoing dice rolls is not true.





Can you quote who made this claim?  I missed it somehow in this thread.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> Can you quote who made this claim?  I missed it somehow in this thread.



Well, here are some quotes from the OP which advocate in favour of freeform roleplaying either substituting for, or trumping, action resolution via dice rolling:



Water Bob said:


> with all the rules bloat and such (and I like all versions of D&D that I've played), at least in some games, the creative give-n-take might be sucked out of a game.
> 
> It becomes an excercise, sometimes, in numbers.  I roll this.  What's your roll?  OK, this happens.  Then I do this.  If you do, you need to roll that.  OK, I rolled.  Do I make it.
> 
> ...





Water Bob said:


> you've got to make a conscious decision if you're not just going to roll dice and look at the numbers--especially if there's a stat on the charcter's sheet that says the character is very good at a task.
> 
> "I'm checking for secret doors!  I rolled an X.  Did I find it.?"
> 
> ...





Water Bob said:


> The point of this thread is quite simple:
> 
> *I'm saying that I think the game is 10 times more interesting when action is focussed on what the players DO as opposed to what they ROLL.*
> 
> ...



Now, admittedly, there's also this from the OP:


Water Bob said:


> At what point did you take this thread to be anti-die roll?
> 
> I don't think you're getting the point at all.





Water Bob said:


> I do think the skills and Feats and all the numbers on the 3.5 character sheet lends itself to what is described in the document as "modern gaming".
> 
> What I'm saying is, if you find yourself in that rut, there's no reason why you can't run a game using what the document refers to as "old school play" but still use modern day mechanics.
> 
> ...



As far as I understand it, this is saying that the GM makes dice rolls, and that s/he then modifies his/her freeform roleplaying to reflect the outcome of those dice rolls.

Personally, I don't find this an especially attractive approach to play. From the players' point of view, all action resolution is dependent upon them engaging effectively with the GM's descriptions of things, and providing adequate descriptions themselves. From the players' points of views, there is no dice rolling either of a simulationist variety (the players never get to roll dice to establish the unfolding causal logic of the gameworld) or a narrativist variety (the players never get to roll dice to grant themselves the privilege of determining the content of the fiction). And on this approach, all a player achieves via character building is to set some parameters that the GM is obliged to respect in engaging in free-form narration (eg the GM has to have some regard to a PC's spot bonus, because this will effect the outcome of spot rolls that in turn set the parameters of the GM's narration).

_From the players' point of view_, this approach to action resolution is the abandoning of dice rolls in favour of free-form roleplaying (exactly as the OP said, as I've quoted at the top of this post).


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> No, those are all expressions of the same point.
> 
> The DM is the rulebook.
> 
> ...




"Have" to trust him?  Really?  When I sit down at your table, I should automatically, sight unseen, trust you just because you're sitting behind the DM's screen?

Funny how no one, not one person, ever says, "Trust your players" when this sort of discussion comes up.  No one says, "Hey, your players are there to have fun.  Sit back, let the players have their say and go with what they decide from time to time.  They are every bit as invested in making sure the game is a success as you are, so, you have to trust them."

No, it's "Players, THOU SHALT trust THY DM.  His WORD is LAW"  and any player who disagrees is branded as whiney, unproductive and disruptive.

Maybe it's because RPG books are always written by game masters and not players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> "Have" to trust him?  Really?  When I sit down at your table, I should automatically, sight unseen, trust you just because you're sitting behind the DM's screen?
> 
> Funny how no one, not one person, ever says, "Trust your players" when this sort of discussion comes up.  No one says, "Hey, your players are there to have fun.  Sit back, let the players have their say and go with what they decide from time to time.  They are every bit as invested in making sure the game is a success as you are, so, you have to trust them."
> 
> ...




It's because of the job each does at the table, and the implications that the job holds for how much fun the game is going to be.

Not every GM is trustworthy, but (IMHO) no game is worth playing where the GM is not trusted.  It's a simple IF/THEN statement.  IF you don't trust the GM, THEN the game will suck.  IF you do trust the GM, THEN the game may still suck, but the odds are a hell of a lot better that they will not than if you don't trust the GM.

Put another way:  Given the benefit of the doubt, a mediocre GM can do a reasonable job.  Not given the benefit of the doubt, a great GM can seem like a total wanker.

(This leads to a related observation:  If someone claims that many of their GMs have been total wankers, then it might relate to how much trust that player is willing to extend, rather than the relative GMing skills involved.)

YMMV.



RC


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> "Have" to trust him? Really? When I sit down at your table, I should automatically, sight unseen, trust you just because you're sitting behind the DM's screen?




If you're going to play in my game, then you have to agree to a couple of rules.  If you don't agree, then you're not invited to play with me and the other players who have agreed.

The first rule is:  Everybody shows up to play the game or nobody plays*.  Nobody can play your character the way you do.  It's a sacrifice to get to a game.  We all do it because we enjoy playing.  I don't want players not showing up for silly reasons, so, from the beginning, everyone commits to being at each game session.  If you can't make that commitment, then, no offence, please don't play in our game.

*We will play on occasions when a player's character is not with the main group.  If so-and-so stays in town, that's fine.  We'll play with less people.  If John has his character go off on his own, I might play a session with just me and him.  But, if your character is involved, everybody plays or nobody plays.


The second rule is:  You accept me as the DM.  I am The Rulebook.  I will endeavor to be fair, but people are people.  They have differnent opinions.  If my call is different from what you would do as DM, then politely voice your comment.  If it makes sense, we'll go with what you say.  If I don't agree, then there is no disagreement.  There is no argument.  If you want to play in this game, then you have to accept my judgement as final and move on.

If you can't do that, then, yes, please find another game.



I'm a stickler for those two rules.  People who regularly play in my campaigns know them well.  And, most have realized that by enforcing these two rules, my games run very smoothly, with little to zero arguments.  If someone does get a bit heated (and it will happen, because players get real attached to their characters--and that isn't a bad thing), usually I won't have to say anything.  Another player will usually step in ans say, "C'mon man.  You know the rule.  Let's keep going."

And, boom, we're done and moving along.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> As far as I understand it, this is saying that the GM makes dice rolls, and that s/he then modifies his/her freeform roleplaying to reflect the outcome of those dice rolls.





That's how RPing works when a GM is involved.




pemerton said:


> _From the players' point of view_, this approach to action resolution is the abandoning of dice rolls in favour of free-form roleplaying (exactly as the OP said, as I've quoted at the top of this post).





Nope.  You misstep when you hyperbolically include the word "abandoning" in your attempt to paint the discussion in that manner.  The quotes don't support advocacy for such an extreme as you argue against.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 27, 2011)

_It is only human nature for people to desire betterment of their __position. In this game it results in player characters seeking ever more __wealth, magic, power, influence, and control. As with most things in life, __the striving after is usually better than the getting. To maintain interest and __excitement, there should always be some new goal, some meaningful __purpose. It must also be kept in mind that what is unearned is usually unappreciated.  __What is gotten cheaply is often held in contempt. It is a great __responsibility to Dungeon Master a campaign._​

_- E. Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide, pg. 93_

Let's not forget the words of the creator.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> That's how RPing works when a GM is involved.



That depends a bit on the table, I think, and also the system.

For example, when the player of the fighter at my table uses Come and Get It, no dice are involved and the _player_ gets to tell me (and the other players) where the relevant NPCs/monsters end up.

When I GM Rolemaster, and a player makes a critical roll, it is the crit table that determines the resultant injury.

And at my table, if a player rolls a Perception check and equals or exceeds the DC, I say what is found (trap, secret compartment, etc). I don't just increase the detail of my description of the scene and expect the player to infer, from that, what it is that has been found. And I have zero interest in hearing about tapping with 10' poles, faffing around pouring water to find hairline cracks, etc, etc.

I don't think this is the same sort of play as "the GM is the rulebook" that the OP is advocating. Nor is it the same as the suggestion that, rather than the players rolling dice, the GM roll dice in secret behind a screen and use that to influence descriptions from which the players must infer what is really going on.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Let's not forget the words of the creator.



I've got a pretty good working knowledge of Gygax's AD&D rulebooks. And from them, from accounts in early Dragon magazines, and from other places as well (like the account of his game GMing the ENworld admins) I think I've got at least some idea of the way that he played and GMed the game. It doesn't particularly coincide with my own preferences.

For example:


Water Bob said:


> It is only human nature for people to desire betterment of their position. In this game it results in player characters seeking ever more wealth, magic, power, influence, and control. As with most things in life, the striving after is usually better than the getting.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> what is unearned is usually unappreciated. What is gotten cheaply is often held in contempt.



This might be good advice for a certain sort of game that is focused on challenging the players via their PCs. (For example, the sort of game described by Gygax in the concluding few pages of his PHB.) There are a variety of other playstyles, though, for which it is not especially appropriate. In a game where the main focus of play, for example, is placing the PCs in open-ended but immediately pressing situations designed to generate thematically engaging resolutions, the notion of "earning" outcomes for the PCs doesn't have much work to do.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> That depends a bit on the table, I think, and also the system.
> 
> For example, when the player of the fighter at my table uses Come and Get It, no dice are involved and the _player_ gets to tell me (and the other players) where the relevant NPCs/monsters end up.
> 
> When I GM Rolemaster, and a player makes a critical roll, it is the crit table that determines the resultant injury.





The tengent of the discussion was in regard to Diplomacy, specifically.  Your next example is at least akin to that.




pemerton said:


> And at my table, if a player rolls a Perception check and equals or exceeds the DC, I say what is found (trap, secret compartment, etc).





Modifying what or how something is discovered based on circumstances is the province of the GM, which speaks to why DCs are not static and why this particular type of roll is better in the hands of the GM.  Why should a player be aware of certain difficulties in finding something that he or she doesn't even know might be there (or might not)?  This is also a great example for why the GM should be rolling in a situation where failure to find something because of a poor roll should be not unlike failure to find something if successful and there is actually nothing to find.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2011)

Well, generally it is my players who initiate Perception checks (otherwise I just use the passive scores) and in any event I don't worry about a little bit of metagaming by my players.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 27, 2011)

If something being somewhere is going to be automatically seen or known, I don't bother with rolling dice.  It's time wasted that could better be spent RPing.  For my games, knowing the party can probably beat orcs because the players have faught them before falls under metagaming.  Having players be tipped off that something is hidden because I had them roll a perception check that they failed just feels like sloppy GMing.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 27, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> The hard part is getting players to trust their GMs to be more than just arbiter of the printed rules. GMs should be, as this document says, *THE RULEBOOK*.



Eh, not really. 

One advantage of printed rules is that they help to protect players from 'bad' GMs.
'Good' GMs automatically earn the players' trust; this has nothing to do with the existence or amount of printed rules.

Printed rules are only ever a bad thing if you have 'bad' players who try to usurp the GMs job as the final arbiter on rules by invoking the RAW on her. Reminding them of Rule Zero will easily remedy this, though (unless they're '_really_ bad players' ).

Given a 'good' DM and 'good' players there's nothing but advantages in having 'good' printed rules


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> The first rule is:  Everybody shows up to play the game or nobody plays*.  Nobody can play your character the way you do.  It's a sacrifice to get to a game.  We all do it because we enjoy playing.  I don't want players not showing up for silly reasons, so, from the beginning, everyone commits to being at each game session.  If you can't make that commitment, then, no offence, please don't play in our game.
> 
> The second rule is:  You accept me as the DM.  I am The Rulebook.  I will endeavor to be fair, but people are people.  They have differnent opinions.  If my call is different from what you would do as DM, then politely voice your comment.  If it makes sense, we'll go with what you say.  If I don't agree, then there is no disagreement.  There is no argument.  If you want to play in this game, then you have to accept my judgement as final and move on.



I take it from these rules that the people you game with are not people you would necessarily otherwise spend time with? Is that fair to say?

In my groups, for example, we're all friends and family first, and D&D players second. Most of us have busy lives and several have young children, so your rule #1 would not work since occasional absences are unavoidable, and we wouldn't want to punish everyone else by not having a session just because someone's kid has the flu.

Rule #2 has some applicability, since the DM is given final say in most things. But I can't just say "My game, my rules, don't like it? You're out." because I'm not the only DM in the group and I wouldn't say that to my wife or my best friend, who both play. The DM having last call doesn't have to be a "my way or the highway" approach, just an agreement amongst the players that someone has to have the final say. Part of that responsibility, when I DM, is used to say that sometimes, the players can have the final say.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> If something being somewhere is going to be automatically seen or known, I don't bother with rolling dice. It's time wasted that could better be spent RPing



4E recognizes this explicitly, by having passive Perception and Insight scores, which help determine what should be automatically seen or known. Thus, the system is giving this same advice to DMs who might not yet have realized its wisdom.

Written rules helping the DM be a better DM.


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 27, 2011)

It's a good point that things gotten cheaply are often held in contempt. The thing to remember, though, is that if you're talking about the viewpoint of the person feeling the contempt, then that is the person who is defining just what qualifies as "cheaply." From the perspective of the player, if they feel they've put in a reasonable amount of effort to earn a reward, they won't feel contempt for it. 

This is important because "what is gotten cheaply is often held in contempt" is a massive potential pitfall for GMs. Specifically, it is a _bad thing_ to start looking at stuff players have earned, saying to yourself "They got that too cheaply," and then starting to hold their rewards or (worse!) the players in contempt. And if you start holding people or campaigns outside your own table in contempt because their group enjoys a different play style than you do -- you've been poisoned by your concept of "unearned," and should likely apply leeches.

It is for the person doing the earning, or not, to determine whether or not it feels right. It's not a good idea to impose an observer's contempt as the law. The good GM will base his decisions on whether or not the players are themselves feeling challenged, not on whether or not he feels they're being challenged.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 27, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> In my groups, for example, we're all friends and family first, and D&D players second. Most of us have busy lives and several have young children, so your rule #1 would not work since occasional absences are unavoidable, and we wouldn't want to punish everyone else by not having a session just because someone's kid has the flu.




I agree.

I'll call a game if 2-3 people can't make it, but a single person?  I can work around that!



> Rule #2 has some applicability, since the DM is given final say in most things. But I can't just say "My game, my rules, don't like it? You're out." because I'm not the only DM in the group and I wouldn't say that to my wife or my best friend, who both play. The DM having last call doesn't have to be a "my way or the highway" approach, just an agreement amongst the players that someone has to have the final say. Part of that responsibility, when I DM, is used to say that sometimes, the players can have the final say.




Here we differ, probably on the basis of different experience.

I know that the best job I can do as a GM only happens when it is clear that the GM has the final say.  In fact, I have rarely seen a case where that was not true.....and those few cases were where the GM was so bad that no game at all was preferable.  Consequently, if you want me to GM, the players agree that I have the final say. 

And, although you might find it strange, that arrangement has served me well over many, many years.  Even if everyone else in the group was a GM.  

Of course, it helps that I have always been willing to accord others the same respect.  It also helps if you can distinguish between a reasonable observation that one should take notice of (and possibly change a ruling on the basis of) and whining because something didn't go as the player wished/expected.

But, as I said, our experiences obviously differ, so YMMV.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Here we differ, probably on the basis of different experience.



I don't think we really differ that much. As I said, when I DM I do expect the final say, and I grant the same to others who DM. I was more objecting to the presentation than the content.

Where we probably do differ is that sometimes I use that final say to grant the players the final say now and again, rather than always using it myself.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 27, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> I don't think we really differ that much. As I said, when I DM I do expect the final say, and I grant the same to others who DM. I was more objecting to the presentation than the content.
> 
> Where we probably do differ is that sometimes I use that final say to grant the players the final say now and again, rather than always using it myself.




Well, we don't differ there, then, either.

Part of having that authority means that you have the authority to delegate!


RC


----------



## MrMyth (Apr 27, 2011)

Not entirely sure where to comment here, since there seems to be, like, 3 or 4 different elements of discussion at play: player skill vs character skill, DM fiat vs structured rulings, improvisation vs a strict list of powers...

For myself, in nearly all these categories, I tend to find that it is best to try and find an approach that includes both options, and even has them support each other. 

Sure, a player walking up and rolling some dice to find and disable a trap feels less exciting than having them figure out how the trap is worked into the environment and how it can be safely disarmed. At the same time, you don't want the game to turn into 'mother may I?', where the wrong choice - even made by a skilled thief - trivializes their character's capabilities. 

As is often pointed out - the fighter's player doesn't need to demonstrate his physical prowess to have his PC behead an orc. Should the rogue's player need to have an actual knowledge of traps in order to have his PC disarm a trap?

Instead, I like keeping both approaches as _options_, and certainly think that regardless of what is chosen, you want to avoid making it all feel mechanical, so to speak. 

Basically, I'm not a fan of rolling a spot check and being told, "Yeah, there is a 20' pit trap in the corridor," or "You find a dart-throwing trap in the wall." Use of descriptive terms is important - "You notice that the ground is structurally weak in the corridor ahead," or "You notice a trip wire along the corridor, and it seems to tie into small holes embedded into the walls."

At the same time, I don't want the characters to be forced to 'figure out my puzzle' in order to know how to bypass the trap, or even realize it is there. Success on the check just telling them... that there are cracks in the ground... goes a bit too far in the other direction. 

Water Bob's early example in this thread is the sort of thing I'd fine pretty unenjoyable in actual play. Even when the character succeeds on his skill checks, he has to basically work through the DM's puzzle to figure out what the situation is and how to deal with it. 

In those examples, the smart player of the hulking and reckless barbarian will be able to easily find and bypass the various traps, while the less creative player of the skilled rogue will blunder into one trap after another, simply because he can't figure out what tricks the DM is looking for to discover the traps, no matter how well he rolls. 

The rolls and the descriptions and the creativity should enhance and support each other, but neither should be the _only _path to success. 

Similarly, when it comes to creative combat actions - like trying to trick two enemies into hitting each other - I definitely agree that letting characters be creative can offer a lot to the game. I tend to prefer having some guidelines - such as pg 42 in 4E - that can help me quickly figure out how to resolve such thing in a balance fashion. 

Basically, I like having creative actions that feel like they have a solid result in combat, but I don't want to have to just come up with a decision completely via DM fiat... especially since I feel that risks such actions feeling either not worthwhile at all, or potentially _too _good. Once a group discovers a creative use of a spell that can instantly turn the tide of a fight... they start to look for ways to use the same trick as often as possible, until it feels more like a loophole than actual creativity. 

Now, a really skilled DM doesn't need any guidelines at all, of course. I think that the ability to rule on the fly is a valuable one. But that level of DM skill is relatively rare - and even for a DM that can do so, doing so _quickly _is even harder. 

I would like to see such creativity more encouraged... even in 4E, where you have outright guidelines for such stunts, and the books themselves encourage players to try such things, it is very easy to fall into the mindset that one should just stick with exactly what the character sheet says the PC is capable of. I'm not sure how to find an easy way around that, in the end. And, honestly, a group that has that mindset is likely to be stuck in it _regardless_ of edition, or style of play, or even game itself. Sometimes, that is just how some folks are wired.


----------



## the Jester (Apr 27, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> If you're going to play in my game, then you have to agree to a couple of rules.  If you don't agree, then you're not invited to play with me and the other players who have agreed.
> 
> The first rule is:  Everybody shows up to play the game or nobody plays*.  Nobody can play your character the way you do.  It's a sacrifice to get to a game.  We all do it because we enjoy playing.  I don't want players not showing up for silly reasons, so, from the beginning, everyone commits to being at each game session.  If you can't make that commitment, then, no offence, please don't play in our game.




You do realize that most adults have other things going on in their lives, right?

Do you get upset if someone has to cancel because their kid is sick or is playing their first ball game and the parent puts more importance on their child than on your game? What about when someone is gone on a business trip? What if someone has dinner with the in-laws and can't make it?




Water Bob said:


> The second rule is:  You accept me as the DM.  I am The Rulebook.  I will endeavor to be fair, but people are people.  They have differnent opinions.  If my call is different from what you would do as DM, then politely voice your comment.  If it makes sense, we'll go with what you say.  If I don't agree, then there is no disagreement.  There is no argument.  If you want to play in this game, then you have to accept my judgement as final and move on.




I find the whole "I am the Rulebook!!" statement you keep making to be pretty funny. That said, I agree in principle here- the dm's call is final. Where I disagree with you is that (I think) you want the dm's word to frame the game, whereas I prefer to have the game rules frame the dm's word.

Again, though, this is fine- there are many more differences in playstyle out there, and nothing wrong with any of them.

EDIT: So long as everyone involved is having fun, anyhow. I guess I'd object to a playstyle that included something like, "Your character died, now we kill YOU TOO!!!" "BLACKLEAF, NO!"


----------



## NewJeffCT (Apr 27, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> I take it from these rules that the people you game with are not people you would necessarily otherwise spend time with? Is that fair to say?
> 
> In my groups, for example, we're all friends and family first, and D&D players second. Most of us have busy lives and several have young children, so your rule #1 would not work since occasional absences are unavoidable, and we wouldn't want to punish everyone else by not having a session just because someone's kid has the flu.
> 
> Rule #2 has some applicability, since the DM is given final say in most things. But I can't just say "My game, my rules, don't like it? You're out." because I'm not the only DM in the group and I wouldn't say that to my wife or my best friend, who both play. The DM having last call doesn't have to be a "my way or the highway" approach, just an agreement amongst the players that someone has to have the final say. Part of that responsibility, when I DM, is used to say that sometimes, the players can have the final say.




I agree.  I have myself, plus six players in my group, so seven people.  I would hate to cancel a game just because one of seven people cannot make it due to a child's illness - or even their child's babysitter being sick.  We have one guy whose wife is an emergency room doctor - what if she gets called into the hospital at the last minute?  Kind of hard to find a babysitter at the last minute many times, especially when he lives in a somewhat rural area.

And, in my group, I know I am not the most knowledgeable on the rules - I spend most of my limited free time designing/modifying the adventures and the encounters, creating NPCs, etc.  So, while I may have the final say on rules, I will always check with the players that know the rules better than me to make sure I'm doing something correctly.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 27, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> Eh, not really.
> 
> One advantage of printed rules is that they help to protect players from 'bad' GMs.




People keep saying that.  If a GM is "bad", then he's not fun to play with, regardless if he runs the game by the rules or willy-nilly by the seat of his pants.

Why play with bad GMs?









Fifth Element said:


> I take it from these rules that the people you game with are not people you would necessarily otherwise spend time with? Is that fair to say?




Hmm...  Let's see.  From my experience, I find that 3-4 players makes the optimal group.  I've played with more (Ran a short campaign with 11 once), and I've done 1 and 2 person campaigns before (fit the James Bond RPG well).  3-4 I find optimal.

Right now, my group is in that sweet spot:  One player I've known since 1st grade.  The second, I've known since 4th.  And, the 3rd is someone I know through another passion of mine, Poker.  I've known him for 7 years, but never knew he gamed.  I don't advertise that I game.  And, in conversation about fantasy novels, we discovered that we both played.

Now, he's joining my game.

As far as spending time with them outside of the game, I do it all the time.  We see movies together, share a lot of interests.  With the new player poker buddie, We've got a large tournament happening this Sunday.

I'm not sure why you asked that.







> In my groups, for example, we're all friends and family first, and D&D players second. Most of us have busy lives and several have young children, so your rule #1 would not work since occasional absences are unavoidable, and we wouldn't want to punish everyone else by not having a session just because someone's kid has the flu.




Well, who wouldn't put family first over a game?  I wouldn't even put it second.

The point of the "show-up" rule is that I want to avoid what I've seen in other people's games where so-and-so just can't make it for such-n-such reason.

If you were taking a class for whatever at the local college on Tuesday nights, you'd make it.  If you had Driver's Ed because you got a ticket, you'd be there.  If you were trying to get your concealed handgun license, you'd make every effort to get to the class.

I want that level of commitment to my game.

Every once in a while, yes, someone has an emergency and can't make it.  But, it is a REAL emergency.

I've seen other people's games where so-and-so can't make it for blah-blah BS reason.  In my game, I spend a lot of time (time that is scarce because I am busy, too) preparing the game.  I do it because I enjoy and am committed to the game.  A player just needs to show up.

If a player doesn't show up for some silly reason--maybe he went to the movies with his wife instead--then he is disrespecting me and the time I put into the game;  He doesn't have the same level of commitment as the rest of us (and we only want to play with those who commit to the game as we do);  and he's disrespecting the other players who did make the game a priority.

Thus, we just don't game with people who won't give us that kind of commitment.









> But I can't just say "My game, my rules, don't like it? You're out." because I'm not the only DM in the group and I wouldn't say that to my wife or my best friend, who both play.




I'm sure it sounds like I'm a hard-ass as a DM.  I am firm. But, I'm also fair, and I listen to my players.  My goal is for all of us to have fun.  If someone doesn't like a ruling, they can calmly say what they think is wrong with it and suggest a different way to go.  If they make their case (in my estimation), I change the ruling in their favor.

I do it all the time.

But, if I don't agree, I am the Rulebook.  What I say goes.  It's part of the contract you make when you play in my game.









the Jester said:


> You do realize that most adults have other things going on in their lives, right?




Seeing as how we're all in our 40's, with professional and domestic responsibilities, yeah, I pretty much get that.







> Do you get upset if someone has to cancel because their kid is sick or is playing their first ball game and the parent puts more importance on their child than on your game? What about when someone is gone on a business trip? What if someone has dinner with the in-laws and can't make it?




Simple.  Just don't commit to the game when those things are happening.  We don't have a set date.  At the end of the game session, we usually look at the next time we can play.  Sometimes it's next week.  Sometimes it's next month.  Every once in a while, it's six weeks down the road.

The end of the year with Christmas and such is usually rough for scheduling.

But, if you schedule, make sure you can be there.  If you commit and then something big comes up so that you can't make it, let us know so that we can all reschedule our lives to accomodate yours.

Once we get a date, we expect everyone to be there.









> I find the whole "I am the Rulebook!!" statement you keep making to be pretty funny.




Obviously you didn't read the document linked in the OP.  Those aren't my original words.  When I say that, I'm not trying to act like "I am the Law" Judge Dread.  I'm referring to a point made in the document.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Simple.  Just don't commit to the game when those things are happening.  We don't have a set date.  At the end of the game session, we usually look at the next time we can play.  Sometimes it's next week.  Sometimes it's next month.  Every once in a while, it's six weeks down the road.



Oaky, I totally did not get that from what you posted. It seemed you were saying "We play Tuesdays at 7 PM, if you can't commit to that, don't bother!"

But you're actually far less scheduled than most groups, I suspect. In terms of a regular schedule at least.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 27, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Oaky, I totally did not get that from what you posted. It seemed you were saying "We play Tuesdays at 7 PM, if you can't commit to that, don't bother!"




There's a lot of instances in this very thread where people read something that wasn't there.  It often happens, sending the thread in tangents, putting people at cross-purposes.



> But you're actually far less scheduled than most groups, I suspect. In terms of a regular schedule at least.




We average about twice a month.  That's 24 games a year.  A session is typically 6-8 hours.

That's about all our "real lives" can handle.  And, since I'm running a sandbox game, it gives me time to make up stuff in-between games.

Sure, it's not a regimented "every first and third Saturday", but that's the best we can do even if we didn't have the "every shows up" rule.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 27, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> 4E recognizes this explicitly, by having passive Perception and Insight scores, which help determine what should be automatically seen or known. Thus, the system is giving this same advice to DMs who might not yet have realized its wisdom.





We're discussing when someone is actively looking since players don't "roll" for Passive Perception, IIRC.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 27, 2011)

Mark CMG said:


> We're discussing when someone is actively looking since players don't "roll" for Passive Perception, IIRC.



Sorry, you referred to things that would be "automatically" seen or known, which I interepreted to mean things that need no special effort to detect. Passive Perception is used when a character is "in the area", so to speak, but making no special effort to search.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 27, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Sorry, you referred to things that would be "automatically" seen or known, which I interepreted to mean things that need no special effort to detect. Passive Perception is used when a character is "in the area", so to speak, but making no special effort to search.





No problem.  This (tangental) discussion was about things being, in effect, automatically known because the players were asked to roll for something when they shouldn't be automatically known, rather than the other way around.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 27, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> 4E recognizes this explicitly, by having passive Perception and Insight scores, which help determine what should be automatically seen or known. Thus, the system is giving this same advice to DMs who might not yet have realized its wisdom.
> 
> Written rules helping the DM be a better DM.




This is some real thread drift, but...

I don't know if I agree that the rule helps DMs be better at their jobs, but I will say that this is the second thing about 4E that I've heard that I like.

The first thing I heard about 4E (never read it, myself) that I liked was how spell duration is handled by rolling a check each round to see if the spell effects are defeated. Yeah, it's another dice throw, but it's faster, I think, than keeping up with bookkeeping on the number of rounds a spell may effect something.

In my Conan game (based on 3.5), I don't automatically roll Spot checks.  Players have to initiate them.  I view the Spot check as the character "focusing" on an area.  If the player doesn't ask specifically for the roll or otherwise say something that earns the check, then I don't bother with it.

I want to hear something like:

DM:  "This path you've been following narrows as it rises towards the Kezankian Mountains.  You can tell that you're at a higher altitidude than you were yesterday.  The plain is now broken with hills, some of them quite close to the trail.  You're in Zamorian foothill country now."

Player:  "Those hills are good ambush points.  As we ride, I'm going to keep particular attention on any terrain close to the trail that could hide a man."

If I hear that, the PC has earned a Spot check if I do have an ambush waiting for him.  I'll either roll the Spot behind my screen or let the player roll it, depending on the circumstances, then I'll play off the results.

Now, I'll also considered that the player has made his character "near sighted", keeping his focus on the ambush points close to the trail, so I may use that to modify something he may have seen in the distance--like the sun glinting off something metallic at the top of the peak in front of him.

If players don't ask for Spot checks, then I usually just make a decision to tell them about something or not--I decide if they could usually see it.  If so, I tell them what they see without any dice rolls.

DM:  "As you throw your head back and drink from your waterskin, you catch a quick shining spark up in the high land.  It's there once, twice, gone.  It was the sun shining on something metallic or reflective."

I will also give players a hint sometimes, too, through my description.

DM:  "After another hour's ride you look up and are astonished at how close it is you've gotten to the peak in front of you.  Your sight has been so focussed on the few feet in front of your horse that you've got a slight headache."

Or, if the player never asked for the Spot check originally, and I do have an ambush set up, I might say:

DM:  "The trail starts to narrow and the incline has definitely increased.  You're so close to rocks and boulders now that you can touch them next to the trail as your horse trots past.  The trail is about to lead you into a small canyon, of sorts, where the trail has higher ground on each side.  You're traveling on an old mountain stream bed."

That's enough about higher ground that a good player should pick up on it and start asking questions.


----------



## Rel (Apr 28, 2011)

Hey, Water Bob, do me a favor and please don't use red (or orange) text for emphasis in your posts.  We try and keep that as a moderator thing to get people's attention when we need it.  Thanks.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 28, 2011)

Rel said:


> Hey, Water Bob, do me a favor and please don't use red (or orange) text for emphasis in your posts. We try and keep that as a moderator thing to get people's attention when we need it. Thanks.




Undersood.  Sorry about that.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> People keep saying that.  If a GM is "bad", then he's not fun to play with, regardless if he runs the game by the rules or willy-nilly by the seat of his pants.
> 
> Why play with bad GMs?



Sometimes it is so they can learn how to become good GMs.

It seems that this conversation has reached the nobody done be listening to nobody stage - no matter how many times you repeat yourself folks aren't going to change their minds. In part because you are wrong - for their groups.

Other people are unlikely to change your position, in part because they are wrong - for your group.

You need to accept that your approach works for _you._ It would not work for me, so don't keep beating the dead horse, no matter how much it looks like it is just resting. Folks find techniques that work for _them_.

In turn, folks, he has found a method that works, _for him_ - it is unlikely that you will change his mind, and, yes, the horse is sill dead, poking it with a stick to make it look like it is moving does not work.

If a small rules set and an arbitrary GM works for you, then fine. I would not want to either run such a game, nor play in such a game.
But I'm not, I am happy running the games that I run, in the way that I run them. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Hussar (Apr 28, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> It's because of the job each does at the table, and the implications that the job holds for how much fun the game is going to be.
> 
> Not every GM is trustworthy, but (IMHO) no game is worth playing where the GM is not trusted.  It's a simple IF/THEN statement.  IF you don't trust the GM, THEN the game will suck.  IF you do trust the GM, THEN the game may still suck, but the odds are a hell of a lot better that they will not than if you don't trust the GM.
> 
> ...




Reverse it around though.  Given the benefit of the doubt, a mediocre player can do a reasonable job.  Given no benefit of the doubt, a great player will seem like a total wanker.  It's a two way street.

See, I used to be a bit believer in the whole, "Trust Thy DM" creed that early games espoused.  Then I got repeatedly bitten on the ass for it.  So, no, my distrust of DM's came AFTER experience, not before.

But, thanks for trying to put words in my mouth yet again.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 28, 2011)

Something I don't quite understand.  RPG's are collaborative games.  I think we all agree on that.

How can something be collaborative if everyone's ideas are subordinate to one person?

Again, maybe it's because my groups have almost always been made up of DM's.  It's been very, very rare that I've had a group of all players.  I'm not so full of myself that I'm going to turn to someone who's been gaming just as long as me, has just as much time behind the screen as me, and say, "Well, too bad, I'm the DM and my word is law."

If I cannot actually come up with a better justification than that for whatever my ruling happens to be, then I don't deserve to be sitting behind the screen and I would hope that my entire group would eject me from the big daddy chair if I tried to pull something like that.

I much, much prefer to GM through consensus building and actual collaboration rather than beating people over the head with my "The DM is the Rules" stick.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 28, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Sometimes it is so they can learn how to become good GMs.




Well, teaching someone to be a GM is an altogether different endeavor. It's a special circumstance. And, it seems that they wouldn't be taught "in-game", but rather out of game. Then, maybe a trial run to see how they do.







> It seems that this conversation has reached the nobody done be listening to nobody stage - no matter how many times you repeat yourself folks aren't going to change their minds. In part because you are wrong - for their groups.




Where'd you get the idea that I was trying to change them? Because of title of the thread says "should" read? Don't forget, it also says, "Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read".

I'm not trying to change anybody's game. Lots of people play in a style that I wouldn't have in my game.

They may have games when everybody can't show up.

They may have long, bloody arguments with the DM over his judgement calls.

They may throw lots of experience upon PCs, raising them up to 30th level and beyond and they may make sure that every gold piece and piece of treasure and every magic item is found in a dungeon before the PCs leave, cleaning it all up like D&D locusts.

They may like saying, "Is there a trap down the corridor? Here I roll my Spot check? It's a 14. Did I see anything? I did?. OK, here, I roll my Disable Device skill. It's a 17. Oh, we're past the trap? OK..."

They may do all that and more....AND THAT'S OK! It's their game. I'm not trying to tell them that they're having no good bad fun if they're enjoying themselves.

I posted that article for those who "get it" and understand that there is some valuable advice--a refresher course, if you will--written in that thing that can help a good GM be even better _in my opinion_.

Hey, if you want to run around and roll play instead of role play, all the while min/max'ing your characters, I'm not here to tell you not to do that.

I'm just saying that's not what I think of when I think of superior play. If you've got another take on it, then, buddy, more power to ya. Enjoy yourself.

Trust me. I won't come over to your house and take your dice away from you.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 28, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Something I don't quite understand. RPG's are collaborative games. I think we all agree on that.




Yup.  I often key in on something the player does and then built upon it.  Just today, I'm bringing in a new character (and new player) to my game.  His back ground that we've been working out is that the new character is an orphan.  I created the orphanage and several NPC personalities, then presented it to the player.  One of the NPCs, I said, had lost her virginity with the player's character.  I thought that'd be a nice hook into his background.  When I showed it to the player, he said, "Nope.  No sex in the orphanage.  I look at these people like they were my family."

Fair enough, I said.  And, we changed the virginity thing on the spot, combining our visions of his orphanage background.

The player could have just as easily had a take where the orphange people were mean to him, giving him a rough childhood, and if that were so, it would definitely change the way I brought things to the tabel in the way of that character's background.

It is definitely a collaborative game.







> How can something be collaborative if everyone's ideas are subordinate to one person?




Think of the game as the making of a movie where the players are actors and the GM is the producer/writer/director with final cut, and you'll get the idea.

Who's got a lot of input and creative control over their characters?  The actors.

Who ultimately decides what goes into the movie?  The producer/writer/director.







> Again, maybe it's because my groups have almost always been made up of DM's. It's been very, very rare that I've had a group of all players. I'm not so full of myself that I'm going to turn to someone who's been gaming just as long as me, has just as much time behind the screen as me, and say, "Well, too bad, I'm the DM and my word is law."




Having DMs in your group is like having a sick person at the hospital who is also a doctor.  He's got to be very discliplined and well mannered to keep from telling others how they _should do it_.

When I play, I allow the DM to be the DM.  I might suggest something, but if he over-rules my suggestion, then I shut up and let him run his game.  It is his game, and his word is law.  When I play, I play by the exact same rules that I use in my own game.

It's not easy for all DMs to do that, I know.







> I much, much prefer to GM through consensus building and actual collaboration rather than beating people over the head with my "The DM is the Rules" stick.




I'm not saying that you can't, as GM, come to a conclusion on a ruling by consensus.  I do that all the time, myself.  What I'm saying is, if you strongly see things a different way than what the player is describing, then, in the end, You Are The Rulebook.  You have final say.

You're the Judge.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 28, 2011)

Folks, here's a core point of this thread. It comes from the article linked in the OP (that I'm sure many of you haven't read).

*The example reads:*

*John the Roguish: “I grasp my sword, blade downward, and leap off the ledge, driving the sword blade deep into the goblin’s back using the weight of my body and the fall to cause tons of extra damage.”*

*GM: “Seriously?”*​ 
*John the Roguish: “Yeah.”*​ 
*Frank the Cleric: “Oh, hell, here we go again.”*​ 
*GM: [decides that he’ll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but failure will cause some sort of disaster.] “You leap off the ledge. Roll to hit.”*​ 

*Frank the Cleric: “Roll high.”*​ 
*John the Roguish: “Screw you, Frank. I roll a 2.”*​ 
*GM: “Two points of damage, then. You don’t take any falling damage, because the goblin broke your fall. You’re on the ground and so is he. Frank’s standing there with his mace, completely confused by what just happened.”*​ 
*Frank the Cleric: “While the goblin’s sprawled on the ground, I slay him with a mighty blow of my mace.”*​ 
*GM: “Roll to hit.”*​ 
*John the Roguish: “I don’t see why I should be down on the ground.”*​ 
*GM: “You rolled a 2, that’s a crappy roll, you got tangled in your sword, and you’re on the ground. You would have done double damage if you hit.”*​ 
*John the Roguish: “Where’s that in the books?”*​ 
*GM: “It’s not. I just made it up. Frank, roll to hit.”*





Your GM is more than just the "monster mover".  You have to trust your GM because he's got to make calls that aren't in the book...

*GM: [decides that he’ll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but failure will cause some sort of disaster.] “You leap off the ledge. Roll to hit.”*

*John: “I rolled a 2.”*

*GM: “Okay, you trip as you jump off the ledge and you get tangled up with the sword. You knock the goblin down to the ground, but you don’t land on your feet either. You’re both sprawled on the floor. Also, you may have hit yourself when you landed on the goblin. Roll to hit again.”*

*John: “I rolled a 15.”*

*GM: “You stab yourself in the leg. Roll damage.”*





You have to accept that your GM is The Rulebook, even if you don't agree with his call.

*GM: “Two points of damage, then. You don’t take any falling damage, because the goblin broke your fall. You’re on the ground and so is he. Frank’s standing there with his mace, completely confused by what just happened.”*​ 
*John the Roguish: “I don’t see why I should be down on the ground.”*

*GM: “You rolled a 2, that’s a crappy roll, you got tangled in your sword, and you’re on the ground. You would have done double damage if you hit.”*







And, you have to give your GM room to be creative in order to make the game outstandingly fun for everybody.  You can't argue with him because what he says is "not in the books."

*John the Roguish: “Where’s that in the books?”*​
*GM: “It’s not. I just made it up.*




Let the GM "make it up".  Find peace with that.  And, you just might surprise yourself at how much fun you've having at your game.





For you skeptics out there, try this:  Do a 3 or 4 session game.  Everybody create brand new characters just for this short mini-campaign.  In this experiment, everyone agree that the GM IS THE RULEBOOK, and that his word is law.  Everyone agree not to argue even once with the GM.

Then, run the 3-4 session mini-game.

When you're done, if you didn't have a load of fun, go back to the way you were doing it before.

But, be open while you're doing this experiement to completely trust the GM and allow him the creative room to make the calls as he sees fit.

If you have a good GM, I guarrantee you this will be a hoot.


----------



## chaochou (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I'm not trying to change anybody's game. Lots of people play in a style that I wouldn't have in my game.
> 
> They may have games when everybody can't show up.
> 
> ...




Clearly then you think in terms of *superiority*. Implicitly, you think of the listed game choices as *inferior*.


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> You can't argue with him because what he says is "not in the books."



Oh, wow. This is some naive, rosy-coloured glasses view.
I guess the author doesn't remember how things were in 'old-school' games. Players argued *because* there was no written rule! And what you did was this:

You invented a house-rule.

For some players this turned into a game within the game: trying to debate with the DM to convince him to alter his or her decision in your pc's favor.

After a couple of years you ended up with a game that was hardly recognizable as the system you started with (which isn't necessarily a bad thing but could cause problems when switching groups).

One of the advantages 2e had over 1e was that it codified a lot of things that had been commonly used house-rules previously.


Water Bob said:


> If you have a good GM, I guarrantee you this will be a hoot.



Who's refuting that? (Well, I at least don't.) With a good DM you're going to have fun no matter what system or ruleset you use. And if all of your players refrain from arguing, everyone will have even more fun. That's obvious!

I'd also like to note that the example given could just as easily happen in a 4e game using page 42 as a guideline to determine 
- a reasonable difficulty for the required check
- a reasonable result in case of success
- a reasonable result in case of failure

Rules and guidelines help a DM to avoid making bad judgement calls (which can occasionally happen to the best of DMs) _and_ they make it easier to deal with members of the debating club.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Where'd you get the idea that I was trying to change them? Because of title of the thread says "should" read? Don't forget, it also says, "Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read".



Dude? Read your own posts in this thread with a critical eye. 

Seriously.

That is pretty much what you have done in almost all of them. Recently with multicolored text.

Repetition does not make you right.

Claiming superiority does not make you right.

Claiming that others are wrong does not make you right.

Using, umm, colorful text, does not make you right.

And, at this point, I am thinking that you are just making yourself look _wrong._ Digging a hole, finding a bigger shovel, digging a deeper hole, rinse, and repeat.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Folks, here's a core point of this thread. It comes from the article linked in the OP (that I'm sure many of you haven't read).




Many of us read that old thing _years_ ago. And indeed I agree with you to an extent. Most DMs should read it - and then be able to pick it apart and use the straw for kindling (in particular the false dichotomies that thing is riddled with). And then work out why an assumption of character incompetence is frustrating and grindy. For instance I see absolutely nothing wrong with saying "I loot the room". It's not a moment of tension, and making the PCs check every part of the room that might possibly have treasure is just tedious and annoying.

*



			The example reads:
		
Click to expand...


*


> [SNIP]
> 
> 
> *GM: “It’s not. I just made it up. Frank, roll to hit.”*





All that tells me is that the GM is trying to fake stunt mechanics out of a game that doesn't include them. In the new school version, the rogue is being suicidally stupid. Leaping around in combat untrained is a fast way to get yourself killed. And he _explicitely_ doesn't have anything that would make him more effective at it.

And then we move onto the second zen moment. "Player skill nto character abilities." Which can be rephrased as "Don't roleplay. Treat the game as a tactical skirmish wargame with your character being your playing piece." Because that's what using your skill not your character's skill _means_. Treating who you are playing as nothing more than a collection of tools to use and not as someone competent in their own right. No one who supports this has any legs to stand on when it comes to comments about roll-playing vs roleplaying.

The Third Zen Moment is not old school at all. It's not even D&D. Last time I checked, D&D wizards could warp reality in any edition when they got to a high enough level - definite superheroes. And the fourth zen moment is not about game balance at all except in the most straightjacketed format.



> You have to accept that your GM is The Rulebook, even if you don't agree with his call.




No. But the GM should use the rulebooks if there is anything to help - the game rules are about the consistency of the world. And players should have a consistent idea of the chances of what they are trying to do working - to do anything else shatters trust in the gameworld. The GM is not the rulebook. The GM interprets and extends the rulebook.



> And, you have to give your GM room to be creative in order to make the game outstandingly fun for everybody. You can't argue with him because what he says is "not in the books."




Of course. But by the same token the GM should not simply rule contrary to what is in the books or else things become meaningless.



> Let the GM "make it up". Find peace with that. And, you just might surprise yourself at how much fun you've having at your game.




And by the same token good modern rules (including 4e - Skill Challenges used properly and p42) actively support the GM in making up things beyond their explicit scope. This is new school gaming - we don't just leave things to the DM to make up; we actively give the DM help to make things up that are fast, consistent, and fun. While not encouraging them to go into petty detail about irrelevant stuff. We also are not restricted to DM fiat pass/fail. Instead character and player skill _both_ matter. Do something smart and you have easier target numbers than you did (e.g. easy vs medium DC) but if your character is good at something you are better at meeting that target number. Unlike the Old School Primer advocated play we don't drop the character skill and hence the in character abilities and roleplaying. And unlike their caricature we don't drop the player skill and inventiveness. Both matter and any attempt to force a dichotomy is a bad thing.

Also because the DM is making things up with actual mechanical support, the arguments you get now are "That's not what I was intending to say I was doing" (which is fair enough). Not the "Where the hell did that come from?" (do you want page numbers?). And the numbers feel right so the players aren't shocked, the immersion isn't shattered by a bad call, and so trusting the DM becomes much easier as the whole thing is more transparent.

(And for anyone who claims that Old School has anything to do with Rules Light, I'll point out Chivalry and Sorcery and that the only D&D spinoff that indended to make things simpler was Tunnels and Trolls).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Reverse it around though.  Given the benefit of the doubt, a mediocre player can do a reasonable job.




Maybe we're using "benefit of the doubt" to mean different things here.

In most games, a player advocates for his character.  It is neither in his interest, or in the game's interest, that the player try to make things more difficult for himself.

In most games, the GM tries to make things difficult for the PCs in such a way that the PCs can, through effort, triumph more often than not.

IMHO, and IME, a mediocre player will attempt to advocate for his character through the application of the rules, i.e., will attempt to maximize effectiveness (potentially at the cost to other players).  If you did not also experience this, your position on the Wizards and Warriors balance thread would be markedly different than it is.

So, no, in terms of "what is allowed", the GM should be actively involved in ensuring that all players have a relatively level playing field before the dice hit the table, and that the characters chosen by one player do not damage the fun of the others unduly.

*Good* players, IMHO and IME, do not have these problems.  It is the GM's job, at least in part, to help a mediocre player become a good player.....just as it is the players' job, in part, to help a mediocre GM become a good one.

OTOH, the GM is specifically in a role that requires that he provide opposition for the player characters, essentially in the role of supplying all of the sudden reversals, unexpected dangers, WTF moments, and villiany that players enjoy overcoming.  

If the players do not believe that challenges are there to make the game better, then these reversals do not seem like the GM doing his job, but rather like the GM being a wanker, the players lose motivation to overcome the reversals, causing them either to miss out on the payoff or causing the GM to just give the payout to them.  In either of these last cases, the game spirals into a sink of diminishing returns and sooner or later folds.



> Given no benefit of the doubt, a great player will seem like a total wanker.




This is true if, and only if, the GM thinks that the players' job is to stroke his ego or to lose.  The GM must indeed give the players the "benefit of the doubt" that their attempts to overcome his opposition are in the best interests of the game, and the GM must also give the players the benefit of their efforts.

The GM need not "give the benefit of the doubt" that Class X, Combo Y, or Build Z will be good for the game.  But within the parameters of what the GM does allow, the GM must absolutely be willing to "lose" to the players.  Each roadblock, each sudden reversal, each problem that the PCs face exists to enrich the game, and to be overcome in some manner chosen by the players.



> It's a two way street.




In that both must believe that the others are there to make a fun game for all, I agree.



> See, I used to be a bit believer in the whole, "Trust Thy DM" creed that early games espoused.  Then I got repeatedly bitten on the ass for it.  So, no, my distrust of DM's came AFTER experience, not before.




Well, I suppose we have to take your word for that, but I have to tell you that through repeated discussions I have gotten the definite impression that there is a Freudian slip in your statement (i.e., that you typed "bit" instead of "big").  I suspect that your repeated problems with various GMs has not been as one-sided as you would seem to be suggesting.

But, I am certainly not putting words in your mouth!  

I am not claiming that *you* have said that your distrust has caused problems with various GMs (which would be putting words into your mouth).  I am saying that your various statements imply something that *you are not saying*.  Which is, actually, an extremely common state of affairs among human beings.  I doubt any of us are immune.

Another way to look at it:

With my game philosophy, I can find a group anywhere to run any system I so choose.  I can say, "You must trust me to run the best game I can", and I have to choose who cannot play because I simply don't have the time or energy to run games for all who would wish to.

My games will certainly not be for everyone, but I have no fear of being able to game so long as I wish to, regardless of what happens with WotC or the D&D brand.  It is not, has never been, and never shall be "Where can I get some players?" but always "How do I deal with so many who want to play?"

With your game philosophy, can you say the same?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Something I don't quite understand.  RPG's are collaborative games.  I think we all agree on that.
> 
> How can something be collaborative if everyone's ideas are subordinate to one person?




I would prefer to say "cooperative games", although certainly some games are more collaborative than others.  There are rpgs, for instance, without a GM, and in those games everyone does equal work sharing the role of both player (advocate for character) and GM (supplier of problems for characters).

The more these roles are shared, the more authority must be shared, and the more collaborative a game is.

I believe that, after a certain point, there are diminishing returns on this collaboration for most games.  I.e., if someone is asked to both advocate for his character, and to determine what happens/what complications occur, in the same scene, you can easily run into the same problem that "GM PCs" cause in a more traditional rpg format.

I also believe that, after a certain point, stepping into the GM role diminishes the level of player immersion in the game, by removing the player (even temporarily) from full advocacy from his or her character.

Obviously, my opinions here are based on my experience, and YMMV (and probably will, at least as much as your experiences vary).


RC


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 28, 2011)

I have no real doubt that Hussar was bitten in the arse by bad GMs, Hell, the first time that ever I ran a game was because the group had booted a bad GM.

For me the ratio has been around two good, five mediocre, two bad, and one 'dear god, let the pain stop' out of any ten. This does not count the 'just learning' GMs.

I have seen a bad GM turn around - one of the most gratifying things that I have ever experienced. And he was one of the arbitrary GMs that so many of the folks on this thread have written about.

His group was hemorrhaging players, and he would complain about subplots in my Spycraft 2.0 game. (Subplots are plots chosen by the players - he felt that they wasted time.)

I was getting ready to give him a talking to, he was becoming a real nuisance in my game, but I guess some of the other players beat me to it. And he just plain stopped being a problem.

First, he stopped complaining.

Then he took a subplot, and, for a wonder, allowed himself to enjoy it. (That is harder than it sounds - he was very caught up in being right.)

Then he started running a Spycraft 2.0 game, with a few of my players giving him a chance. Heck, I played in his game.

And he was good. There was humor, some give and take between the players and the GM, and he was actually very good. (The scenario was 'One of Our Zambonis is Missing'. The campaign was O' Canada!) I had a blast. 

He now has no lack of players, and blames me for changing his play style, but really, he mostly just had to start listening to the players, both when he was running games and when he was playing.

And he was willing to make the changes. He learned. 

The Auld Grump, rambling....


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I have no real doubt that RC was bitten in the arse by bad GMs





Sure; but I didn't then generalize it to all GMs, and it didn't make me decide that the GM shouldn't have the authority to do his or her job.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I'm not trying to change anybody's game. Lots of people play in a style that I wouldn't have in my game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





Water Bob said:


> Your GM is more than just the "monster mover".You have to trust your GM because he's got to make calls that aren't in the book
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



These posts don't give me the impression that you have a lot of familiarity with non-dungeon, non-PC-power-advancement based play. They also suggest that you're not that familiar with the stunt/improvisation rules from 4e (or other games). I also don't see the link between roleplaying and GM-fiat.

I posted an actual play account of a new-school (4e) session, based on time travel and exploration of an abandoned magical school, here. Have a read of that and then explain to me in more detail what I would gain from abandoning my current approach to the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I have no real doubt that Hussar was bitten in the arse by bad GMs




I have no doubt either; I am just not at all certain that the "bad GMs" were actually *all* bad GMs.  At some point, attitude colours experience.


RC


----------



## NewJeffCT (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> For you skeptics out there, try this:  Do a 3 or 4 session game.  Everybody create brand new characters just for this short mini-campaign.  In this experiment, everyone agree that the GM IS THE RULEBOOK, and that his word is law.  Everyone agree not to argue even once with the GM.
> 
> Then, run the 3-4 session mini-game.
> 
> ...




OK, with your first paragraph here, I would be in trouble.  I've been running games in both 3.5E and 4E for almost four years now.  Other than the now married couple who can't game on Friday nights anymore, the group keeps coming back to my table.  So, I guess I don't suck too badly at DMing.

However, my word is never law at the table.  If there is a rules question, we discuss the rule or rules in question like adults (most of the time) and then decide what fits best for that situation.  If somebody wants to try something new/different and it's in the rules, I'm certainly not inclined to say, "Sorry, my word is law and your new move will ruin my super-duper BBEG, so I must say you can't do it."   

I've been playing D&D for over 30 years now and I certainly don't presume to know all the rules in any edition - so, unless the new/different move is a total weasel move, I would be inclined to allow it.  The players in my group generally would also speak up if they knew of a rule that would disallow such a move as well.

However, once we do decide on how to implement a rule, we do try to be consistent going forward.  And, I do remind people of certain situations in game where certain moves/powers/spells would not be available to them, or might cause unexpected consequences.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 28, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure; but I didn't then generalize it to all GMs, and it didn't make me decide that the GM shouldn't have the authority to do his or her job.



Sorry, that was supposed to be Hussar, not RC - I corrected it while you were posting.

The problem kicks in when a GM uses that authority to screw his players, and thereby screws up his job, then wonders why he has no players. Trust me, it happens. (I thank the gods that I have never screwed up my game like that.)

There is a difference between authority and license - authority, in a game, should not equal autocracy. It does not need to be a dictatorship.

I almost never have a problem with rules lawyers, and still play Spycraft 2.0, which imposes some real limits on GM power. I _like_ having those limits.

My other game is Pathfinder, which does not have those same, in built, limits, but, again, I do not face a barrage of rules lawyering and quibbles.

But it really depends on the GM and the group. Some like a more authoritarian GM. But I neither want to play under an authoritarian GM nor to be one. The OP is welcome to like the simplicity of one man, one vote, ain't it great that I'm that man who gets the vote, at least if his players are also having a good time, but it just does not sound like fun to me. 

And if his players aren't having a good time then he may wonder where they all went.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 28, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> But it really depends on the GM and the group. Some like a more authoritarian GM. But I neither want to play under an authoritarian GM nor to be one.



Indeed. I disagree with the OP's suggestion that every DM should read this. If you and your group know how you (as a group) like to play, there's no need to get anyone else's opinion on how the game should be played.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 28, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I have no doubt either; I am just not at all certain that the "bad GMs" were actually *all* bad GMs.  At some point, attitude colours experience.
> 
> 
> RC



This I will grant - but it is actually something that is liable to be affected by a positive feedback loop - if you get three bad GMs in a row you are less likely to be forgiving of #4.

_My_ problem is that I almost never play - so my view is biased by being a permanent GM. I don't really trust anyone else to do the job properly, at least at the beginning. I don't really trust GMs, and that includes me.  I hate railroading, arbitrary decisions, and picking a fall guy for the group. I hate GMs who think that if a PC doesn't die every session then the game wasn't challenging enough. (Not joking - I had a GM who gave no experience unless a PC died.)

It all comes down to being a control freak - a weakness for GMs, and one I guard myself against whenever I run games. If you are overly controlling then you can kill your game.

I _have_ had good GMs, and I have had some _terrible_ GMs. But I have only had a very, very few GMs that I would call _very_ good. (I also had one bi-polar GM, who was very good when he was up, and terrible when he was down. And he hated the treatment. He was also diabetic. A few years ago he allowed himself to be taken off dialysis and died.)

Experience shapes perception, which can, in turn, shape experience.

The Auld Grump


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I'm not trying to change anybody's game. Lots of people play in a style that I wouldn't have in my game.




This seems reasonable.



> They may have games when everybody can't show up.




Sounds normal. To each their own, though. I don't fault you for your rule on this one bit.



> They may have long, bloody arguments with the DM over his judgement calls.




This happens occasionally in my game, but to be fair, I'm working out the kinks in the rules, and the feedback helps, and the players know it does. In other games (such as D&D or Mutants and Masterminds), the arguments don't work that way.



> They may throw lots of experience upon PCs, raising them up to 30th level and beyond and they may make sure that every gold piece and piece of treasure and every magic item is found in a dungeon before the PCs leave, cleaning it all up like D&D locusts.




Not my style of game, but I agree, more power to them.



> They may like saying, "Is there a trap down the corridor? Here I roll my Spot check? It's a 14. Did I see anything? I did?. OK, here, I roll my Disable Device skill. It's a 17. Oh, we're past the trap? OK..."




Not usually how we play, but again, nothing wrong with it. Same page so far.



> They may do all that and more....AND THAT'S OK! It's their game. I'm not trying to tell them that they're having no good bad fun if they're enjoying themselves.




Awesome 



> I posted that article for those who "get it" and understand that there is some valuable advice--a refresher course, if you will--written in that thing that can help a good GM be even better _in my opinion_.




I'm honestly curious, because I think some people are understandably somewhat offended by this... what exactly does "get it" mean? Those who agree? That seems to be the implication.



> Hey, if you want to run around and roll play instead of role play, all the while min/max'ing your characters, I'm not here to tell you not to do that.




Just so we're on the same page, you aren't saying that other people who roleplay in the described methods are roll playing and min/maxers, right? It's just a new example? Because the other examples above are definitely not min/maxing, roll playing examples.



> I'm just saying that's not what I think of when I think of superior play. If you've got another take on it, then, buddy, more power to ya. Enjoy yourself.




Cool  I'm glad you we can agree to play however is fun for our groups.



> Trust me. I won't come over to your house and take your dice away from you.




Not really worried about it, but I get the gist of what you're saying


----------



## Storminator (Apr 28, 2011)

man! Threads like this are awesome! For a little while...

PS


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Sorry, that was supposed to be Hussar, not RC - I corrected it while you were posting.




I saw that.  But fear not; I, too, have encountered bad GMs.



> The problem kicks in when a GM uses that authority to screw his players, and thereby screws up his job, then wonders why he has no players.




The problem kicks in when a GM understands that it is his job to make things difficult for his players, but fails to understand the limitations and restrictions implied by the purpose behind those difficulties.  Specifically, if the GM doesn't understand that difficulties are intended to be overcome, and that there are intended to be periods in which the PCs simply reap the rewards gained thereby.

It is utterly fine for the players to feel that something bad has happened.  

It is not okay for them to feel that the GM is screwing them.  If they really believe that, they should quit.  If they do not, they should be willing to accept that, sometimes, bad things happen....indeed, the game is largely about overcoming the twists of fate that are thrown at you (not unlike what occurs with the heroes in pulp novels).

It is absolutely great for the players to feel Boo-Yah! They overcame something in some unexpected way because they used their brains and their characters creatively.

A good GM is on the side of the players, even as he is throwing a train wreck at their characters.  In a good game, this is clearly understood on both sides of the table.



TheAuldGrump said:


> This I will grant - but it is actually something that is liable to be affected by a positive feedback loop - if you get three bad GMs in a row you are less likely to be forgiving of #4.




This is absolutely true.

While I think Hussar's attitude may contribute to his perception, I do not think that Hussar's attitude is necessarily unreasonable based on his experience.  Just unfortunate.


RC


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 28, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> *All that tells me is that the GM is trying to fake stunt mechanics out of a game that doesn't include them.*




"Fake" stunt mechanics.

Boy, I can tell you don't "get it".

So, if a rule is not printed in a book somewhere, and the GM just makes it up off the top of his head, the GM's ruling is bogus? And, its counterfeited if someone in the next session says, "Hey, I looked it up, and here's how the falling attack should have been administered."

If anyone reading this thinks the player who looked it up at the next session is "correct", then we definitely don't see eye-to-eye on this.





> *Of course. But by the same token the GM should not simply rule contrary to what is in the books or else things become meaningless.*




Yep. Definitely doesn't get it.

On one level, I'm amazed so many people think this way.

On another, I'm sure they're amazed that I think the way I do.



*EXAMPLE:*

You know, I saw a permanent damage chart in one of the Conan supplements (Warrior's Guide - I play the Conan RPG, which is based on d20  3.5 but different in a lot of areas).  The rule says that, when damage rolled for a weapon results in the maximum number (a "6" on a weapon that does 1d6, for example), then the permanent damage chart was to be used.

What a horrible rule!

If you follow this rule, then your smaller, lighter weapons will be doing permanent damage much more often than the bigger weapons that do more damage.  A weapon that does 1d4 damage will have a 25% chance of rolling on the chart every time it hits, while a weapon that does 1d10 only has a 10% chance chance of rolling on the chart.  A weapon that does 2d6 damage only has a 2.7% chance of making it to the permanent damage chart once damage is thrown.

The point here is:  The rules in the books are not divinely inspired.  Some rules, like the one above, are quite poorly written.  You shouldn't give more authority to the written rules than you do your GM. 









chaochou said:


> Clearly then you think in terms of *superiority*. Implicitly, you think of the listed game choices as *inferior*.




I do. Otherwise, I'd embrace them.

Just like you make choices in your game as to what you like and don't like. Be default, you think the way you play is superior to other ways of playing because that is the result of your choice (unless you're into chosing things that you don't like).

There is one thing I'd like to change about my group. I'd like to get them to speak more "in character" than what they do now. They're not good about that. I'm trying to get them to think more in the first person, saying, "I'll move over there by the barrel and poke my head over the top." Rather than, "Caelis moves over by the barrel and pokes his head over the top."

It's an immersion thing.









pemerton said:


> These posts don't give me the impression that you have a lot of familiarity with non-dungeon, non-PC-power-advancement based play.




Boy, are you off the mark.







> They also suggest that you're not that familiar with the stunt/improvisation rules from 4e (or other games). I also don't see the link between roleplaying and GM-fiat.




I don't know squat, really, about 4E. Haven't read any of it. I do know about things like combat challenges and stunts in the Iron Heroes RPG, and that similar rules appear in other recent games.

IMO, those rules are OK, but all they're doing is putting structure to GM fiat. And, a GM can do it faster making it up off the top of his head. He doesn't need some rule in the book to back him up.

Well, I'm sure that some players think, "Whew! IT's IN THE BOOK! IT"S OK IF HE DOES IT!" So, maybe that's a good thing--for those players who need the printed rule to validate their GMs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 28, 2011)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]:  Sorry if those last couple of posts came off a bit like I'm trying to read your mind, or tell you what you're saying.  I find it unfortunate that you've had the experiences you have, and, sometimes, when you really enjoy something, it's hard not to think "Ah, if only you could see it this way, you could enjoy it too!"

I'm not sure if you are still trying out game systems or not, but your enjoyment of Sufficiently Advanced (for example) may well stem (in part) from the way responsibilities are shared.  And, maybe, if I had your experiences, I would enjoy a game like SA more than I do.

In either event, it is always a good thing to try to match your desires with the game and group which will best meet them.  

I feel safe in thinking that is something we both agree on!


RC


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 28, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I saw that.  But fear not; I, too, have encountered bad GMs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Just because I haven't posted this in a while....



Die Hard Effect by TheAuldGrump, on Flickr

And along those same lines:



Pit Trap by TheAuldGrump, on Flickr

The Auld Grump


----------



## Rel (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I don't know squat, really, about 4E. Haven't read any of it. I do know about things like combat challenges and stunts in the Iron Heroes RPG, and that similar rules appear in other recent games.
> 
> IMO, those rules are OK, but all they're doing is putting structure to GM fiat. And, a GM can do it faster making it up off the top of his head. He doesn't need some rule in the book to back him up.




I think you're making a huge assumption here, that is probably one of the cornerstones of this debate.  I believe that many, many GMs do not feel that it is "faster making it up off the top of his head".  If that were true in every case then we wouldn't have "games" at all because there would be no rules.

Most games have a rule for determining whether you hit your opponent when you swing your sword.  And, in most cases, this mechanic is very simple because it will be used very often.  Personally I would find it incredibly tiresome to have to make a GM judgment call each time rather than having this mechanic already available.

So the question really becomes how far do you extend this thinking into situations that crop up less commonly.  People tend to try and notice or spot things very frequently so I think it's probably a good thing for the game to have a mechanic for that and to apply that mechanic consistently.  Picking Locks?  Ok I guess.  Grappling an opponent?  Maybe.  Leaping off a ledge and trying to skewer a goblin while avoiding falling damage?  Aha!  Now we've crossed a line (my personal line) where I don't think you need a specific rule to handle that rather rare situation.  

BUT I think it is perfectly fine, perhaps even smart, to give the GM some kind of unified "stunt" mechanic for just this type of situation.  In my opinion the best sorts of stunt mechanics are fairly simple, very flexible and easy to apply to a wide range of situations.  If a mechanic fits those criteria then I regard it as better than GM fiat if for no other reason than I don't have to reinvent the wheel each time somebody wants to do something along these lines.

The system I'm currently using (Savage Worlds) has an implied stunt mechanic that basically works like this:

Pick an applicable Trait for the player to roll (Could be Agility or Strength or Throwing or Stealth or whatever)
Establish a target number (default is 4 but you might increase that due to difficulty or make an opposed roll to establish this number)
If the player's roll equals the target number they succeed.  If they beat it by 4 then they succeed spectacularly.

It's simple, it's fast and it makes adjudicating those situations easy.  However it still includes a fair bit of GM decision making in terms of selecting a Trait to roll and target number.  And I would assert that the GM has the "last word" on how those rulings are made.

However when I say "last word" I want to underscore that there are plenty of words that might be exchanged prior to that.  If the player asserts that since he's ultimately making an attack against the goblin then his Fighting skill should be used rather than Agility then I should take that into consideration and possibly change my mind.  If I'm unsure then what I feel that I've got to do is to make a call, but let the player know that if they want to discuss the matter further after the game then I'm willing to do so.  I might still change my mind later or I might not.  I just don't think I gain much by being authoritarian about it.


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> IMO, those rules are OK, but all they're doing is putting structure to GM fiat. And, a GM can do it faster making it up off the top of his head. He doesn't need some rule in the book to back him up.
> 
> Well, I'm sure that some players think, "Whew! IT's IN THE BOOK! IT"S OK IF HE DOES IT!" So, maybe that's a good thing--for those players who need the printed rule to validate their GMs.




I think you're making some unfounded assumptions about the players' attitude here. Some players think that it's a good thing to use book rules not because of trust issues with the GM, but because it empowers them to make informed decisions without first checking with the GM every time. Yes, it's faster for the GM to just make something up without checking a simple rule: but it's _also_ faster for a player who knows what to expect to take an action without first having to ask "So what would your estimation of my chances be in this instance?" Now, if the players have been playing with this one GM for years upon years, and know his judgment calls as well as they know the rules, then yes, there's no real benefit: but that's just not always the case. People join, leave, form new groups.

It's basically like playing chess without having to double-check how those little horsey-things move every few turns. It really isn't the slowdown that you would expect (particularly since things like the p. 42 rules are summed up on a chart that appears on the GM screen, for instance; it's just as easy as checking an NPC's defenses and hit points).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> "Fake" stunt mechanics.
> 
> Boy, I can tell you don't "get it".




You know, you'd get a much better reception on this thread if you stopped preaching about how you "got it" and realised that some don't get what you do and others not only get what you do we see beyond you.



> So, if a rule is not printed in a book somewhere, and the GM just makes it up off the top of his head, the GM's ruling is bogus?




Of course not. The DM's ruling is bogus if he arbitrarily changes the way the world works by fiat and against PC expectation.



> And, its counterfeited if someone in the next session says, "Hey, I looked it up, and here's how the falling attack should have been administered."
> 
> If anyone reading this thinks the player who looked it up at the next session is "correct", then we definitely don't see eye-to-eye on this.




Flow trumps accuracy for immersion. As DM I'd do exactly what you did at the time. And then the next session nod and say "We'll handle it that way next time it comes up."



> On one level, I'm amazed so many people think this way.
> 
> On another, I'm sure they're amazed that I think the way I do.




Oh, I'm not even slightly surprised you think the way you do. You appear to be someone who's grasped one jigsaw puzzle piece and be waving it around and claiming that anyone who doesn't think that what you have is the whole of the puzzle doesn't get it. This is predictable and common.



> *EXAMPLE:*
> 
> You know, I saw a permanent damage chart in one of the Conan supplements (Warrior's Guide - I play the Conan RPG, which is based on d20 3.5 but different in a lot of areas). The rule says that, when damage rolled for a weapon results in the maximum number (a "6" on a weapon that does 1d6, for example), then the permanent damage chart was to be used.
> 
> What a horrible rule!




Agreed. But the cure for a horrible and recurrant rule is not a DM ass-pull. It's to house-rule it. Replacing the rules with better ones. But I'll tell you something else. Most RPGs were put together by professional game designers. Most DMs are not professional game designers. Which means that most books are better designed than most DMs can manage.

Also, I expect transparency. One of the best rules in 1e AD&D was that 1gp = 1xp. This set the entire tone of the campaign, making the PCs money grubbing adventurers who went into dungeons to loot them and remove everything not nailed down (and even steal the nails).

If a GM were to change that rule in the middle of a 1e game simply because he thought it was a bad rule, he'd be changing the very morality embedded into the universe. And that would shatter immersion faster and harder than the DM snorting helium before RPing the ogres. A consistent gameworld is a part of immersion and when the DM violates the rules he breaks that consistency. And breaks the immersion.

There might even be a literary reason why daggers are more likely to scar people in Conan and greatswords to knock them out - it certainly wouldn't surprise me in a Xena-based RPG for this to be intentional.



> I do. Otherwise, I'd embrace them.




And that tells me that you just don't get it. I consider Perversity Points from Paranoia a superb rule. But I don't embrace them because I don't often want to play paranoia and think it would go down like a lead balloon at my current table. I consider the tower from Dread one of the best rules out there. But I'm not normally running horror.



> IMO, those rules are OK, but all they're doing is putting structure to GM fiat. And, a GM can do it faster making it up off the top of his head.




Yes, possibly - at least if the DM isn't prone to second guessing himself. But the time to look up an amount of information that fits on an index card is trivial. And it's sure. No real arguments second guessing yourself.

I'm now going to give the example I normally use of why improvising with mechanical scaffolding is IMO superior to improvising out of thin air. It was my third session DMing D&D _ever_. And through some luck (a natural 20 in the right place) and being sneaky bastards, my PCs had managed to turn a dragonrider and his very young dragon. But if the dragon was spotted from the air from either side, he was doomed. There wasn't enough local cover to hide him from street level where he'd start a riot or a panic. And so they needed to move him through a city that was hostile to the dragons to get him to a safe house. (Or demolish a bombed out building to hide him under but they didn't try that).

Anyway the plan the PCs came up with was to loot a couple of horse blankets and a cart, put the dragon's back legs and tail in the cart, put a couple of corpses over it, and claim they had a plague cart. With a plan like that, how do you work out how hard it is to perform? How do you manage the pacing? The random factors that may derail the plan? What if one thing goes wrong? Can they pull it back? With 4e's excellent skill challenge mechanics I had the pacing, the difficulty, and a source of random troubles sorted out in less time than it took me to take a swallow of my drink. In my third session as a DM. Yes, a pure fiat DM could have probably done the same thing using his experience to cover for a lack of extended action mechanics. But I doubt many could off that level of inexperience.

And _that_ is why I like modern RPG mechanics.  They actively empower both DM and players to do what they want.  They aren't normally something you want to fight - they are something that helps you do what you want to do _better_.

Reading your posts, why do you even bother with any game mechanics at all? Just play freeform - it's what you appear to be advocating.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> But, be open while you're doing this experiment to completely trust the GM and allow him the creative room to make the calls as he sees fit.



Here's the thing, a group giving their DM the trust and permission required to run the game primarily on DM calls is only the first step. The _easy_ step.

The next, and far more interesting/difficult step is: how do I, as DM, run a challenging and interesting game where I *am* the rulebook, the principle task resolution system?

Let me be frank, as rulesbooks go, I'm terribly incomplete, even though I've been running campaigns since the mid-1980s. The things I don't know could --and do-- fill libraries. 

In theory, I have no problem with designing all the challenges my players will face, and then adjudicating their solutions to them, sans printed rules.

In practice... well, therein lies the rub.

It's fine to advocate in favor of clever traps, puzzles and riddles the players actually solve themselves. But it's quite another matter to to design, or even find, challenging obstacles for a group of smart, talented, accomplished people who still find the time to read both eclectically and voraciously, or worse, who _live_ both eclectically and voraciously. For example, I think the PhD count in my group is currently 2 (soon to be 3) and the lawyer count is 1. Creating (certain types of) "hands-on", less abstract challenges for them would be a full-time job.

I already have a full-time job. Plus other hobbies. Have I mentioned my lovely wife? Also, I quite like to drink...

There's a lot to like in the Old School Primer --and yes, I read it, a long time ago. But what it doesn't address is some of the practical difficulties in running long-term games in that mode. And, to be fair, neither do you...

The authority/permission to act as the rules book is one thing, the skill(s) required to do so are another. Just because I *can* act as "the rules" doesn't mean I wouldn't benefit from a well-designed set of rules for the times when whatever acumen I posses fails me and I need to answer the player demanding to know "so, what happens now?"


----------



## chaochou (Apr 28, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Just like you make choices in your game as to what you like and don't like. Be default, you think the way you play is superior to other ways of playing because that is the result of your choice (unless you're into chosing things that you don't like).




I don't think of any given playstyle as 'superior' because I've played in many different styles over 30 years in games which suggest very different approaches to GMing and playing - from AD&D and Runequest to Paranoia to Sorceror and Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World and Dogs in The Vineyard.

I think it's fairly clear that you haven't. I can embrace lots of styles of games. You've made it abundantly clear that you can't, but don't project your narrow-mindedness onto me.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Apr 28, 2011)

[MENTION=6957]TheAuldGrump[/MENTION] -

Love the pics - I'd give you XP, but I need to spread more around first.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 29, 2011)

Rel said:


> I think you're making a huge assumption here, that is probably one of the cornerstones of this debate. I believe that many, many GMs do not feel that it is "faster making it up off the top of his head". If that were true in every case then we wouldn't have "games" at all because there would be no rules.




Combat Maneuvers in Conan are a good example.  If you want to clothesline somebody, there's a maneuver for it.  If you're grappling with somebody and want to pull the character around in front of you using him as a human shield, then there's a rule for it.  If you want to move out of the way so that your flankers attack each other, there's a rule for it.

It is so much easier for the player to simply state what he wants to do and then  have the GM think for a second an apply whatever throw or modifiers make sense to him at the moment.

If you go with the printed rule, you've got to look up prerequisites and read how the rule is supposed to be implemented by the "book" and check to see if the character meets the prerequisites to even attempt the maneuver, and blah, blah, blah.

GM fiat is much faster.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 29, 2011)

chaochou said:


> I don't think of any given playstyle as 'superior' because...




Sure you do.  As a Player, you have a favorite style of game and styles that you don't like.  Therefore, you think one style of game is superior over the other.

As a GM, you think running your game a certain way is best, which, again, is a value judgement, with you picking what you think is the superior choice.



> I think it's fairly clear that you haven't. I can embrace lots of styles of games. You've made it abundantly clear that you can't, but don't project your narrow-mindedness onto me.





LOL.  Riiiiight.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 29, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Be default, you think the way you play is superior to other ways of playing because that is the result of your choice (unless you're into chosing things that you don't like).






chaochou said:


> I can embrace lots of styles of games. You've made it abundantly clear that you can't, but don't project your narrow-mindedness onto me.





Hey, guys?

The other guy probably knows what he thinks better than you do.  Really, he does.  Trying to tell him what he thinks is a losing proposition, both in terms of the strength of your argument, and just plain politeness.

So, how about both of you stop trying, please?  Thanks much.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 29, 2011)

Umbran said:


> So, how about both of you stop trying, please? Thanks much.




No problem.  Will do (actually, will cease).  





With that out of the way, let's switch gears and address the thread.

Why is it that people tend to give credence to a rule if its written down in a book but look at a rule suspiciously if it's a quickie GM judgement call.

Let's say a player is fighting two hobgoblins, and the player gets this bright idea.  "I'm going to jump sideways and let the two hobbies attack each other!"

The GM scratches his head a bit on this.  He knows it's not a simple maneuver to pull off, so he comes up with a quickie rule.  He says, "This can only be a function of the Improved Uncanny Dodge Feat.  If you've got that, I'll let you pull it off.  If not, then you're not skilled enough to do it."

Player smiles.  "My character DOES have Improved Uncanny Dodge!  I'm going to attempt it!"

The GM thinks some more.  "OK," he says.  "Tell you what.  Let's have all three combatants make simple DEX checks.  If your PC beats either or both of them, the loser will attack his buddy as you describe.  In order for them both to attack each other, your DEX check has to be higher than either of the two Hobby throws.

"The DEX checks simulate how quick you move in the combat.  You'll want to move at the last second, or else they'll check their blows and continue to attack you.  Your opposed DEX check will tell us if your character is quick enough to pull this off.

"But....there's a catch.  While you're trying to make yourself a target and then dodge at the last moment, you're a bit easier to hit.  I won't have them throw an Attack of Opportunity on you, because you are still defending yourself--just not as good as you could be.

"If either of the Hobbies beat you with the DEX check, they'll get a +2 to their attack throws and a +2 to damage."





Now, even though it makes sense, players (I take it many of the ones responding on this thread) won't see the sense in it, and they might even argue about how hard the GM has made it for the character to pull this off.  Or, they might balk at the Hobbies' advantage if the PC loses the DEX throw...and they just plain won't trust this GM call.

A lof of you reading this thread, would feel that way, right?  If the GM just came up with that off the top of his head, using his judgement and command of the rules.





Well, those exact rules ARE in the Conan RPG game.  It's a combat maneuver called Pantherish Twist.  The rules are exactly what I describe above.

And, since it is a rule in the book, nobody questions the rule.  That's simply how Pantherish Twist is done.

Why will some people accept a rule in the book but not the GM's fiat?


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 29, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Why will some people accept a rule in the book but not the GM's fiat?




Because they are unique - just like everyone else


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 29, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Why will some people accept a rule in the book but not the GM's fiat?




That's a good question, and I'll do my best to address it. Many people rely on the rules as a form of support, be it player or GM.

As a player, it lets me know what I can reliably do. If I know that attacking requires me to roll a base attack + Strength roll, and I need to hit their armor class, then I can plan around that. I can attempt to attain a higher Strength, or a higher base attack, or a masterwork weapon (in 3.x), or feats that boost my roll. It lets me know how I can craft my character to play out the way I want it to.

For example, if I had in mind a character who was this huge brute that hit people with a giant axe, I probably envision a high Strength character, possibly with a high Constitution. Now, if I found out (through rule or house rule) that Dexterity is the attribute that covers whether or not I can hit someone, than my concept changes to include a high Dexterity, so I can make use of my giant axe.

These written rules give players a strong starting point when determining the mechanical manifestation of the concept of their character. If their mechanical character does not match their conceptual character very much, than they often find themselves distanced from the character, losing that special connection, immersion, or whatever it is that makes that character special and spark in their mind.

For a GM, having the rules to draw on is incredibly comforting when you are learning. After you have played with the rules for a while, you can see the strengths and weaknesses of the system. Lastly, having rules in place allows you to cite them when a player disagrees, even if they think it is a bad rule (you have even asked EN World in the recent past how to justify a mechanical rule, rather than change it to something perhaps more realistic, here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/304196-flat-footed.html).

Of course, it is true that the more you know about something, the more you can break the rules you were taught at the beginning. So, with more experience, it's much easier to break these rules and have an enjoyable experience, but I think that's a fairly universal rule.

As a player, the rules are their for guidance, and as a source of reliable material. You cannot reliably use GM fiat, for even an amazing GM must come up with the mechanical roll for you to use on the fly. You cannot know what the rolling mechanic will be any more than he does. Take, for example, the maneuver to dodge and have two enemies swing at one another. If I wanted to do that, and the maneuver had no mechanics, than I could have no way of knowing that you'd rule it a certain way, for even you have not decided what the ruling is yet (as the situation is only now coming up). However, as it is a maneuver, I know I can reliably use that mechanic, and I can temper a character concept by careful use of the reliable rules.

As a GM, they are there as a source of incredible guidance, giving you example after example of how the system envisions Dexterity being used, attack rolls being used, Constitution checks being used. The rules help you see the spirit of the game. Mutants and Masterminds use Hero Points to allow your character to do things beyond their normal control. There's a knockback mechanic for when you get pretty hurt by an attack. These help indicate the style of game the rules were created for.

When a GM begins to use his granted power of Rule and Overrule, I do not immediately buck against it. I'll accept it. If it creates an inconsistent or displeasing game experience, I'll voice my concern, and I'll drop the game if it continues. I will not try to take away that right from the GM, as he has the right to run his game the way he wishes. As a player, I think I should look for someone a little more in line with what I enjoy. Since, really, it's all about enjoyment.

And that's the crux of the matter, really. It's about mutual enjoyment, and it's about a consistent gaming world where reliable mechanics are incredibly useful. For all of my problems with 4e, I really, really like the idea of a unified mechanic for on the fly maneuvers (I doubt I'd like the implementation, but that was true of 3.x, 2e, etc. mechanics). Having a rule like that exist allows players to reliably use new abilities in a predictable method, and thus does not infringe on their enjoyment when something seems inconsistent. It prevents situations where an action was Dexterity once (because of the ability to react quickly) and Intelligence the next time (because of the ability to think quickly).

That's really it. I break or bend rules all the time, and I attempt to do so in a consistent way. I have the added benefit of playing a game of my own creation, so I can just fix previous rules as these new decisions are made. Regardless of that, I can say in all sincerity that I am an amazing GM, even though I embrace the rules. Honestly, my players love me GMing (I'm stuck never getting to play). I'd be a horrible GM to other people.

It's a playstyle difference. You wanted to know why people preferred rules over GM fiat. That's about it, I think. I hope it at least illuminates the issue, even if you don't agree with the playstyle. And, the real beauty of the thing, is that everyone gets to play however they want. And that's pretty amazing.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 29, 2011)

Apropos of nothing much, just something that sleeted through my brain like a neutrino:



Dredd DM by TheAuldGrump, on Flickr




Terminator DM by TheAuldGrump, on Flickr  

The Auld Grump


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Apr 29, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Why is it that people tend to give credence to a rule if its written down in a book but look at a rule suspiciously if it's a quickie GM judgement call.
> [...]
> Why will some people accept a rule in the book but not the GM's fiat?




In addition to Jameson's answer (or perhaps more of an expanion on a limited part of it), I, who both DM and play, buy rulebooks.  I read them.  I tend to memorize them pretty well, largely by accident.

Ergo, I have, in my head, most of the rules that are in play most of the time while, currently, we're playing a Pathfinder adventure path.

That means I can make plans as to what my character is going to do in this round, or the next, etc., based on those rules - and because I can, I usually do.

In a recent combat, we were fighting an invisible, flying enemy.  Because I know the rules on what it means to have an invisible target (who occasionally gave her position away by attacking), I could formulate responses that, I hoped, would have a high degree of success.

For instance, when the party couldn't locate her, I cast Detect Magic - comfortable in the knowledge that, after three rounds of study, she (or, at least, her _returning throwing dagger +something_) would show up, and I could point her out to everyone.

This plan, to me, was workable because I know the way the various rules attendant to all the abilities in play interact.

If the DM had made a "quick judgement call" for how one or more rules in play worked, then my plan would not have the same chances of success; indeed, it might have been completely futile, and I'd've spent several rounds of combat (wherein I could've been helping the party fight the non-invisible enemies) acting meaninglessly.

So, basically, book rules are available to players, and let them plan and find interesting interactions and solutions to problems that are not guaranteed to be there under the "GM Just Makes Judgement Calls" system.


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 29, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> So, basically, book rules are available to players, and let them plan and find interesting interactions and solutions to problems that are not guaranteed to be there under the "GM Just Makes Judgement Calls" system.




When the game started and got into 1E AD&D (after it had grown from the three little books, of course), the DM's Guide was only meant for DM's.  If  you read the beginning sections of that book EGG says as much.

I actually prefer a game where the players don't know the rules.  Oh, in a d20 game, I want them to know enough to look long-term at building their characters and buying feats.

But, if I had my rathers (and I don't in this instance, because you can't control what people read), I'd defintely chose to go Old School on this and leave access to most of the rules to the DM, leaving the players with just the PHB and stuff they specifically need to know.

I know, I know.  You guys don't agree.  What else is new.


----------



## chaochou (Apr 29, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Why will some people accept a rule in the book but not the GM's fiat?




In addition to the excellent answer above from [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] it's because some players like the authority to influence the game world.


----------



## nedjer (Apr 29, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> That's a good question, and I'll do my best to address it. Many people rely on the rules as a form of support, be it player or GM.
> 
> As a player, it lets me know what I can reliably do. If I know that attacking requires me to roll a base attack + Strength roll, and I need to hit their armor class, then I can plan around that. I can attempt to attain a higher Strength, or a higher base attack, or a masterwork weapon (in 3.x), or feats that boost my roll. It lets me know how I can craft my character to play out the way I want it to.
> 
> ...




Astonishing, if glossy and hedging, case for rules as a railroading device and means to stereotype PC characterisation- all dressed up as even-handed.

Like "it's all about enjoyment", followed by I've decided "people prefer" my definition of enjoyment.

Is it not possible that those "people" you claim to speak for would prefer a GM who strikes a balance or creative tension between GM fiat and GM rules lawyer?

Equally, where does this idea that a game's designer expects her/ his rules to be treated as some sort of gospel carved on tablets of stone come from?


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 29, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> When the game started and got into 1E AD&D (after it had grown from the three little books, of course), the DM's Guide was only meant for DM's.  If  you read the beginning sections of that book EGG says as much.
> 
> I actually prefer a game where the players don't know the rules.



So, your 1E AD&D PHB didn't have rules? You may want to try getting a complete copy of the book.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 29, 2011)

Okay, I'm not exactly sure why the following post seems hostile when it doesn't seem to be against what I said. However, as it was written in response to my post, I will assume it is directed at me.



nedjer said:


> Astonishing, if glossy and hedging, case for rules as a railroading device and means to stereotype PC characterisation- all dressed up as even-handed.




Well, I disagree. But, as you explain your reasoning below, I guess I'll explain mine there as well.



> Like "it's all about enjoyment", followed by I've decided "people prefer" my definition of enjoyment.




I didn't actually say that. Let me quote myself (from the quote you responded to): "Honestly, my players love me GMing (I'm stuck never getting to play). I'd be a horrible GM to other people."

The second sentence indicates that other people (indeed, that phrase is specifically used) would not find me to be a good GM, much less a great one. It means that other people would hate my playstyle. However, I'm pretty sure my definition of enjoyment is shared by most people. Something akin to "doing what one enjoys."



> Is it not possible that those "people" you claim to speak for would prefer a GM who strikes a balance or creative tension between GM fiat and GM rules lawyer?




Is it possible my players would prefer that (since that's who I'm speaking for)? Yep. Sure is possible. I mean, nothing they've said or done indicates that, and their other actions and statements go against it, but some of them are sneaky.



> Equally, where does this idea that a game's designer expects her/ his rules to be treated as some sort of gospel carved on tablets of stone come from?




I'm really not trying to be coy or anything, but I'd say it comes from... you? I never indicated it. In fact, I said, specifically, "I'd be a horrible GM to other people." That means that the reasoning I presented in my full post does not apply to everyone. If that wasn't clear, that was probably a miscommunication on my part, and I apologize. I hope you get where I'm coming from now. If not, I'm coming from the position of my group, and my observations. And apparently they are not only in my mind, as several people in this thread have agreed with my post.

As a game designer (my group mostly plays a game I created), I am particularly against rules being carved in stone, and they are certainly not gospel. But, I never said that was the case. And I hope my previous paragraph clarified what I meant.

However, I do tend to go on and on about enjoyment, play what you like, etc. If you don't like the rules, you can disregard them. I do when I want to (as I am the GM). My players know I do, and they're okay with it. Again, "I'd be a horrible GM to other people." Luckily, we can all play with the style we like, and I still find that amazing. It's very hard to find an entertainment medium that allows for that kind of versatility.

But yeah... I hope this clarified things. Play what you like


----------



## nedjer (Apr 29, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> However, I'm pretty sure my definition of enjoyment is shared by most people. "




Dude, how do you work that out?

Irrespective of that, we're good, I always come across all belligerent in the morning


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 29, 2011)

nedjer said:


> Dude, how do you work that out?




I usually rely on the dictionary 



> Irrespective of that, we're good, I always come across all belligerent in the morning




No worries


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 29, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I actually prefer a game where the players don't know the rules.  Oh, in a d20 game, I want them to know enough to look long-term at building their characters and buying feats.
> 
> But, if I had my rathers (and I don't in this instance, because you can't control what people read), I'd defintely chose to go Old School on this and leave access to most of the rules to the DM, leaving the players with just the PHB and stuff they specifically need to know.
> 
> I know, I know.  You guys don't agree.  What else is new.




Well, that sums it up, though: players like to know the rules so that they can make informed decisions. If they don't know the rules, they can only guess at what might or might not work. So basically there are two gambles instead of one: you're gambling that your assessment of the odds is in-line with the DM's, and then you're gambling that you can pull it off with a die roll or whatever form of conflict resolution is used. A lot of people prefer to have just one gamble: you still don't know if you succeed or fail, but you still know the odds. You don't know what the other guy is holding, but you do know that your full house will beat anything but four of a kind or a straight flush. If you don't know the rules, you only know that you have a number of cards that match and that's basically good.

Informed decisions are at the centerpiece of player skill, technically. The ability to evaluate the odds is critical. Of course, you can get that in an utterly rules-free game, too, with information like "Steve is a total sucker for Joss Whedon, so if I quote some Buffy quip while I pull this off he will absolutely let me get away with it." But in most situations, rules are simply more reliable information than the GM's judgment, and they're accessible at any point you look at a book.


----------



## Zhaleskra (Apr 29, 2011)

Saw the terminator picture and just had to say: I am that GM when a player asks me "what's his armor class?". I know it's a valid style of play, but I like the mechanics to stay in the background.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 29, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Why is it that people tend to give credence to a rule if its written down in a book but look at a rule suspiciously if it's a quickie GM judgement call.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Why will some people accept a rule in the book but not the GM's fiat?



Any number of reasons. Everything else being equal, the rule in the book is more likely (i) to have been carefully thought through, (ii) to have been playtested, (iii) to be mechanically balanced with other elements of the game, (iv) to be knowable in advance by the participants in the game, etc.



			
				Water Bob;5543909I don't know squat said:
			
		

> Water Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Combat Maneuvers in Conan are a good example.  If you want to clothesline somebody, there's a maneuver for it.  If you're grappling with somebody and want to pull the character around in front of you using him as a human shield, then there's a rule for it.  If you want to move out of the way so that your flankers attack each other, there's a rule for it.
> ...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 29, 2011)

As like as not, when a player in my playtest group wants to perform a stunt, he is able to suggest a penalty and benefit using the guidelines presented, and all I need to do is say "Go for it!"

Likewise, that stunt is tied into the narrative.  The player is describing what he wants his character to try, and it has to make sense in terms of what is happening in the game world.  In some cases, a player negates his own thought based on the environment ("This is a stone floor; I can't use my dagger to nail his foot to it.....I'll try this instead.").

I like that level or engagement, both with the game milieu and with the ruleset.

YMMV.

RC


----------



## Water Bob (Apr 29, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> Well, that sums it up, though: players like to know the rules so that they can make informed decisions.




It's a two-edged sword.  I'm into experiencing another life in a fantasy world.  Immersion.  Other people are just playing a game.

It's sometimes helpful if a player knows the rules.  If a player likes to play the game, he's naturally going to be curious about it.

But, in those instances where the players don't know much about the rules and aren't thinking about the rules--they're just living in that other world we've created together--man!  That's some prime-time roleplaying there.

This rule-naive player isn't thinking about target numbers, modifiers, AC's, or what he's got to hit his enemy.  He's standing there, with the ground beneath his feat, breathing hard, looking at that minotaur, wondering to himself, "Oh my god, how am I going to live through this!"

You can't help but run into players who know the rules.  Most of them do.  In a d20 based game, the player almost has to know the rules in order to take full advantage of his character's abilities.

But, man, it sure can be sweet when a player doesn't know much about mechancis and just becomes totally immersed in that other world.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 29, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> But, man, it sure can be sweet when a player doesn't know much about mechancis and just becomes totally immersed in that other world.




IMHO, and IME, it sure can be sweet when a player becomes totally immersed in that other world.

But, IMHO and IME, a player can know the mechanics and still do that.

In fact, in your examples where the GM wings mechanics, they are still conveyed to the players in some form or other.  The player is still rolling dice, still marking off hit points, etc.


RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 29, 2011)

In many ways, player immersion can increase with a proper understanding of cause and effect. Player buy-in can also increase with more understanding of what they can do to influence the world around them. Both of these things are represented as game rules. When the game rules are consistent with what the player expects (if I do X, then Y happens... if I do A then B happens... I'm going to do A!) they they are more invested in the game, and thus have a stronger tie to the narrative being expressed at the table.

This isn't to say that they should always know what the outcome will be. But, they should have a reasonable expectation as to _possible outcomes_ and _general chances_ of said outcomes. This can, often times, create a better experience for the player.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Apr 29, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> It's a two-edged sword.  I'm into experiencing another life in a fantasy world.  Immersion.  Other people are just playing a game.




You keep arguing like these are separate things, and ne'er the twain shall meet.  Like you can only have one or the other.

They aren't like that at all.

Maybe that's the problem?


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 29, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> It's a two-edged sword.  I'm into experiencing another life in a fantasy world.  Immersion.  Other people are just playing a game.
> 
> It's sometimes helpful if a player knows the rules.  If a player likes to play the game, he's naturally going to be curious about it.
> 
> But, in those instances where the players don't know much about the rules and aren't thinking about the rules--they're just living in that other world we've created together--man!  That's some prime-time roleplaying there.




I agree that this is great roleplaying. But in my experience, it's not predicated on ignorance of the rules. "Not thinking about the rules" isn't reliant on "doesn't know much about the rules," and "doesn't know much about the rules" can lead to "thinking a lot about the rules just so you can try to figure out whether your character is good doing at this thing you saw him as being good at doing." I play regularly with people who think about game rules _all the time_, being designers, and they're great at immersion. It depends on the moment rather than whether or not you know roughly what sort of DC you need to hit should it come to die-rolling. 



> But, man, it sure can be sweet when a player doesn't know much about mechancis and just becomes totally immersed in that other world.




Sure. But it's also sweet when a player does know much about mechanics and becomes totally immersed, and it's also kind of awkward when a player doesn't know much about mechanics and the uncertainty makes it hard for him to get into his character. So there's really multiple factors at play at any given time.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 29, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> I'm into experiencing another life in a fantasy world.  Immersion.  Other people are just playing a game.



And some folks are mindful of both the in-game fiction _and_ the rules that support it. At the same time! While making Python and Princess Bride jokes (am I dating myself?). 



> But, man, it sure can be sweet when a player doesn't know much about mechancis and just becomes totally immersed in that other world.



My experiences tell me immersion and engagement with the game's world have everything to do with said world being an interesting and exciting place. Complete pig-ignorance of the rules won't make a dull, badly-presented setting/adventure into Middle Earth, Barsoom, and/or Hyperborea.


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 29, 2011)

here is the other sticking point to this argument
why is it ok for players to cheat and not the dm?

if a player's number one weapon of choice dealt poison damage, and he was fighting undead, he would automatically know poison is useless vs undead, why? because it's in the rules.  So, if the player elects NOT to use his #1 weapon, isn't he cheating (assuming of course that no kind of knowledge checks were rolled before hand) - or at least I believe the phrase is meta-gaming?

it has been argued by many that players "should know the rules" and while the rules for their characters should be very well known, I think players know way too much about what the DM may have up his sleeve, and this is wrong in MY opinion.  In the infamous "zombie vs hydra" scenario from a different thread, the "players" are only bent because they know what the hydra's stats are, so if the DM says, nope, sorry, this monster (the hydra) cannot be knocked prone, everyone goes bat crap.  Yet if you attack a zombie with poison, and the DM says nope, sorry, poison doesn't work on this monster....the likely response is "oops, I forgot"

I could be way off base with this, and as usual, I could be saying it wrong, so if you are offended, I am sorry.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Apr 29, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> here is the other sticking point to this argument
> why is it ok for players to cheat and not the dm?




It's not okay for anyone to cheat, IMO.



> if a player's number one weapon of choice dealt poison damage, and he was fighting undead, he would automatically know poison is useless vs undead, why? because it's in the rules.




Or because it's a pretty obvious guess that skeletons and zombies don't care about being poisoned since, you know, they're already dead, or that swords don't work all that well on skeletons, or because it's "common knowledge" in the setting ...

I mean, *I*'ve never grown up in a fantasy world in which skeletons and zombies and vampires and werewolves are literal facts of life that show up with some regularity, and *I* know that you use silver against werewolves and crosses and stakes against vampires.  Shouldn't my character know at least that much, assuming he isn't a blathering idiot?


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 29, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> It's not okay for anyone to cheat, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




interesting point...using that thought process isn't it "obvious" that something slithering on the ground can't be knocked prone?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Apr 29, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> interesting point...using that thought process isn't it "obvious" that something slithering on the ground can't be knocked prone?



No.  You can flip a snake over or twist it around so that it has to spend a moment righting itself.

For "getting better at describing animals in uncomfortable positions," I recommend watching The Crocodile Hunter.

EDIT:

To head off your next question:  And you can beat in a pseudopod so that an ooze has to rethicken the connection before it can move rapidly again.

EDIT 2:

Maybe, if you really felt the need, give snakes and other such creatures a special ability:

*Groundhugger*  This creature can stand up from prone as a free action that does not provoke an AoO.  [Depending on ruleset: This requires a DC XX [Skill] check; if the check is failed the creature must instead stand up as a move action that provokes an AoO.]


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 29, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> it has been argued by many that players "should know the rules" and while the rules for their characters should be very well known, I think players know way too much about what the DM may have up his sleeve, and this is wrong in MY opinion.  In the infamous "zombie vs hydra" scenario from a different thread, the "players" are only bent because they know what the hydra's stats are, so if the DM says, nope, sorry, this monster (the hydra) cannot be knocked prone, everyone goes bat crap.  Yet if you attack a zombie with poison, and the DM says nope, sorry, poison doesn't work on this monster....the likely response is "oops, I forgot"




In the last game I ran, one of the players was a polearm fighter, pretty well optimized to do what polearm fighters do: slide and knock things prone. And lo he did that to just about every enemy he found. He could slide giants, dragons, demons, whatever. But, put a 4' tall dwarf in front of him and it was one less square of forced movement, a save to be knocked prone, and if he didn't get the full 3 squares of slide on the dwarf because of their racial then he couldn't even attempt to knock them prone.

But, the game was internally consistent. And that made all the difference. In fact, one of the times it didn't seem consistent was when he had trouble sliding a white dragon, which I still hear about to this day. Now, said dragon was a dwarf transformed by a Winter Fey deal. Kept the dwarf racials, you see. But, to the player, it just felt wrong that the dragon was _still a dwarf_.

So, as a roundabout answer to your question, the answer is internal consistency. Internal consistency says that, as far as the player knows, and as far as game world physics go, you can slide and knock the dragon prone if your powers say you can. This isn't to say it is _wrong_ to give dragons themselves the ability to resist forced movement or being knocked prone, per say. However, there is a sort of physics to the world that is expected because of a shared viewpoint between the players and the DM - that being the rules. When they are broken, it can actually detract from the game, lose the immersion, and knock the players into the "game" feeling more than they would be by seeing a dragon knocked prone.

So... expectation. One person might have their immersion hurt by seeing a dragon knocked prone. Another might have their immersion hurt by expecting one outcome but the DM forcing an _unexpected_ one. In our case, the second is apparently the more powerful determining factor. In yours it is the first.

I hope that has shed some light on the alternate viewpoint for you.


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 29, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> here is the other sticking point to this argument
> why is it ok for players to cheat and not the dm?
> 
> if a player's number one weapon of choice dealt poison damage, and he was fighting undead, he would automatically know poison is useless vs undead, why? because it's in the rules.  So, if the player elects NOT to use his #1 weapon, isn't he cheating (assuming of course that no kind of knowledge checks were rolled before hand) - or at least I believe the phrase is meta-gaming?




There are two different schools of thought here, and they tend to depend on what the assumptions about the character's knowledge and capabilities are. In one camp, yes, he's metagaming, his character needs to make a roll or have fought undead before. In the other camp, it can be assumed that a character whose number one weapon of choice deals poison damage probably has learned a thing or two about how that weapon works, or has access to the (actually pretty common-sense) knowledge that poison works on living things and not so much on things that aren't alive.

But to the larger point, I think most groups allow for surprises within their social contracts. For example, the troll wearing a ring of fire resistance within the Temple of Elemental Evil. The conflicts arise about whether or not any given thing should be a surprise. Finding out your power doesn't work as written is not a pleasant surprise, but it can be balanced out if you also find that your power is more effective in a specific situation. I think a GM who has a tendency to make "no, I don't see that working, try something else" calls in the name of common sense is well-served to look for opportunities to say "yes, and it's more effective than usual." Otherwise, the player could well feel that the power is less useful than it seemed when he took it, simply by virtue of playing with that given GM.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 29, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> You keep arguing like these are separate things, and ne'er the twain shall meet.  Like you can only have one or the other.
> 
> They aren't like that at all.
> 
> Maybe that's the problem?




I would argue that they aren't *necessarily* like that, though plenty of people play RPGs like they are. They limit themselves to what they know of the rules, eschewing things that would be possible to do (maybe even awesomely cinematic to do) in favor of actions better supported by written rules or given specific benefits in the rules.

I have seen this a number of times with players new to rules sets. I hear the question "What can I do?" and I try to remember to return with "What would you *like* to do?" and then put that into whatever mechanic fits best or makes the most sense at the time.

Asking "What can I do?" makes sense for a board game or other game in which the things you can do are built up from nothing - everything you can do is because of a rule. But in a role playing game, I've never particularly liked the question. It's impossible for the game to construct every possible thing a character can do.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 30, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> Why is it that people tend to give credence to a rule if its written down in a book but look at a rule suspiciously if it's a quickie GM judgement call.




Part of the DM's job is to not just be fair but be seen to be fair.  Despite being in full control of one side in the fight.  Therefore the DM needs to be scrupulous.  But if it's written in a book it's part of the gameworld and it's what people expect.



> A lof of you reading this thread, would feel that way, right?  If the GM just came up with that off the top of his head, using his judgement and command of the rules.
> 
> Well, those exact rules ARE in the Conan RPG game.  It's a combat maneuver called Pantherish Twist.  The rules are exactly what I describe above.




You've already demonstrated that the Conan rules are mechanically ... not the ones I'd care to use.



> And, since it is a rule in the book, nobody questions the rule.  That's simply how Pantherish Twist is done.
> 
> Why will some people accept a rule in the book but not the GM's fiat?




Because if it's in the book it's part of the physics of the gameworld.  It isn't a case of favouritism.  If it's different from what the players expected or pictured themselves doing, they have only themselves to blame. And if it's to be argued, it's not to be argued in the session because to do so would be stupid.

On the other hand if it's DM fiat, the first thing to check if the DM comes up with that clunky a system is whether the DM has accurately understood what you were trying to do.  Possibly, possibly not.  But language is ambiguous.  So there's room for discussion and argument there.  The second thing to check is whether the DM  isn't being a little harsh in those rules.  The third thing is that the DM ruling is not as you expected.  Your character is a professional adventurer (especially by the time they have Improved Uncanny Dodge).  They should have a pretty good feel for what they can do.  If they knew in advance the mechanics then this is justified.  If they should have known them they have no one to blame but themselves.  But if the DM pulls a complex stunt ruling that feels wrong, this breaks immersion because they've suddenly been presented with a part of the world they should know backwards doing weird things.


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 30, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> There are two different schools of thought here, and they tend to depend on what the assumptions about the character's knowledge and capabilities are. In one camp, yes, he's metagaming, his character needs to make a roll or have fought undead before. In the other camp, it can be assumed that a character whose number one weapon of choice deals poison damage probably has learned a thing or two about how that weapon works, or has access to the (actually pretty common-sense) knowledge that poison works on living things and not so much on things that aren't alive.
> 
> But to the larger point, I think most groups allow for surprises within their social contracts. For example, the troll wearing a ring of fire resistance within the Temple of Elemental Evil. The conflicts arise about whether or not any given thing should be a surprise. Finding out your power doesn't work as written is not a pleasant surprise, but it can be balanced out if you also find that your power is more effective in a specific situation. I think a GM who has a tendency to make "no, I don't see that working, try something else" calls in the name of common sense is well-served to look for opportunities to say "yes, and it's more effective than usual." Otherwise, the player could well feel that the power is less useful than it seemed when he took it, simply by virtue of playing with that given GM.




take the specifics out of it, don't focus on the undead vs poison (or the hydra vs prone) - your weapon of choice is "type B" damage.  Your character comes across a monster you have never fought before, never seen before, or for that matter never heard of.  You are going to use your weapon and its "type B" damage.

If YOU have seen the monster in the books many times, and know that it isn't immune to "type B damage" but when you attack, the dm says "sorry this monster is immune to type B damage" do you challenge the dm, or pull out a different gun?

It SEEMS - only seems, like MOST - not all, players would question the dm - and to me, thats totally meta-gaming.  As a dm, I gotta think : "If you are allowed to KNOW my monsters, then i am allowed to change them"

I also wanna put on the record right now this:
I have never foiled a players actions based on some "love of the monster" or being a "sore loser" - thats absurd.  In fact, there have been fights that I have planned for weeks and the players in 90 seconds, come up with a plan to defeat me so soundly that I don't even pick up a die.  I think that's awesome! - and I'll even reward bonus x.p. for something like that!


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 30, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Part of the DM's job is to not just be fair but be seen to be fair.  Despite being in full control of one side in the fight.  Therefore the DM needs to be scrupulous.



Agreed.







Neonchameleon said:


> But if it's written in a book it's part of the gameworld and it's what people expect.



People may also expect verisimilitude and consistency, and when the rules in the book and that understanding of the nature of the game-world conflict with one another, it's up to the gamers at the table to decide which one is more important.

Per the rules of the game or per the spoken or unspoken social contract at the table, often that decision is the referee's to make.







Neonchameleon said:


> Because if it's in the book it's part of the physics of the gameworld.  It isn't a case of favouritism.



"Favouritism" is not the opposite of "in the book," nor are all referee decisions not covered by the rules driven by favoritism.







Neonchameleon said:


> On the other hand if it's DM fiat, the first thing to check if the DM comes up with that clunky a system is whether the DM has accurately understood what you were trying to do.  Possibly, possibly not.  But language is ambiguous.  So there's room for discussion and argument there.



I make sure a player and I share complete understanding about exactly what the player's character is trying to do.

This is an argument in favor of communication but not an argument against the referee as final arbiter.







Neonchameleon said:


> The second thing to check is whether the DM  isn't being a little harsh in those rules.  The third thing is that the DM ruling is not as you expected.  Your character is a professional adventurer (especially by the time they have Improved Uncanny Dodge).  They should have a pretty good feel for what they can do. . . . But if the DM pulls a complex stunt ruling that feels wrong, this breaks immersion because they've suddenly been presented with a part of the world they should know backwards doing weird things.



Your argument here appears to be that, absent definitive rules in the rulebook, the player's subjective understanding of the game-world should trump the referee's subjective understanding of the game-world in matter's pertaining to the player's character.

No matter how this gets gussied up, it's just continuation of the WHO DECIDES? argument.

I sympathize, to a point, with gamers who want the rules to the game to give them the tools to make informed decisions about their characters' actions. As a player it improves my agency and as a referee it makes my life easier.

But there are many tradeoffs which go into making a system robust enough to handle this burden, and some of those tradeoffs mean giving up things I would rather have more.

And I don't sympathize at all with gamers who turn, "I had a lousy referee," into, "Referees are lousy."


----------



## Rel (Apr 30, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> take the specifics out of it, don't focus on the undead vs poison (or the hydra vs prone) - your weapon of choice is "type B" damage.  Your character comes across a monster you have never fought before, never seen before, or for that matter never heard of.  You are going to use your weapon and its "type B" damage.
> 
> If YOU have seen the monster in the books many times, and know that it isn't immune to "type B damage" but when you attack, the dm says "sorry this monster is immune to type B damage" do you challenge the dm, or pull out a different gun?
> 
> It SEEMS - only seems, like MOST - not all, players would question the dm - and to me, thats totally meta-gaming.  As a dm, I gotta think : "If you are allowed to KNOW my monsters, then i am allowed to change them"




As a player I would not do that unless my PC had a reason to know what sorts of things a monster might be vulnerable to (nor would the players who play in my game do such a thing).  And I'd certainly never call the GM on it.  That's just poor manners.

I don't know why I compartmentalize things this way, but I think that changing monster stats or making up new monsters entirely is a very different thing than changing the core rules for things like combat or skill resolution, or making up new rules entirely*.  I think it is probably because I view those rules as a shared set of rules that the GM and players all abide by vs. the monsters, which are strictly the province of the GM to do with as he desires to make the game as fun as possible.



*Though I'm perfectly fine with house ruling stuff at the outset of the campaign with the input and agreement of the players.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Apr 30, 2011)

Yep, too many variables - there are variant monsters, and always have been. And it could even be as simple as using a magic item.

And most players that I have gamed with WOULDN'T (to borrow Ultramark's capitals) question the GM. I have been running games for thirty five years, this very month, and except for one (1) player it has never come up. (He was the worst metagamer that I have ever had.... The same player who got verbed in my campaigns.)

The Auld Grump, thirty five years... dear gods, how did _that_ sneak up on me?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2011)

ThirdWizard said:


> In many ways, player immersion can increase with a proper understanding of cause and effect. Player buy-in can also increase with more understanding of what they can do to influence the world around them. Both of these things are represented as game rules. When the game rules are consistent with what the player expects (if I do X, then Y happens... if I do A then B happens... I'm going to do A!) they they are more invested in the game, and thus have a stronger tie to the narrative being expressed at the table.



I wanted to add something to this post. As written, the post seems to be mostly thinking about mechanics which are (at least loosely) the "physics" of the gameworld.

But I think that the point made is equally true when mechanics become less about the "physics" of the world and more about distributing narrative authority among the participants at the table (which is how I see quite a few of 4e's mechanics). In my experience it has equally been the case that when players know how these mechanics work, and what narrative privileges (and hence responsibilities) they are going to have conferred on them, they will become invested in the game and the gameworld, and therefore strengthen their tie to the fiction being shared and developed at the table.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 30, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I have seen this a number of times with players new to rules sets. I hear the question "What can I do?" and I try to remember to return with "What would you *like* to do?" and then put that into whatever mechanic fits best or makes the most sense at the time.



I would want to add to this - sometimes the player will really be asking "what can I do that is likely to achieve my (implicit or explicit) goals?", and so is looking not only for options but for odds. This is where shared mechanics can help.


----------



## pming (Apr 30, 2011)

Hiya



TheUltramark said:


> I also wanna put on the record right now this:
> I have never foiled a players actions based on some "love of the monster" or being a "sore loser" - thats absurd. In fact, there have been fights that I have planned for weeks and the players in 90 seconds, come up with a plan to defeat me so soundly that I don't even pick up a die. I think that's awesome! - and I'll even reward bonus x.p. for something like that!




I'm right there with ya!

In a Powers & Perils ( www.powersandperils.org for the rules, if you're interested ) campaign I ran a 'while ago' (maybe...12 - 15 years?), the PC's were tracking down the secret lair of a clan of goblins that had been surprisingly crafty and successful at raiding. After multiple play sessions of searching, questioning, and general wandering about, the party finally found the secret hidden lair. The Goblin King was a warrior-shaman kind, of significant intelligence and charisma. Anyway, at the end of the session, the PC's had been successfully suckerd into a bottleneck trap by the goblins! The goblin's in hiding waited for their Goblin King to unleash his magical might! Initiative was determined, the Goblin King started chanting his spell...the PC's presseed forward (as expected) only to be shot at by bows, spears and daggers. The next round the Goblin Kings spell (a lighting-swarm) is finished. I roll for casting success...100. Abysmal Failure.  Rolling on the Abysmal Failure chart...13..."Loose 1d100 Energy Points". Ouch. Rolling d100...98. This reduces the Goblin Kings Energy level to somewhere south of -50 or so (at 0 you die). O_O In a blinding flash of internallized electrical energy, the Goblin King explodes on the spot. ... The goblins then stare at the PC's for a round...and the PC's stare back. Dead silence. Then the goblin warrior champion steps up and, in halting speech, says "Uh, we stop now. We go away. Not bother humans again. Deal?" The PC's agreed, and the menace of the Goblin King was at an end.

Funny and unexpected. And only because I let the dice fall where they may.

So, yeah, I agree with you. As for the original post link...I DM that way regardless of system. If we're playing pathfinder and someone wants to trip someone, he can try at a penalty to-hit. If he has the Trip feat, we use that. But, basically, players can try anything within reason (e.g, a fighter trying to cast a Death Spell off a scroll isn't going to work). The game is about using your imagination. The rules are there for the DM and Players to use to come up with probable chances for success or failure for actions. 

PS: I'm not a big fan of 'perfect balance'; I'm more of a "1e Balance" kind of guy. In other words, I look at the effectiveness of stuff over an entire campaign span...fighters rock at level 1, wizards rock at level 20, and that *is* balance to me.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 30, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> .Your argument here appears to be that, absent definitive rules in the rulebook, the player's subjective understanding of the game-world should trump the referee's subjective understanding of the game-world in matter's pertaining to the player's character.




No.  My argument is that both matter - and if there are definitive rules in the rulebook the player's understanding and DMs can be easily aligned by that.  If there aren't then you need to work to get them to line up - which is why there are arguments.  I was presenting the side of the argument [MENTION=48381]walter[/MENTION] Bob was asking about which is, of course, only one side of the argument.  I can happily run the other, but no one seems to need it round here.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Apr 30, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> here is the other sticking point to this argument
> why is it ok for players to cheat and not the dm?
> 
> if a player's number one weapon of choice dealt poison damage, and he was fighting undead, he would automatically know poison is useless vs undead, why? because it's in the rules.  So, if the player elects NOT to use his #1 weapon, isn't he cheating (assuming of course that no kind of knowledge checks were rolled before hand) - or at least I believe the phrase is meta-gaming?




I tend to go by the 1E/2E rules that list how common a monster is.  If the monster is listed as "Common" by the books, I assume that most PCs would have at least basic knowledge of the monster.  Uncommon monsters would be identifiable, but PCs probably would not know any unusual powers/weaknesses.  Rare monsters would be known only by rumors/legends unless the PC had a specific skill or had reason to know about it (i.e., my mother was killed by a mind flayer when I was 10, I barely escaped with my life thanks to her sacrifice.)


----------



## Rel (Apr 30, 2011)

pming said:


> In a Powers & Perils ( www.powersandperils.org for the rules, if you're interested ) campaign I ran a 'while ago' (maybe...12 - 15 years?)...




[Hijack]

Cool!  Thanks for the Powers & Perils link!  I've still got the books from when I bought it at the toy store when I was 16 but nice to see that they are available online.  Man we had a ton of fun with that game.  I still regard it as some of the best value I ever got for my gaming buck since it cost me $5.

[/Hijack]


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 30, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> My argument is that both matter - and if there are definitive rules in the rulebook the player's understanding and DMs can be easily aligned by that.



As this thread and the one started by *Wik* demonstrate, "easily" isn't necessarily the case where the rules and the game-world collide - in fact, for some gamers following the rules as written can be the source of the problem rather than the solution.







Neonchameleon said:


> I was presenting the side of the argument [MENTION=48381]walter[/MENTION] Bob was asking about which is, of course, only one side of the argument.  I can happily run the other, but no one seems to need it round here.



Fair 'nuf.


----------



## The Shaman (Apr 30, 2011)

pming said:


> In a Powers & Perils ( www.powersandperils.org for the rules, if you're interested ) campaign I ran a 'while ago' (maybe...12 - 15 years?), the PC's were tracking down the secret lair of a clan of goblins that had been surprisingly crafty and successful at raiding. After multiple play sessions of searching, questioning, and general wandering about, the party finally found the secret hidden lair. The Goblin King was a warrior-shaman kind, of significant intelligence and charisma. Anyway, at the end of the session, the PC's had been successfully suckerd into a bottleneck trap by the goblins! The goblin's in hiding waited for their Goblin King to unleash his magical might! Initiative was determined, the Goblin King started chanting his spell...the PC's presseed forward (as expected) only to be shot at by bows, spears and daggers. The next round the Goblin Kings spell (a lighting-swarm) is finished. I roll for casting success...100. Abysmal Failure.  Rolling on the Abysmal Failure chart...13..."Loose 1d100 Energy Points". Ouch. Rolling d100...98. This reduces the Goblin Kings Energy level to somewhere south of -50 or so (at 0 you die). O_O In a blinding flash of internallized electrical energy, the Goblin King explodes on the spot. ... The goblins then stare at the PC's for a round...and the PC's stare back. Dead silence. Then the goblin warrior champion steps up and, in halting speech, says "Uh, we stop now. We go away. Not bother humans again. Deal?" The PC's agreed, and the menace of the Goblin King was at an end.
> 
> Funny and unexpected. And only because I let the dice fall where they may.



That is an awesome story, and well worth repeating! 


pming said:


> So, yeah, I agree with you. As for the original post link...I DM that way regardless of system. If we're playing pathfinder and someone wants to trip someone, he can try at a penalty to-hit. If he has the Trip feat, we use that. But, basically, players can try anything within reason (e.g, a fighter trying to cast a Death Spell off a scroll isn't going to work). The game is about using your imagination. The rules are there for the DM and Players to use to come up with probable chances for success or failure for actions.



That's my approach as well.







pming said:


> PS: I'm not a big fan of 'perfect balance'; I'm more of a "1e Balance" kind of guy. In other words, I look at the effectiveness of stuff over an entire campaign span...fighters rock at level 1, wizards rock at level 20, and that *is* balance to me.



_Satori_.


----------



## TheUltramark (Apr 30, 2011)

ok, this just in:
I asked the 7 people I play with "can you knock a snake prone"
my rules lawyer said "sure" 1 other agreed with him- and 4 of them said "no - already on the ground"
the best dm of the lot of us said "depends when in the fight it is.  In the first round, if the players have all their abilities, probably not - meaning as a rule no you can't...but...if its a last ditch, hail mary, back-against-the-wall effort, scraping the bottom of the barrel  type attack, I probably would allow it"

the rules lawyer and the dm then decided that this particular instance is rare, but, there are two conflicting rules.  the power clearly states the target is knocked prone, however, under the prone condition rule it says a condition of being knocked prone is you are lying on the ground...the three of us agreed that meant that before being knocked prone you had to be...you know....not laying on the ground, and the dm and the RL  then decided that a house rule discussion would have to take place monday night.

First of all this sucks for me, basically my first encounter with the pencil will almost surely be delayed while we hash this out.  On the bright side, I'll get to watch The Event and/or Raw and tip a few back  while they argue.  I wish I never would have seen that stupid video.


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 30, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> take the specifics out of it, don't focus on the undead vs poison (or the hydra vs prone) - your weapon of choice is "type B" damage.  Your character comes across a monster you have never fought before, never seen before, or for that matter never heard of.  You are going to use your weapon and its "type B" damage.




Eliminating all the context makes this question unanswerable, because the opinions that people hold toward this are rooted in context. 

Consider the difference between these two situations. In one, the players run into a troll with a ring of fire resistance. Though this surprises the players when they find he's immune to fire, the reason is easily discovered if they win. 

In another situation, the DM decides he wanted to surprise his players, and makes a troll immune to fire. The players don't know why this troll is immune to fire, and have no real chance of finding out; worse, the characters never discover an explanation. The only answer the DM gives is "I wanted to change things up to make things interesting."

The fight with the troll in both cases is essentially the same. But in the first case, the ring and the troll are two established factors in the world, there's every reason to believe a troll would value and wear such a ring if he found it, and the players get a ring of fire resistance if they beat him. In the second case, trolls are now established within the world as sometimes immune to fire, but the players have no way of knowing which ones might be that way because it's subject to DM whim, and the _characters_ have really no way of knowing why this happened or how they can tell one of these variant trolls apart from the others other than trying to burn it.

Now, take this one step further. Let's say that in the first fight the DM says "The flame washes over the troll, but seems to roll off his skin like water without burning him; a ring on his left hand shines brightly as the fire flickers out." I think it's pretty evident that a player could say "I would not challenge the DM in the first case, but I would like some sort of explanation in the second case," and that could be considered an entirely sensible approach. 



> If YOU have seen the monster in the books many times, and know that it isn't immune to "type B damage" but when you attack, the dm says "sorry this monster is immune to type B damage" do you challenge the dm, or pull out a different gun?




It would depend on the context.


----------



## nedjer (May 1, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> ok, this just in:
> I asked the 7 people I play with "can you knock a snake prone"
> my rules lawyer said "sure" 1 other agreed with him- and 4 of them said "no - already on the ground"
> the best dm of the lot of us said "depends when in the fight it is.  In the first round, if the players have all their abilities, probably not - meaning as a rule no you can't...but...if its a last ditch, hail mary, back-against-the-wall effort, scraping the bottom of the barrel  type attack, I probably would allow it"
> ...




Why on earth would anyone spend more than 17 seconds resolving something like that? It's an RPG, there are too many rules/ guidelines for it to be completely unbreakable, so why not split the difference on any benefits/ disadvantages in the situation and get the action out of the books and back onto the table?

If anyone ain't good with that, you've like a garden shed yeah . . . stick a note on it saying 'rules symposium here today' lead them in then run out and lock the shed door


----------



## Zhaleskra (May 1, 2011)

Personally, aside from the fact that "prone" means lying on the ground _in a specific position_, I'd go for "creatures that are already 'lying down' can't be made to lie down". So this is one case where I'd tell the rules to Sit Down and Shut Up for the sake of the believability of the game.

Regarding changing monsters, I could justify with "if you're using metagame knowledge, so will my NPCs". Of course that's a last ditch if players are just "going textbook". Perhaps my troll is a scandinavian troll which do have different weaknesses from standard D&D trolls.


----------



## Hussar (May 2, 2011)

Just on the Prone sidebar.

The condition of being prone is not caused by someone falling down.  It's caused by the fact that the target is on the ground.  How you get to the position of prone is irrelavent to the rules in question. 

Or, would you rule that if the target is sleeping on the ground, he's not actually prone, since no outside action actually caused him to be on the ground?  If the target, under its own power, is lying on the ground, is it prone or not?

This is why I dislike it when DM's start out from the position of "I just know better".  It creates all sorts of loopholes and weirdness that's completely unintended.  One of my personal favourites is the idea that skill checks in d20 fail on a 1.  They don't and there's several very, very good reason why not.*

Then again, if it REALLY bothers you that a snake can be made to suffer the prone condition, just tell the players up front that you're not using that rule.  OTOH, trying to bring up this rule change in the middle of combat is a bad idea because you are messing with player expectations.

*Fail on a 1 - how does this interact with the Take 20 and Take 10 rules?  Particularly if you add in the idea of 1 being a critical fumble, suddenly Take 20 no longer works.  It's also very unrealistic - a doctor fails to treat a patient 5% of the time, regardless of how trivial the problem is?  I'm pretty sure that I can jump a 5 foot wide pit 20 times without falling in the hole, and I'm doubly sure that my 15th level Monk can certainly do so.  Adding in Fail on a 1 punishes PC's and does nothing to NPC's.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 2, 2011)

You and I game in two different worlds.

In the world I game in, I don't have to say that you can't knock a snake prone -- the *players *would be saying it.

(I would be saying that a snake which is coiled and ready to strike/spit can effectively be knocked prone....it could still potentially bite, but would lose reach.)


RC


----------



## Barastrondo (May 2, 2011)

For me it's less about "is the snake lying on the ground?" and more "Does the snake grant combat advantage to adjacent enemies, can it only move at a crawl speed unless it takes a move action to right itself, and does it impose a -2 penalty to ranged attacks?" (Oh yeah, and "is it at -2 to hit?")

If all of these things are true at all times, then yes, the default state of the snake is the prone condition. If they aren't, then I figure there's a difference between prone and the prone condition (just as characters may be stunned by a revelation but not subject to the stunned condition), and that a quick bit of reskinning can define what the prone condition means to non-humanoids. I've seen snakes in that couple-of-seconds it takes to right themselves stage (ever had a hawk drop a snake in your path?); that's what I'd have in my head for them, for instance.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 2, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> You and I game in two different worlds.
> 
> In the world I game in, I don't have to say that you can't knock a snake prone -- the *players *would be saying it.
> 
> ...



I agree
As i said in a post about this earlier, if I were the DM, I am sure any of the players would not even try this without questioning "hey, its on the ground already, can I knock it prone???"


----------



## TheUltramark (May 2, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> For me it's less about "is the snake lying on the ground?" and more "Does the snake grant combat advantage to adjacent enemies, can it only move at a crawl speed unless it takes a move action to right itself, and does it impose a -2 penalty to ranged attacks?" (Oh yeah, and "is it at -2 to hit?")
> 
> If all of these things are true at all times, then yes, the default state of the snake is the prone condition. If they aren't, then I figure there's a difference between prone and the prone condition (just as characters may be stunned by a revelation but not subject to the stunned condition), and that a quick bit of reskinning can define what the prone condition means to non-humanoids. I've seen snakes in that couple-of-seconds it takes to right themselves stage (*ever had a hawk drop a snake in your path?*); that's what I'd have in my head for them, for instance.




have you ever seen someone punch a snake in a manner that flips the snake into the air so that it lands on its back?


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 2, 2011)

To the "You can't knock a snake prone" crowd - possibly not.  But that's because the snake is _already_ prone...


----------



## Barastrondo (May 2, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> have you ever seen someone punch a snake in a manner that flips the snake into the air so that it lands on its back?




I have never seen _all kinds of things_ that happen in a D&D game. But if the warforged fighter with a big hammer decides to use his "knock prone" power on a snake, he'll describe it in a way that works for us, or I will if he delegates it to me, and we move on. The folks I game with take readily to the concept of separating out a mechanical condition from an in-game description, so for us "prone" can mean "sprawled inconveniently on its back," and "punch" can mean "grab behind the head, lift halfway up and throw into the ground." One of the nice side effects of this approach is that you effectively gain a wider variety of scenes that happen in an in-character context, while still keeping track of a relatively limited pool of mechanics. Quite fond of that approach, personally.


----------



## nedjer (May 2, 2011)

Couldn't someone just fireball the damned thing?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 2, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> (I would be saying that a snake which is coiled and ready to strike/spit can effectively be knocked prone....it could still potentially bite, but would lose reach.)



So you have no trouble with a snake, in combat, being "knocked prone" then? -2 to hit can reflect that loss of reach.


----------



## The Shaman (May 2, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> The folks I game with take readily to the concept of separating out a mechanical condition from an in-game description, so for us "prone" can mean "sprawled inconveniently on its back," and "punch" can mean "grab behind the head, lift halfway up and throw into the ground."



This approach definitely has its advantages.

This was one of the arguments pertaining to classes in d20 - does the class fluff really have anything to do with the class abilities? Frex, the Soldier advanced class in d20 _Modern_ can represent a Mafia goon, a Burgundian halberdier, a SWAT team member, or a guerilla as readily as it does a member of the military. One of the reasons I liked d20 _Modern_ so much was this versatility with respect to the classes.







Barastrondo said:


> One of the nice side effects of this approach is that you effectively gain a wider variety of scenes that happen in an in-character context, while still keeping track of a relatively limited pool of mechanics. Quite fond of that approach, personally.



I can see that as well. Hit points - the abstract representation of toughness, skill, and luck - are perhaps the most venerable example of this. A 'hit' can be a described in a wide variety of ways, many of which do not come from an actual blow or wound. Frex, again using d20 _Modern_, characters in combat with firearms could be 'hit' by a riccochet which knocks brick-dust in their eyes or a near-miss which tears at their clothing or gear.

However, one of my take-aways from playing games like d20 _Modern_ is that I prefer systems in which the mechanics specifically reinforce the experience of the game-world. The elegant fencing rules in _Flashing Blades_, the brutally lethal firearms and knife-fighting rules of _Boot Hill_ - in my experience, these contribute to both genre-emulation and verisimilitude in the game-world in ways that more abstract systems do not, which is one of the reasons I moved away from d20 _Modern_, still my favorite generic roleplaying game, toward more purpose-built games. 

It's also why I genuinely admire games like _FATE_ and _HeroQuest_ but will probably never play them. I think the mechanics of both systems are intriguing, but the prospect of actually running a game with either one holds little appeal for me. Horses for courses, again.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 2, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> So you have no trouble with a snake, in combat, being "knocked prone" then?




I would have no trouble with a coiled snake, or a snake that is coiled and poised to strike/spit (as does a rattlesnake or cobra) being knocked prone.  I would have a problem with a sidewinder crawling across the ground being knocked prone.

Context is everything.



> -2 to hit can reflect that loss of reach.




No.  Reach is whether or not you can reach.

Context is everything.

At least, that is true in any game I am interested in running or playing in.

YMMV, of course.


RC


----------



## TheUltramark (May 2, 2011)

I wanna say that in all this argument about the prone rule that I am only defending my interpretation - not attacking anyone's game or rules or style of play.

[MENTION=3820]Barastrondo[/MENTION] - that would be a very interesting description of how the fighter grabs the snake behind the head and lifts it up into the air with his hammer.

The original attack in question was a punch knocking a snake prone, and I have to be honest, I am not so clear on how you punch a snake in the first place, but like I said before, I tend to allow ridiculous stuff anyway.

Context IS everything, with a thin blade or staff, or some other "thin" weapon (case by case ruling) I probably would allow a prone knock...but a punch?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (May 2, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> Context IS everything, with a thin blade or staff, or some other "thin" weapon (case by case ruling) I probably would allow a prone knock...but a punch?




An unarmed strike is not a punch.


----------



## Barastrondo (May 2, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Hit points - the abstract representation of toughness, skill, and luck - are perhaps the most venerable example of this. A 'hit' can be a described in a wide variety of ways, many of which do not come from an actual blow or wound. Frex, again using d20 _Modern_, characters in combat with firearms could be 'hit' by a riccochet which knocks brick-dust in their eyes or a near-miss which tears at their clothing or gear.




The humble hit point remains one of the staunchest examples of how mechanics and in-character description can vary. 



> However, one of my take-aways from playing games like d20 _Modern_ is that I prefer systems in which the mechanics specifically reinforce the experience of the game-world. The elegant fencing rules in _Flashing Blades_, the brutally lethal firearms and knife-fighting rules of _Boot Hill_ - in my experience, these contribute to both genre-emulation and verisimilitude in the game-world in ways that more abstract systems do not, which is one of the reasons I moved away from d20 _Modern_, still my favorite generic roleplaying game, toward more purpose-built games.
> 
> It's also why I genuinely admire games like _FATE_ and _HeroQuest_ but will probably never play them. I think the mechanics of both systems are intriguing, but the prospect of actually running a game with either one holds little appeal for me. Horses for courses, again.




I find myself torn, largely. I do like the specialized genre mechanics of some games, and the focused play experience they give is unmatched. But at the same time I also enjoy a game system that does interesting mash-ups with different genres, letting me play it differently each time. It's kind of like customizing your own motorcycle instead of going to Orange County Choppers; it probably won't be as good a job overall, but the fun is in the process.



TheUltramark said:


> [MENTION=3820]Barastrondo[/MENTION] - that would be a very interesting description of how the fighter grabs the snake behind the head and lifts it up into the air with his hammer.




Well, there are two separate issues here: how you could reskin a "punch," and what would happen as an example at our table. Hinge doesn't punch snakes as a rule; his attacks that knock prone involve a hammer or a shield bash, but if his player were to say "Hinge baits it into rearing up with a hammer feint, then knocks it silly," hells yes I would allow that.



> The original attack in question was a punch knocking a snake prone, and I have to be honest, I am not so clear on how you punch a snake in the first place, but like I said before, I tend to allow ridiculous stuff anyway.
> 
> Context IS everything, with a thin blade or staff, or some other "thin" weapon (case by case ruling) I probably would allow a prone knock...but a punch?




Well, why a punch?

If we're talking about the Acquisitions Incorporated example of the zombie with knocking a hydra prone, there's no reason to rule a zombie's unarmed attack has to be a punch instead of a slam, overbear, what-have-you. (_Especially_ in the context of that particular audience-participation game.)

If we're not talking about that example, I'm still curious why it has to be a punch. It's a rare system that doesn't allow a basic unarmed strike to take different forms, and mechanically differentiates the balled fist from a kick or an elbow or a knee strike. Heck, even Champions will have martial maneuvers named "Martial Punch" and stress "This might be an elbow strike or a quick knee." 

The real question at the heart of my viewpoint is "When is it a good idea to tell players that their powers do not work, even though mechanically they would?" I think the answer is "rarely, and with the fairest of adjudication." If the default explanation seems to imply it -- "you can't punch a snake and knock it to the ground" -- there should be an opportunity to find an alternate explanation that works. So for me, "you can't punch a snake prone" is not a good answer for "why can't you use an unarmed combat maneuver to inflict the mechanics of the prone condition on a snake?" I find the creativity involved in describing maneuvers that achieve the same mechanical effect just so much more entertaining than a flat "no."


----------



## Fifth Element (May 3, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would have no trouble with a coiled snake, or a snake that is coiled and poised to strike/spit (as does a rattlesnake or cobra) being knocked prone.  I would have a problem with a sidewinder crawling across the ground being knocked prone.
> 
> Context is everything.



Indeed, and since combat powers are used in combat, where the snake (if it's an enemy) would presumably not just be crawling along the ground but positioning itself to attack, there shouldn't be an issue. Context.



Raven Crowking said:


> No.  Reach is whether or not you can reach.



The snake wouldn't have "reach" to begin with, when not prone. So a -2 penalty to hit can certainly be reflective of a reduced range of attack; sometime you're going to be just a bit too far for it to reach.


----------



## pemerton (May 3, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> one of my take-aways from playing games like d20 _Modern_ is that I prefer systems in which the mechanics specifically reinforce the experience of the game-world. The elegant fencing rules in _Flashing Blades_, the brutally lethal firearms and knife-fighting rules of _Boot Hill_ - in my experience, these contribute to both genre-emulation and verisimilitude in the game-world in ways that more abstract systems do not, which is one of the reasons I moved away from d20 _Modern_, still my favorite generic roleplaying game, toward more purpose-built games.
> 
> It's also why I genuinely admire games like _FATE_ and _HeroQuest_ but will probably never play them. I think the mechanics of both systems are intriguing, but the prospect of actually running a game with either one holds little appeal for me.



I think this is a very interesting issue.

I think it's true that the mechanics help reinforce the experience of the gameworld. The flipside of that is that the _gameworld_ that is actually experienced - as opposed to the abstract object which is the fictional gameworld in all its totality - reflects the mechanics.

Playing Rolemaster makes the physical state of a PC's body a very salient and "experienced" part of the gameworld - because of the critical rules.  And Rolemaster is full of penalties that affect (let's say) movement speed and athletics checks but have rather little effect on knowledge checks, because you don't need your legs to read a book or remember things. In 4e, on the other hand, the physical state of a PC's body rarely becomes salient - it all blends into the melange of hit points, together with blows to the mind (psychic damage).

On the other hand, 4e makes the physical location of characters during tactical encounters _more_ salient than in RM, because of the role of position in the combat rules. (Rolemaster plays very easily without maps or minis, and with positioning and location being handwaved.) So _that_ part of the gameworld is experienced much more in 4e - which for me is a refreshing change from my RM days.

As a GM, I find that the abstract resolution mechanics of skill challenges (comparable in certain respects to the HeroQuest mechanics that The Shaman refers to) make certain parts of the gameworld more salient to me than they otherwise might have - they force me to focus in on points of conflict and potential complication, because the mechanics require me to draw on these as part of the adjudication. I don't know to what extent it is the same, or different, on the player side.

On the "knocking prone" question, I know that in 20 years of GMing Rolemaster the question of whether a snake was on its front or back never came up - there were a few snake encounters over the years, but I only remember one involving hand-to-hand fighting, when a martial artist grappled with a giant serpent in a watery cavern - so the position of the snake was dictated primarily by the results of the martial arts critical tables. On the other hand, 4e apparently makes this aspect of the gameworld salient if only in order to resolve the question "what is happening to the snake, in the fiction, as this mechanical result is actually played out?"

So it doesn't give the _same _details as more simulationist mechanics might, but it nevertheless brings certain details to the fore.

This makes me think that the problem with the prone snake may not be that it conflicts with the experience of the gameworld, or subordinates the fictional details to mere mechanics, but that it produces that experience in the wrong way (for some) - that it makes them self-consciously _create_ the experience, rather than having it determined by the uncontroversial interpretation of some already-established mechanical state of the relevant game elements.

As a GM I don't feel the gameworld less viscerally when I'm aware that I'm (helping with) creating it. But the GM is in a distinctive place in that respect, as it is a creative role. Is it very different from the player side?


----------



## chaochou (May 3, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> It's also why I genuinely admire games like _FATE_ and _HeroQuest_ but will probably never play them. I think the mechanics of both systems are intriguing, but the prospect of actually running a game with either one holds little appeal for me. Horses for courses, again.




There is cartainly heavy abstraction in FATE and Heroquest, but there's lots to enjoy in there.

A simple Heroquest example. A player has decided their character is Brave: 17 and Respects his Elders: 17. Whenever the character does something brave, they can use their brave stat to augment any other skill they're using at the time. If they were doing something both brave and respectful of their elders they could use both.

So the mechanics do represent the game world, it's just the focus is on something different (motivations, personality, relationships) rather than the arc of swords or arrows or bullets.

Agreed, though, that it's horses for courses.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 3, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Indeed, and since combat powers are used in combat, where the snake (if it's an enemy) would presumably not just be crawling along the ground but positioning itself to attack, there shouldn't be an issue. Context.




Are you making that up, or is that an actual rule in 4e?  I was under the impression that combat powers could be used in more circumstances than simply combat alone.  Of course, I was also under the impression, from my own experience with snakes, that they are not always positioned to attack when an "encounter" begins. Or when an "encounter" ends -- snakes are sometimes just trying to get away.

In any event, my statement was intended to be broader than answering conceptually for a single edition of a single game.  "Can a snake be knocked prone?" is the context question.  And I was qualifying my answer (rather than simply agreeing) because I expected follow-up, pretty much of the type that occurred.



> The snake wouldn't have "reach" to begin with, when not prone.




Again, my statement was intended to be broader than answering conceptually for a single edition of a single game.  At this point I am not just looking at how the idea can be modelled, but how it can be modelled *well*.  This is the *general* forum, rather than the _*4e*_ forum, after all!  One shouldn't imagine that every response is based on a narrow subset of rules.



> So a -2 penalty to hit can certainly be reflective of a reduced range of attack; sometime you're going to be just a bit too far for it to reach.




Sure, if you like.  But this is a specific method of modelling that is, IMHO, inferior to several others available.  YMMV, though.


RC


----------



## TheUltramark (May 3, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> An unarmed strike is not a punch.




thanks
like I said, the original attack in question  was a punch


----------



## Mallus (May 3, 2011)

Barastrondo said:


> The folks I game with take readily to the concept of separating out a mechanical condition from an in-game description, so for us "prone" can mean "sprawled inconveniently on its back," and "punch" can mean "grab behind the head, lift halfway up and throw into the ground." One of the nice side effects of this approach is that you effectively gain a wider variety of scenes that happen in an in-character context, while still keeping track of a relatively limited pool of mechanics. Quite fond of that approach, personally.



Me too. 

The other benefit of this approach, aside from elegance and simplicity, is that it shuts down a myriad of other questions that reasonably follow once you ask: how can you knock a snake prone?

Questions like: how can a single man with a sword fight a bear? Or a rhino? Or a dinosaur? I'd bet a lot of gamers wouldn't bat an eye at those match-ups, assuming the man had sufficient fighter levels (or access to 1e Unearthed Arcana -- I recall a lethal 2-dagger fighter w/double specialization from an old AD&D college game). Or what about a gentleman in a robe armed only with his open palms and a surfeit of _chi_? 

But knock a snake prone? Heavens to Betsy, that sure is implausible!

Gamers can be a funny lot vis-a-vis logic (note: I've been as guilty of this as anyone).



The Shaman said:


> However, one of my take-aways from playing games like d20 _Modern_ is that I prefer systems in which the mechanics specifically reinforce the experience of the game-world. The elegant fencing rules in _Flashing Blades_, the brutally lethal firearms and knife-fighting rules of _Boot Hill_ - in my experience, these contribute to both genre-emulation and verisimilitude in the game-world in ways that more abstract systems do not, which is one of the reasons I moved away from d20 _Modern_, still my favorite generic roleplaying game, toward more purpose-built games.



Good stuff, TS. The less a system tries to model, the better job it can do. And the more it models, the less it models well -- unless it goes the FATE route and place the focus on narrative outcomes and not the specifics of the acts themselves, which, for some people, is the very definition of modeling something badly/unsatisfactorily. 

(I'm guessing your _Flashing Blades_ players don't often decide to go bear hunting armed only with rapiers?)

I think D&D, as a rules set, is stuck in the "model a lot, but not all that well" category. It wouldn't be D&D without sword-armed men --and women, and, umm, transgendered PC's!-- squaring off against snakes, bears, silverback gorillas, flying dragons and cubes of pissed-off acid Jello. Neither would it be D&D if the game had a lot of specific rules for fighting non-human sized/shaped things -- that would make it Rolemaster, no?


----------



## TheUltramark (May 3, 2011)

ok, I am going to try one last time to "plead my case" 

if you (a player) say "I am going to punch the snake" - I (the dm) would first roll my eyes, but then say "whatever dude, go ahead" - the player would roll and tell his 'number' vs the app. defense and I would say (for argument sake) "ok, ya hit the thing"
The player then doesn't have license to then say "I get behind the thing, grab it by the neck, step on the other end and stretch it like laffy taffy"
No, Im sorry, you punch the thing.

we played last night, and I started a new thing, when the player says "I am going to do kick ass super power number 47 on the bad guy" before they roll, I ask what it does, I think waiting until after is the actual root of the problem in the now seemingly age old debate of knocking the snake prone...players would be far less upset (I suspect) if they are told prior to wasting something that it wouldnt work, and to try something else.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 3, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> ok, I am going to try one last time to "plead my case"
> 
> if you (a player) say "I am going to punch the snake" - I (the dm) would first roll my eyes, but then say "whatever dude, go ahead" - the player would roll and tell his 'number' vs the app. defense and I would say (for argument sake) "ok, ya hit the thing"
> The player then doesn't have license to then say "I get behind the thing, grab it by the neck, step on the other end and stretch it like laffy taffy"
> ...



You've got a good point here.

Before the campaign starts:
DM: Snakes can't be knocked prone.
Me: Thanks. I'll have to rethink my "flying snake" polearm momentum/polearm gamble build for the Temple of the Snake Goddess.  (For those who don't know 4e, think a character with a polearm with a large flat end who every time a snake (or anyone else) comes too close gets an opportunity to hit the enemy sending them flying ten feet and knocking them prone).

Before the session starts:
DM: You can't knock snakes prone because of their anatomy.
Me: *shrug* I'll just knock the priests prone instead. Or cut the snakes in half.

Before the roll:
DM: Sorry. Forgot to point out you can't knock snakes prone.
Me: A little late but thanks. I'll do something else then.

After the roll:
DM: No, sorry, the snake wasn't knocked prone. It's a snake.
Me: Now you tell me. Jerk. Either my character looks like an idiot or we rewind history - both bad.

Now I'm on the side of claiming that the reason you'd be unable to knock a snake prone is because they are already prone and should get the corresponding modifiers (other than the speed problems).

Edit: Would the following racial trait suit everyone for snakes:

Slithers
The snake always counts as prone for the purposes of attacks and powers unless it is actively grabbing a creature.  Snakes take no movement penalty for being prone.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 3, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> You've got a good point here.
> .




thanks!
it's about time I did


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (May 3, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> ok, I am going to try one last time to "plead my case"
> 
> if you (a player) say "I am going to punch the snake" - I (the dm) would first roll my eyes, but then say "whatever dude, go ahead" - the player would roll and tell his 'number' vs the app. defense and I would say (for argument sake) "ok, ya hit the thing"
> The player then doesn't have license to then say "I get behind the thing, grab it by the neck, step on the other end and stretch it like laffy taffy"
> No, Im sorry, you punch the thing.




To me, this is no different than:

Player: "I attack the snake with my sword."
DM: "Okay, roll."
Player: "I rolled a [Foo]."
DM: "Okay, you hit - damage?"
Player: "24!"
DM: "That'll kill it.  Wanna describe it?"
Player: "Um, Sir Sternivus smacks the snake in the face with his shield as it lunges at him, momentarily stunning it.  Stern takes advantage of the opening and lunges into the snake's neck just below the head; as it coils down to the ground, I step over it and finish it off with a chop, beheading the creature."
DM: "Nice - you're covered in snake blood, by the way.  Might want to wash that off at some point.  Susan - your action?"

Why can't a player describe their actions flavorfully?


----------



## Spinachcat (May 3, 2011)

If you don't think you can knock a snake prone, you haven't watched enough nature videos.  A mongoose can easily knock a snake off balance with a quick flip that messes with its spatial orientation. 

Just expand your definition of "prone" 

The Old School Primer is a good read for any GM. There is a lot of power in the more relaxed, more freeform style of GMing that can be incorporated in your 4e games. Is it the Holy Bible of GMing? Nope, just some fun ideas.

The more you engage the fantasy behind the numbers, the better your game will be for both GM and players.  Since everything is abstracted, use that to your advantage!


----------



## Fifth Element (May 3, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Are you making that up, or is that an actual rule in 4e?



Neither. I didn't say 4E attack powers can only be used in combat, just that the vast majority of their uses are in combat.



Raven Crowking said:


> This is the *general* forum, rather than the _*4e*_ forum, after all!  One shouldn't imagine that every response is based on a narrow subset of rules.



The question arose from discussion of 4E, of course, because that edition is the one that allows players to determine whether something can be knocked prone (a defined term in 4E), rather than the DM. If the DM doesn't think a snake can be knocked prone, it's absolutely not an issue unless he's playing 4E, where the players have powers that specifically counter that. Context, etc. 



Raven Crowking said:


> Sure, if you like.  But this is a specific method of modelling that is, IMHO, inferior to several others available.



No it ain't. It's one way of imagining a -2 penalty to hit. You don't need to imagine it the same way every time. IMHO and YMMV and all that.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 3, 2011)

Spinachcat said:


> If you don't think you can knock a snake prone, you haven't watched enough nature videos.  A mongoose can easily knock a snake off balance with a quick flip that messes with its spatial orientation.
> 
> Just expand your definition of "prone"



does the mongoose punch the snake or use its 'quick flip power' 


Spinachcat said:


> The Old School Primer is a good read for any GM. There is a lot of power in the more relaxed, more freeform style of GMing that can be incorporated in your 4e games. Is it the Holy Bible of GMing? Nope, just some fun ideas.
> 
> The more you engage the fantasy behind the numbers, the better your game will be for both GM and players.  Since everything is abstracted, use that to your advantage!



so you disagree about the prone rule, but you agree that rules arent the be all end all of the game...interesting


----------



## pemerton (May 4, 2011)

Spinachcat said:


> The Old School Primer is a good read for any GM. There is a lot of power in the more relaxed, more freeform style of GMing that can be incorporated in your 4e games.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The more you engage the fantasy behind the numbers, the better your game will be for both GM and players.  Since everything is abstracted, use that to your advantage!





TheUltramark said:


> so you disagree about the prone rule, but you agree that rules arent the be all end all of the game...interesting



I read Spinachat's position somewhat differently - it seems to me that s/he is saying that, _because_ 4e is abstracted in certain respects, it permits freeform/Old-School-Primed GMing _without_ needing to leave the rules behind.

Of course, it may be that I'm reading Spinachat that way only because that would make his/her view the same as the one that I have been putting forward in this thread!


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 4, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Neither. I didn't say 4E attack powers can only be used in combat, just that the vast majority of their uses are in combat.




So, then, whether or not a snake can be knocked prone when attempting to escape, or when just encountered slithering around, _*is*_ an issue in 4e.  Assuming, of course, that 4e "is the one that allows players to determine whether something can be knocked prone (a defined term in 4E), rather than the DM" and, of course, that a snake can be encountered in 4e while not coiled to strike.  Like, say, a snake can move around the battlefield?



> The question arose from discussion of 4E, of course, because that edition is the one that allows players to determine whether something can be knocked prone (a defined term in 4E), rather than the DM. If the DM doesn't think a snake can be knocked prone, it's absolutely not an issue unless he's playing 4E, where the players have powers that specifically counter that. Context, etc.




I know that the question arose due to the 4e ruleset.  Which is why, specifically, I pointed out that there are better models out there.  But the 4e rules do not apply to those better models.  Context again.

BTW, you seem to be claiming above that if the DM doesn't think a snake can be knocked prone, that _*this *_*is an issue in 4e*.  I'm not sure that I buy that.  Surely, according to the 4e RAW, the DM can overrule powers in situations where he feels them inappropriate?  

And, if this is the case, surely the meme of this being "the one that allows players to determine whether something can be knocked prone....rather than the DM" is really much more illusion than fact.

Actually, for the record, 2e and 3e also had rules that allowed the players to knock something prone.  They were just not automatically successful.

4e isn't is "the one that allows players to determine whether something can be knocked prone" (a defined term in almost every edition of D&D, and even discussed in 1e).....it is the edition that allows for auto-success, unless the DM says otherwise.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 4, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> does the mongoose punch the snake or use its 'quick flip power'




It uses it's "Rikki Tikki Takedown" power.



















(and I get no credit for that....I stole it from a PHB4 thread)


----------



## Barastrondo (May 4, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> BTW, you seem to be claiming above that if the DM doesn't think a snake can be knocked prone, that _*this *_*is an issue in 4e*.  I'm not sure that I buy that.  Surely, according to the 4e RAW, the DM can overrule powers in situations where he feels them inappropriate?




I think I see it arise as an issue not because it's a cut-and-dried thing, but because the design philosophy is generally "If you're going to take something away from the players, you should have a good reason why." And because "the target is knocked prone" powers are something that players have, the ability to use them is something the DM can take away from them, which is slightly different than a judgment call wherein the player is trying something ordinarily outside the character's power and the DM decides it wouldn't work.

Now, the whole issue of taking things away from the players is pretty controversial in itself, ranging from hardcore "Players should be ready to lose all their levels and all their items and start from scratch as naked 1st-level characters and _like it_" to "Just don't do it; if you can't find a way to challenge players with all the toys they have available, you're not really trying." 4e's closer to the latter side of the spectrum, but at least it makes up for it by incorporating this into challenge design: monsters are built with the intention that players will have access to their full suite of powers, instead of relying heavily on antimagic or disarm spam. A good, challenging 4e monster may hit you hard when you use your power, but your power does get to go off. 

So if you prefer to add a little bit of denial to your DM repertoire, you have to be prepared for fights being potentially grindier than they would be ordinarily. Destroying the fighter's +3 sword at paragon tier isn't just a way to show him a setback: it will make fights longer as he misses more often. And enough people feel 4e combat is long enough/too long already that it's worth reiterating any warnings about tactics that could heighten the problem.



> Actually, for the record, 2e and 3e also had rules that allowed the players to knock something prone. They were just not automatically successful.




Most 4e powers that knock prone aren't automatically successful, either. They are reduced to a simple roll to hit rather than a two-step "first you have to hit, then you have to go through the knock prone mechanic", but you can still lose your opportunity and not be able to do it next round.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 4, 2011)

Thanks, Barastrondo.  I was pretty sure that it was wrong in that the DM couldn't say No in 4e, just as it was wrong that 4e is "the" edition that defines "prone" or makes knocking something prone a potential PC choice/action.


RC


----------



## Hussar (May 5, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> You and I game in two different worlds.
> 
> In the world I game in, I don't have to say that you can't knock a snake prone -- the *players *would be saying it.
> 
> ...




What reach?  Snakes have a 5 foot reach in 3e at least until they get to be Huge (presuming poisonous snakes for the moment here since we're talking about coiling and striking).  Or are you saying that it would lose all reach completely and thus be incapable of attacking without entering an opponents square (thus drawing an AOO?)

So, in your game, if I knock a snake prone somehow, it completely losing the ability to attack?

And, how do you determine when it's coiled or not?  Snakes do not always coil to strike after all.  Does it have to move a certain distance?  Stay still completely?  

See, this is why I dislike monkeying with the rules in the name of "believability".  All it does is open a huge can of worms for additional questions.  Why mess with pacing like that?


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 5, 2011)

Ah, except you're not taking into account that I have monkeyed around with ALL the rules.  Or that, for some people at least, not taking believability into account when monkeying around with rules -- professionally or otherwise -- opens a much larger can of worms!

A snake (or similar creature) can coil as an Action, allowing it to attack with reach depending upon the size of the snake.  Some snakes, such as spitting cobras, must be coiled to spit.

A snake can partially coil as an Action in order to gain half its coiled reach.  This allows it to make an attack as a Reaction with a -2 penalty to the attack roll.

After attacking, a snake can resume the coiled or partially coiled position as a Free Reaction.

In RCFG, I would allow a power that knocked something prone to also knock a snake out of the coiled or partially coiled position.  If the attack was a punch or open handed, the snake might also gain a free attack due to opportunity.  EDIT:  Forgot to mention that the snake could always make a bite attack against a target that was close enough to be touching, but would take a -4 penalty in most circumstances.  There is a reason snakes coil and partially coil to strike.


RC


----------



## Rel (May 5, 2011)

Can we just kill this damn snake already?!


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 5, 2011)

Rel said:


> Can we just kill this damn snake already?!




Thread too grindy for your tastes?


----------



## Rel (May 5, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Thread too grindy for your tastes?




I say both reduce snake HP and increase snake damage.

To quote Jerry Clower, "One of us got to have some relief!"


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 5, 2011)

Rel said:


> I say both reduce snake HP and increase snake damage.
> 
> To quote Jerry Clower, "One of us got to have some relief!"




Snake Handling Minister: "To you mean to tell me, Brother Jerry, that if the Lord told you to pick up that snake, you wouldn't do it?"

Jerry Clower: "If the Lord told me to pick up that snake, I'd do it. But he didn't, and I ain't."


Another vote for consistency (however you go about it). One of the really nice thing about consistency in rulings and system is that when apparent inconsistencies in the game world happen because of hidden information (the white dragon that was really a dwarf)--it stand out as inconsistent, and thus gives the players a reason to look deeper. If you are inconsistent enough, whether due to problems in the rules or fiat, then the players will rarely notice. The apparent but hidden game world inconsistencies become mere noise.

Generally speaking, the players at our table would be comfortable with a lot more fiat than I'm willing to enforce.  I make them help make decisions, in part to get the comfortable asserting their own choices.  See, when it is fiat, then they come to me for answers.  And I don't want to be bothered with a lot of the questions.  If I'm bothered with unnecessary questions, I get cranky, and the game suffers.


----------



## Hussar (May 6, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Ah, except you're not taking into account that I have monkeyed around with ALL the rules.  Or that, for some people at least, not taking believability into account when monkeying around with rules -- professionally or otherwise -- opens a much larger can of worms!
> 
> A snake (or similar creature) can coil as an Action, allowing it to attack with reach depending upon the size of the snake.  Some snakes, such as spitting cobras, must be coiled to spit.
> 
> ...




So, now we're not even talking about D&D at all?  How's that for shifting the goalposts?

While I have every respect for the game you are designing RC, bringing it up in a conversation that's talking about how the rules work in a completely different system is just clouding the issue.  

Or, to put it another way, in order for snakes to work the way you want them to, includes a massive rewrite of the rules to the point where it's a completely different game.  How is that not a huge can of worms?

And, let's see you do that in the middle of a session.

Me, I'd rather just go with the rules and then, possibly, if I see a big hole in the mechanics, go back afterwards and tinker.  And, I'd probably only go back and tinker with the mechanics if there was significant issue at the table.  If I'm the only one this bothers, meh, I'm not going to do the work, it just isn't worth it.

Then again, one thing that 3e did that earlier editions never did, was present the rules as a functioning whole.  Instead of simply shoveling whatever mechanics out the door and expecting those running the game to become amateur game designers, WOTC presented a functioning game that works most of the time.

Now, RC calls this Knife Edge Balance.  As opposed to broad based balance which he says existed in earlier editions.  Me, I call this a balanced system as opposed to a system which had very little balance and presumed that the DM in question would constantly work to keep the game functioning.

I'd rather play a game that works than one that presumes that I'm going to make it work.  There's a reason I don't play a lot of OOP games because a lot of 80's games presumed that the DM would do a fair bit of game design during play.  

No thank you.  I don't buy a car just so it can sit in the garage every weekend while I endlessly tinker with the engine.  I do appreciate that some people want that, and that's fine.  I'd rather have a car that works because driving the car is where I get the enjoyment of car ownership, rather than being up to my elbows in engine grease on a Sunday afternoon.  In the same way, I get enjoyment from an RPG by playing the game, not by rewriting mechanics.

YMMV obviously.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 6, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, now we're not even talking about D&D at all?  How's that for shifting the goalposts?




Um....what goalposts?

Have you confused me with another poster?  What point do you think I was making?  I started out by saying that I would argue, in certain circumstances, that a snake could be knocked prone.  This is a real-world observation, independent of system.

My second observation was that 4e doesn't offer the best model for this.  That's okay, because, AFAICT, 4e makes no attempt to offer the best model for anything apart from narrative function.  I only offered what is (IMHO) a better example to clarify.



> While I have every respect for the game you are designing RC




Why?  I am pretty sure it wouldn't be your cup of tea!



> bringing it up in a conversation that's talking about how the rules work in a completely different system is just clouding the issue.




Depends upon what the issue is.  For me, the issue is whether or not (1) you can knock a snake prone (I hold that you can) and (2) whether or not the ruleset in question does a good job of modelling that (I hold it does not).  




> I'd rather play a game that works than one that presumes that I'm going to make it work.




Me too!

That's why I prefer broad-based balance!  I don't want to strain my disbelief to make it work!

But then, I never found it at all difficult to make broad-based balance work.  In fact, I cannot think of any given instance where I had to invest any effort in it at all.

YMMV, of course.  Depends upon what you want out of a game.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (May 6, 2011)

There's a spectrum in how much role-playing and world-engaging people want, and just _where and when_.

4e combat has some rules that may get jarring in relation, but generally it's more concrete and precise than old TSR-D&D. It's got 5 foot squares for positioning instead of a 10' radius, for instance. It takes a lot of time to work out fights partially because the rules involve more details that map to the secondary world.

These details of process are a central interest, whereas the old game held them as secondary to the _causes_ and _consequences_ of combat, which therefore got more "room to breathe" in a session by downplaying details of process.

There's only so much time to play, so it is perhaps not astounding that other things may get _less_ detail than before.

It's a matter of different focus, not (I think) of a universally greater or lesser degree of abstraction.

It does at any rate stand out greatly to me. The old focus is what I want.


----------



## Ariosto (May 6, 2011)

I should say, if I want more "game mechanical"  detail on process, then I want something more like RuneQuest or The Fantasy Trip.

It's the _where and when and what kind_ of detail that is most telling.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 6, 2011)

Rel said:


> Can we just kill this damn snake already?!




Agreed!  Before it infects a _third_ thread.  I'm coming to the conclusion that it isn't a snake - it's a hydra.



Raven Crowking said:


> Ah, except you're not taking into account that I have monkeyed around with ALL the rules. Or that, for some people at least, not taking believability into account when monkeying around with rules -- professionally or otherwise -- opens a much larger can of worms!




Objection!  As far as I know there is no RPG designer anywhere who doesn't at least try to take either believability or thematic consistency into account.  (OK, so Toon isn't long on believability, but does go for consistency).



> A snake (or similar creature) can coil as an Action, allowing it to attack with reach depending upon the size of the snake. Some snakes, such as spitting cobras, must be coiled to spit.
> 
> A snake can partially coil as an Action in order to gain half its coiled reach. This allows it to make an attack as a Reaction with a -2 penalty to the attack roll.
> 
> ...




Good grief.  It's just one snake.  How long are turns in RCFG?  (That's IC turns).  Because if it's more than a second then that's a level of detail I wouldn't care to go into to deal with this one creature.

In 4e if I was really concerned about snakes (I'm not - but now I've thought about it this much I may well use them on my group on Sunday) I'd give them all the following two racial features:
*Trait: Snake Bodied* - A snake counts as slowed unless it is prone.  The snake does not take movement penalties for being prone.

*Minor Action: Coil* - The snake may stand up as a minor action.​Between those two I wouldn't be denying anyone their abilities, and the snakes would behave as snakes.  Also that combination's easy to understand and evaluate - it uses prefabricated parts that the DM is used to, means that the times it's worth knocking a snake prone are rare and generally handles things fast, simply, believably, and thematically appropriately.  Exception based design at work and fully in line with the rules and spirit of 4e.





Raven Crowking said:


> Me too!
> 
> That's why I prefer broad-based balance! I don't want to strain my disbelief to make it work!
> 
> ...




The trouble with the broad based balance of AD&D is that it makes it, to me, much harder to understand the world.  Things seem incredibly disjoint (why does the thief use a different rule basis from anyone else?) and my brain's of the sort that wants to plug the rules together.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 6, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Good grief.  It's just one snake.  How long are turns in RCFG?  (That's IC turns).  Because if it's more than a second then that's a level of detail I wouldn't care to go into to deal with this one creature.




Fast.  And fights are pretty darn fast, too.



> The trouble with the broad based balance of AD&D is that it makes it, to me, much harder to understand the world.  Things seem incredibly disjoint (why does the thief use a different rule basis from anyone else?) and my brain's of the sort that wants to plug the rules together.




*Viva la Difference!*

I'm glad that we both get a ruleset that works for our particular needs.

Winning!  Duh!


RC


----------



## TheUltramark (May 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Agreed!  Before it infects a _third_ thread.  I'm coming to the conclusion that it isn't a snake - it's a hydra.



I love irony



Neonchameleon said:


> In 4e if I was really concerned about snakes (I'm not - but now I've thought about it this much I may well use them on my group on Sunday) I'd give them all the following two racial features:
> *Trait: Snake Bodied* - A snake counts as slowed unless it is prone.  The snake does not take movement penalties for being prone.
> 
> *Minor Action: Coil* - The snake may stand up as a minor action.​Between those two I wouldn't be denying anyone their abilities, and the snakes would behave as snakes.  Also that combination's easy to understand and evaluate - it uses prefabricated parts that the DM is used to, means that the times it's worth knocking a snake prone are rare and generally handles things fast, simply, believably, and thematically appropriately.  Exception based design at work and fully in line with the rules and spirit of 4e.



Those make perfect sense - and you summed it up properly...the snakes would behave as snakes. 
 Is it a perfect fix? I would argue there is never such a thing.


----------



## Hussar (May 9, 2011)

I have an interesting turn around for this.

Some years ago, I was running a game (2e D&D, as I recall) and threw a manticore at the party.  One of the players cried foul stating that manticores don't exist in the terrain where the party was adventuring.  He was, in fact, correct by the rules.

So, what should I have done as DM?  Should I have stopped the encounter and rewritten it with a setting appropriate creature?  After all, this is precisely what you are doing with the Prone Snake question - changing the game based on one person's sense of believability.

So, again, I ask, what should I have done?  Or is it only DM's who are allowed to veto player options when their sense of disbelief is violated?


----------



## billd91 (May 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I have an interesting turn around for this.
> 
> Some years ago, I was running a game (2e D&D, as I recall) and threw a manticore at the party.  One of the players cried foul stating that manticores don't exist in the terrain where the party was adventuring.  He was, in fact, correct by the rules.
> 
> ...




It's not really the same issue though. Creatures have natural habitats and places they're typically encountered, sure. But there's no rule saying that's the *only* place they are encountered. There may be any number of reasons you encounter a creature in a different terrain... reasons that may lead to interesting adventure hooks. I'd have countered the player with "Hmmm... You're right. This manticore is in an unusual area. Why do you suppose that is? How do you want to investigate that?"

I see that as being a very different issue than tripping an ochre jelly or gelatinous cube.

As far as the difference between DM and player authority over the game, the DM is put in a special position to present a game environment to the players for them to play in. It's part of the role of the DM to push the rules around when they get in the way of the game, both for and against the PCs as necessary in doing so.


----------



## Hussar (May 9, 2011)

Really?  It's completely different?  How so?  In both cases, we're tripping over someone's potential violation of suspension of disbelief.  In one case, the DM cannot see how you could trip a snake.  In the other, the player cannot see how you can have a tiger in Africa.

I agree that it's the DM's role to push the rules around when they get in the way of the game.  But, in this case, it's only getting in the way for one person - the DM.  The player just wants to trip the darn snake and get on with things.  If both the player and the DM agree that this is unbelievable, then, well, fair enough, no harm no foul.

But, that's not the case.  The DM thinks it's unbelievable and uses his authority at the table to enforce his opinion.  OTOH, when the player is confronted with something he knows to be wrong, he's told to shut up and keep playing.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 9, 2011)

I think to deny the difference is being somewhat disingenuous. The manticore could be there for any number of reasons (experiments, imported defense, released into the wild, brought in with magic, is someone's pet that isn't native to this area, etc.). The snake discussion, however, is not the same.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 9, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> I think to deny the difference is being somewhat disingenuous.




You're focusing on the wrong things in Hussar's example.  He is talking from the perspective of the people gathered around the table - why is violating a player's suspension DM prerogative, but the player violating the DMs must be remedied to the DMs satisfaction?  These aren't different issues at all, you just want to confuse them by digging, once again, into the minutia of the example, as the prone snake thing turned into in three different threads, instead of focusing on the overall issue.

In example after example, people have shown how you could trip up a snake, most of which boil down to "watch the Crocodile Hunter".  It's not bad that something caught the DM as "wonky" and he addressed it.  However, his vision is not the sole imagination in play and a reasonable explanation by a player should just move the game along.

In Hussar's example we see the same thing.  A player sees the "wonky" because a Manticore is out of his natural habitat.  If he brings it up as a player, all the DM need do is shrug, grin, and say "I know. Maybe there's something to that" (even if there isn't and he just stuck a manticore there because he wanted to).  This is leaving aside any meta-knowledge issues on the part of the player in question. 

The point of the examples are the same and at the center of the argument thats now raged through three threads - are we here to watch the DMs imagination above all others, or are we engaging in a collaboratively imagined gameworld?  

I, vastly, prefer the latter.  And the latter does not cede DM authority, it just doesn't dismiss the imaginations and creativity of the other 3-5 brains around the table.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Some years ago, I was running a game (2e D&D, as I recall) and threw a manticore at the party.  One of the players cried foul stating that manticores don't exist in the terrain where the party was adventuring.  He was, in fact, correct by the rules.
> 
> So, what should I have done as DM?  Should I have stopped the encounter and rewritten it with a setting appropriate creature?  After all, this is precisely what you are doing with the Prone Snake question - changing the game based on one person's sense of believability.






Thasmodious said:


> You're focusing on the wrong things in Hussar's example.  He is talking from the perspective of the people gathered around the table - why is violating a player's suspension DM prerogative, but the player violating the DMs must be remedied to the DMs satisfaction?




Let us examine, if you will.  

In the prone snake example, the claim is that the rule doesn't make sense within the fiction.

In the manticore example, the claim is that the fiction doesn't make sense within the context of the rules.

My answer to both is exactly the same:  The fiction trumps the rules.  Therefore, in both cases, the rules cede to the fiction.  Interestingly enough, I imagine that Hussar _*didn't*_ rewrite the encounter; he chose the fiction over the rules (as, IMHO, he should have), if, of course, you accept, as Hussar argues, that the terrain listing for creatures are "rules".

That said, the GM has the perogative of throwing unexpected, and perhaps suspension-of-disbelief-bending, things at the players because that is part of the job description.  Likewise, the GM has the perogative to adjust the rules as needed to maintain the fiction because that is also part of the job description.

The interaction of the players and the GM to the rules differs because the relationship to both GM and players to the ruleset differs.  The question makes as much -- and no more -- sense than saying:  

How come the GM cannot determine what actions the PCs take?  Are we here to watch the players' imaginations above the GMs, or are we engaging in a collaboratively imagined gameworld?  Letting the GM determine what the PCs do does not cede player authority, it just doesn't dismiss the imagination and creativity of the brain at the head of the table.​
No, thank you.


RC


----------



## billd91 (May 9, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> The point of the examples are the same and at the center of the argument thats now raged through three threads - are we here to watch the DMs imagination above all others, or are we engaging in a collaboratively imagined gameworld?
> 
> I, vastly, prefer the latter.  And the latter does not cede DM authority, it just doesn't dismiss the imaginations and creativity of the other 3-5 brains around the table.




The DM and players are engaged in a a collaboratively imagined game world, but that doesn't mean that the players have equal power with the DM over the details.

Disallowing effects of powers in situations where they don't make sense does not dismiss the imagination and creativity of the other 3-5 brains around the table any more than applying the written word of the power's effects embraces their imagination and creativity. Depending on the approach taken, disallowing the effects of a power may be based on quite a bit more creativity than simply allowing the rules to play out as written. There's most definitely a middle ground in there, a mix of creative application of the rules and creative negation of them.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 9, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> In the prone snake example, the claim is that the rule doesn't make sense within the fiction.
> 
> In the manticore example, the claim is that the fiction doesn't make sense within the context of the rules.




This is what you keep missing in the snake discussions - 

The claim is that the rule doesn't make sense within the fiction to ONE person at the table, the DM.  It does make sense to the player and said player offers an explanation of how his power still works within the fiction, and the DM still flatly rules that snakes can't be "proned".

Like I said, I have no issue with tripping a snake tripping someone's sensibilities, but once reasonable explanations have been put forth, there is no need for the DM to dismiss the imaginative vision of the player and trump the players abilities. 

PC: ...and this knocks the snake prone
DM: How do you knock a snake prone?!
PC: You've seen people handle large dangerous snakes on TV, right? Well, that's what Thorax the Munificent does here, as the snake lunges for a strike, Thorax catches it off balance, delivers his Sweeping Strike and the snake ends up twisted onto its back, it's ventral scales up in the air.
Good DM response: ok, makes sense, Barbarous Dan, it's your turn.
Bad DM response: I invalidate your reasonable explanation, your imagination, and your very right to exist. Begone from my sight, foul beast. Henceforth, everyone at the table is commanded to shun the player of Thorax and all future generations of his line!


----------



## Fifth Element (May 9, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> You're focusing on the wrong things in Hussar's example.  He is talking from the perspective of the people gathered around the table - why is violating a player's suspension DM prerogative, but the player violating the DMs must be remedied to the DMs satisfaction?



In the "#1 rule for DMing" thread, my contribution was to remember that you're not the only one at the table, and your preferences are not the only ones that matter. It's relevant here.

If the DM is the only one with the problem, regardless of what kind of justification he provides (such as "fiction trumps rules!"), then he's wrong. He can choose to stop DMing for that group, of course, and if it's that big of a deal to him then he probably should. I'd ask if tripping a snake was really worth giving up everything else, then take over the reins if needed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 9, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> This is what you keep missing in the snake discussions -
> 
> The claim is that the rule doesn't make sense within the fiction to ONE person at the table, the DM.




Um...no.  I am not missing that point.  I just don't think it relevant.

In the prone snake example, the claim is that the rule doesn't make sense within the fiction.

In the manticore example, the claim is that the fiction doesn't make sense within the context of the rules.

In neither case, is the number of people to whom the disconnect exists relevant.  For that matter, in neither case is the number of people for whom the disconnect exists _*even known*_.

The GM has the perogative of throwing unexpected, and perhaps suspension-of-disbelief-bending, things at the players because that is part of the job description. Likewise, the GM has the perogative to adjust the rules as needed to maintain the fiction because that is also part of the job description.

The interaction of the players and the GM to the rules differs because the relationship to both GM and players to the ruleset differs.  If the player offers an explanation of how his power still works within the fiction, and the GM agrees that this doesn't violate the fiction, then the GM should not flatly rules that snakes can't be "proned".

Of course, if the GM did rule that way, then he wouldn't really be making sense from any perspective, would he? 

The GM might determine that it is more difficult to "prone" a snake than a man, though, and I'd be cool with that as well.

The problem is that your argument relies upon "reasonable explanations have been put forth" and the question remains whether or not that is so.  I've got no problems with snakes being knocked prone under some circumstances (as described upthread), nor do I have a problem with your "Good DM response".

However, I think that your example "Bad DM" simply doesn't exist.  BUT if that's the only person you're worried about.........?


----------



## Ariosto (May 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The DM thinks it's unbelievable and uses his authority at the table to enforce his opinion.  OTOH, when the player is confronted with something he knows to be wrong, he's told to shut up and keep playing.



It's the DM's job to moderate the game so that everyone can have fun -- not to let one player dictate contentiously for his own fun at everyone else's expense.

As usual, it astounds me to contemplate the relationships and motives you seem to consider normative. 

If the players as a body disagree strongly enough with a referee's rulings, then said ref may end up without players. A player who enough disrupts the game may find himself without a referee or fellow players.

Considering, however, that we are (or at least I am) talking about a social engagement among friends who enjoy each others' company and value each others' perspectives, why should not said friends be able to have a friendly conversation?


----------



## Ariosto (May 9, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> The point of the examples are the same and at the center of the argument thats now raged through three threads - are we here to watch the DMs imagination above all others, or are we engaging in a collaboratively imagined gameworld?




As a player in a *role-playing game*, I am here to play my role -- not to play God with the whole world! If I do not like some aspect of that world, that is but a little annoyance next to not liking to get dragged out of my role-playing to dictate that a tiger I have (via my persona) perceived is "not really there".

The "trip a snake" problem is fundamentally the problem of putting the manipulation of an abstract mathematical game first and last, reducing role-playing to a superficial "skinning" of the real game.

If, instead, we are concerned first with role-playing, then I, via my persona, am interacting with the snake in *physical* ways (envisioned in imagination).  THAT is the first of all things, the archetype of which any 'mechanical' apparatus is just a model.

This being so, we are free to critique any model as being inadequate for the present purpose and to choose instead one that actually does what we want to do.

The emerging 4e philosophy is more often to emphasize a "pure game" at the potential expense of role playing.

In a *story telling game*, on the other hand, I am indeed here to stage-manage the secondary world, whether collaboratively (vs. only the game system) or competitively (vs. other participants' preferred plot lines). I do not want to be confined to interacting with the world via any given persona.

In such a game, the aspect of limited information, exploration and discovery is not the same as in a role-playing game. Hence, I wonder what the rationale is for having a Game Master in the first place. I suspect that failure carefully to consider that question may be at the root of some people's difficulties.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 9, 2011)

Can't XP you right now, Ariosto, but that is a great post.

RC


----------



## Fifth Element (May 9, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> It's the DM's job to moderate the game so that everyone can have fun -- not to let one player dictate contentiously for his own fun at everyone else's expense.



But what if the one player dictating for his own purposes at everyone else's expense is the DM?

The example being discussed is not one player tripping a snake and the other players being up in arms about it; it's a player tripping a snake and the DM vetoing it because it doesn't fit into his conceptions.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I have an interesting turn around for this.
> 
> Some years ago, I was running a game (2e D&D, as I recall) and threw a manticore at the party.  One of the players cried foul stating that manticores don't exist in the terrain where the party was adventuring.  He was, in fact, correct by the rules.
> 
> ...




you seem to be not comparing the like terms

the crybaby players are similar in the two stories.  As are the placing of the manticore and the snake ruling.  You seem to be comparing the ruling with the player in your game that complained.
To answer your question, what should I have done, there are several options, and the one that is normally done at your table should be given the nod.  At our table, when I dm, I allow the player to make a case, see what the other players generally think, and then make a ruling.  If the players cries, but nobody else at the table cares either, then we are definitely moving on.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 9, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> As a player in a *role-playing game*, I am here to play my role -- not to play God with the whole world! If I do not like some aspect of that world, that is but a little annoyance next to not liking to get dragged out of my role-playing to dictate that a tiger I have (via my persona) perceived is "not really there".
> 
> The "trip a snake" problem is fundamentally the problem of putting the manipulation of an abstract mathematical game first and last, reducing role-playing to a superficial "skinning" of the real game.




Only if you define "roleplaying" as superior in certain game models, which rather begs the question and takes a giant leap at the same time.

Even with a "fiction first" approach, in a highly simulative system, the mechanics are still a model, and the logic of your objection would still apply.  It is simply for some people, a given model maps to their preferred style close enough that they no longer think of it as a model.

Where the disconnect comes is clamining that "reskinning" and other techniques from other models necessarily preclude that state in other people--which is flat out wrong.  

Now if you want to define "immersion" as "roleplaying", then you might have a basis for that argument.  It would be on extremely fragile ground, given the assumptions needed to start from there, but you could make such an argument given that start.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 9, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> As a player in a *role-playing game*, I am here to play my role -- not to play God with the whole world!




I agree, neither the player or the DM gets to play God with the WHOLE WORLD!  That's actually pretty central to my point.



> If, instead, we are concerned first with role-playing, then I, via my persona, am interacting with the snake in *physical* ways (envisioned in imagination).
> THAT is the first of all things, the archetype of which any 'mechanical' apparatus is just a model.




Agree 100%.  That is exactly what I am arguing.  By interacting with the snake in ways envisioned with imagination, I have done things to it (damage, prone). Overruling that interaction in favor of a DM preferred interaction is contrary to the agree upon social contract.  It would be no different than informing the DM that, after hitting and rolling, I had done 12 damage to the snake and he, in turn, informs me, "I'm gonna call it 5, 12 doesn't work for me."  



> This being so, we are free to critique any model as being inadequate for the present purpose and to choose instead one that actually does what we want to do.




Absolutely.  But not in the middle of a game session. "Hmm, these results aren't working for me within the fiction I am envisioning, therefore we are going to switch to Hackmaster right now!"



> The emerging 4e philosophy is more often to emphasize a "pure game" at the potential expense of role playing.




No it's not.  This is silly edition-warring. 



> In such a game, the aspect of limited information, exploration and discovery is not the same as in a role-playing game. Hence, I wonder what the rationale is for having a Game Master in the first place. I suspect that failure carefully to consider that question may be at the root of some people's difficulties.




There is quite a large, large gap between pure storytelling games that don't need a GM and RPGs that respect player's input at the table.  Large. Huge, even.


----------



## Ariosto (May 9, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> Agree 100%.  That is exactly what I am arguing.



If you really do agree 100%, then obviously you are NOT arguing that we should give a hoot about Power #54(b) for its own sake. You are agreeing with me that we should be concerned with the actual physical process undertaken and its consequences for the snake. 

The emerging 4e philosophy objects that the real game now is in the selection of powers for 'builds' and their interaction in the mathematical ideal. That involves critical choices among limited options, and what matters is not the imagined processes in the secondary world but the cost:benefit relationships in how often an investment in Power 54(b) lets a player "get his way". The characteristics of characters, snakes, space, etc., are not in fact being specifically modeled, and so a critique on the basis of fidelity or lack thereof is to miss the real purpose that is  balance of the abstract game. References to such phenomena are just decoration, like images of sheep or grain on Settlers of Catan cards that do not really particularly model the behavior of sheep or grain.





> Absolutely.  But not in the middle of a game session. "Hmm, these results aren't working for me within the fiction I am envisioning, therefore we are going to switch to Hackmaster right now!"



Absolutely in the middle of a game session! Why even consider for a moment using a ludicrously irrelevant rule?




> There is quite a large, large gap between pure storytelling games that don't need a GM and RPGs that respect player's input at the table.  Large. Huge, even.



There is quite a large, large gap between respecting a player's input at the table and having a game in which combative rules-lawyering takes the place of role-playing. Large. Huge, even.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 9, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> If you really do agree 100%, then obviously you are NOT arguing that we should give a hoot about Power #54(b) for its own sake. You are agreeing with me that we should be concerned with the actual physical process undertaken and its consequences for the snake.




Yes! And that physical process has been described a few dozen times, including by me in the first post you quote. 



> The emerging 4e philosophy...snip




What you describe is the abstract attitude of the rules in every edition of D&D, not just 4e.  So it is not an emergent philosophy, its core to the game.



> Absolutely in the middle of a game session! Why even consider for a moment using a ludicrously irrelevant rule?




We haven't been discussing ludicrously irrelevant rules.  We've been discussing minor disagreements in the imagined interactions between character and foe as they arise from the mechanics.



> There is quite a large, large gap between respecting a player's input at the table and having a game in which combative rules-lawyering takes the place of role-playing. Large. Huge, even.




I agree.  The DM should not engage in combative rules-lawyering.  A player stating the results of his action is not rules-lawyering.  In what way is describing an action, and the necessary mechanical effects that must be conveyed to the DM, as I showed in my example (and others in many other examples), not playing a role?  The DM snapping immersion to squabble with the player due to his limited imagination is the problem.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 9, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> But what if the one player dictating for his own purposes at everyone else's expense is the DM?





He ends up sitting in a room, in the dark, alone.



RC


----------



## Crispy Critter (May 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I have an interesting turn around for this.
> 
> Some years ago, I was running a game (2e D&D, as I recall) and threw a manticore at the party.  One of the players cried foul stating that manticores don't exist in the terrain where the party was adventuring.  He was, in fact, correct by the rules.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that your player cried foul over a creature being in the wrong terrain instead of his character being incredibly curious about a wyvern being so far from home? I mean where's the sense of adventure and discovery. Is the minutia of the rules that much more important than the story being told?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> He ends up sitting in a room, in the dark, alone.



Indeed. Which is why he needs to keep his priorities in place and realize what the point of playing the game is.


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> We haven't been discussing ludicrously irrelevant rules.  We've been discussing minor disagreements in the imagined interactions between character and foe as they arise from the mechanics.



No, the only reason you have this problem at all is because you insist on interactions that "arise from the mechanics" instead of just the opposite (which has been the mainstay of RPGs from the start).

Get agreement first on what is actually being done, and on what the relevant considerations are, and the "mechanics" follow sensibly enough.

That is, very simply, where you are really having whatever misunderstanding or disagreement you are having.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> No, the only reason you have this problem at all is because you insist on interactions that "arise from the mechanics" instead of just the opposite (which has been the mainstay of RPGs from the start).




That doesn't even make any sense.  Interactions in the game world are framed in the mechanics.  The DM doesn't judge how well you describe swinging your sword at a troll to determine if you hit.  You roll dice.  If you hit, the damage expression isn't determined at whim by the DM based on your description, its weapon damage.  In 3e, its weapon damage plus maybe some effect or bonuses from a feat that you have. In 4e, its weapon damage plus some condition.  These are just extensions of the same mechanics that have determined interaction with the game world since the beginning of D&D.  At no point has the basic mechanical model been different, much less "just the opposite".

I would be equally opposed to a DM in 1e deciding that, despite that I hit and rolled my d8 damage, resulting in a 7, he decides to make it a 2, just because 7 seems a bit high.  The DM, at least one I would play with, does not just make up results, cancel player actions, and do whatever he wants whenever, because he's behind the screen.


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> That doesn't even make any sense.



Yes, it does, if (naturally) one _understands_ it. The greater burden falls to me, but communication is a team effort -- so some effort in good faith on your part (taking on faith that there indeed is a sensible proposition I am trying to convey) is necessary.

So it is when someone thinks he can "trip" a snake in the secondary world. There is some mechanism in the world by which he thinks this possible. When we understand just what that process is, we can assess what factors are relevant to its likelihood.

RPG game rules historically have been the products and expressions of such analysis. Somebody considered factors shaping, e.g., a fight between Hero A and Monster B -- and then made up rules based on those considerations.

The considerations come first, as mother to the rules. Rules sets do not spontaneously generate themselves from vacuum.


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> The DM doesn't judge how well you describe swinging your sword at a troll to determine if you hit.



The DM -- in old D&D, if not in 4e -- not only can but should consider relevant situations. If you're trying to swing your sword at a troll that is simply out of reach, intangible, or otherwise reasonably immune to your ministrations, then it is proper and expected that the DM should rule that you miss.

In other situations, the DM may assess a bonus or penalty to reflect the greater or lesser likelihood of landing a telling blow or causing so many points of damage.

Trying to petrify what is already stone, to knock down something already as low as it can go, to blind the sightless, to "turn undead" that are not really that, or any other such thing, may likewise be ruled simply futile.



> At no point has the basic mechanical model been different, much less "just the opposite".



I disagree. It has indeed been from the start in 1970-71, and across the vast majority of RPGs since, a matter of first considering just what is being proposed. 

That's no accident, either. Your problem, if you are really having it, is quite obviously either (a) misunderstanding as to what is being attempted or (b) disagreement over what is feasible in the imagined situation. If not for that, pray tell, on what would you base disagreement over the proposed rule?

You have got the process backwards, and will clear it up only by going back and completing the real Step One.

If you are continually arguing with the DM, then you are in the wrong place. Go start your own game, do the work of a DM, and show 'em "how it's done". If you get more players, then you can brag.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> The DM -- in old D&D, if not in 4e -- not only can but should consider relevant situations. If you're trying to swing your sword at a troll that is simply out of reach, intangible, or otherwise reasonably immune to your ministrations, then it is proper and expected that the DM should rule that you miss.




Certainly.  Or it has some type of immunity or magical protection or any of dozens of other possibilities why it's damage would legitimately be reduced within the context of the game.  What isn't legitimate is the DM arbitrarily, and after the fact, negating players actions while ignoring their input.  This is what has been in dispute throughout these prone snake discussions.  

It would be pretty awful of a DM to respond, in old D&D, as such:

PC: I take a swing at the troll 
DM: The troll is 12 feet away, your swing misses.
PC: Dude, clearly I meant I enter melee range and thwack him.
DM: Nope, you said it.  

The petty nature of such an exchange is exactly what I am objecting to.


> In other situations, the DM may assess a bonus or penalty to reflect the greater or lesser likelihood of landing a telling blow or causing so many points of damage.




Of course, and that ability is part of the default social contract.  Arbitrarily rewriting character abilities is not.  "Nope, you can't trip this thing that is not immune to being tripped because I say so" is the same as saying "Nope, you can't polymorph this guy because he is my favorite villain."  I didn't tolerate that kind of DM power trip in the 80s and I'm less inclined to do so now.



> Trying to petrify what is already stone, to knock down something already as low as it can go, to blind the sightless, to "turn undead" that are not really that, or any other such thing, may likewise be ruled simply futile.




You can rules lawyer the definitions and the system, but the intent of most actions within the rules are pretty clear.  Could you envision petrifying a stone golem? I can. Big difference between an articulated automaton made of stone and something being stone and immobile.  



> I disagree. It has indeed been from the start in 1970-71, and across the vast majority of RPGs since, a matter of first considering just what is being proposed.





> the only reason you have this problem at all is because you insist on interactions that "arise from the mechanics" instead of just the opposite




No, that's game design.  Considering how things interact and then making mechanics to represent that is called game design.  Rolling hit dice after declaring the intention to hit is the designed mechanics framing the interaction with the world.  A PCs basic interactions and the frame by which they understand how to interact with the world aren't made up on the fly, they are the mechanics of system.  



> If you are continually arguing with the DM, then you are in the wrong place. Go start your own game, do the work of a DM, and show 'em "how it's done". If you get more players, then you can brag.




EnWorld is the wrong place?  I have my own game. I've DMed for over 30 years, and I show 'em how it's done every Friday night.  You know what they say about *ass*umptions.


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2011)

billd91 said:


> The DM and players are engaged in a a collaboratively imagined game world, but that doesn't mean that the players have equal power with the DM over the details.
> 
> *Disallowing effects of powers in situations where they don't make sense *




This underlined bit is the crux of the disagreement I think.  Don't make sense to who?



> does not dismiss the imagination and creativity of the other 3-5 brains around the table any more than applying the written word of the power's effects embraces their imagination and creativity. Depending on the approach taken, disallowing the effects of a power may be based on quite a bit more creativity than simply allowing the rules to play out as written. There's most definitely a middle ground in there, a mix of creative application of the rules and creative negation of them.




Possibly.  And, you are of course right that there are a number of points in between.  But, this sidesteps my question:

Why is it ok for the DM to be the sole arbiter of what is "believable"?



Crispy Critter said:


> I'm sorry. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that your player cried foul over a creature being in the wrong terrain instead of his character being incredibly curious about a wyvern being so far from home? I mean where's the sense of adventure and discovery. Is the minutia of the rules that much more important than the story being told?




To be honest, I was rather taken aback too which is why this incident sticks out in my memory.  But, the point still remains, I put something where it shouldn't be.  I put a tiger in Africa.  It was something very jarring to that player's sense of disbelief, just like having a tiger leap out of the bushes in Africa would be.  Or polar bears and penguins in the same place.

So, if the DM can veto something based solely on his interpretation of what is believable, why can't the player do the same thing?  After all, the claim is that even if the player can justify his action, the DM can still veto the action based on his believability filter.  How is it different that the DM can justify his choices even though it ruins the player's believability?

In other words, why is it okay that the DM simply adds in details to explain why there is a tiger in Africa and the players should simply accept this, but, a player who does the EXACT same thing is a crybaby (to use Ultramark's term)?


----------



## TheUltramark (May 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In other words, why is it okay that the DM simply adds in details to explain why there is a tiger in Africa and the players should simply accept this, but, a player who does the EXACT same thing is a crybaby (to use Ultramark's term)?




did we switch scenarios?  if the player uses a power and the dm decides it doesnt work, then the player should either try something else, or figure out why it didnt work by a means that doesn't involve quoting a rule book he shouldn't have access to, or throwing his pencil or slamming a door.  Certainly, the player should not be able to add details after an unfavorable ruling...are you suggesting that the players keep track of the monster's hit points next?

In your game with the manticore and the crybaby, what did you do? give in to the player or instead, come up with some mysterious plot twist on the snap that "explained" why this "flock???" of manticore was in this locale ??????  and in so doing give out just a small snipit of said twist and see if Mr.Manticore could find the next clue and put the puzzle together?


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2011)

Let's reverse it TheUltramark?  When the player tried to use his ability to knock the snake prone, did the DM try something else or figure out why it worked by a means that doesn't involve quoting a rule book?  If a player should not be able to add details after an unfavorable ruling, why should a DM be able to?

Why is the player a crybaby for having his sense of believablility violated, but the DM gets a free pass?  Why can the DM "come up with some mysterious plot twist on the snap" but the player must absolutely conform to the DM's rulings?

And the better question in my mind is, why the repeated characterization of the player as a "crybaby"?  How does it help the game to characterize one player as being immature while another player who does the exact same thing, is running the game properly?


----------



## TheUltramark (May 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Let's reverse it TheUltramark?  When the player tried to use his ability to knock the snake prone, did the DM try something else or figure out why it worked by a means that doesn't involve quoting a rule book?  If a player should not be able to add details after an unfavorable ruling, why should a DM be able to?
> 
> Why is the player a crybaby for having his sense of believablility violated, but the DM gets a free pass?  *Why can the DM "come up with some mysterious plot twist on the snap" but the player must absolutely conform to the DM's rulings?*
> 
> And the better question in my mind is, why the repeated characterization of the player as a "crybaby"?  How does it help the game to characterize one player as being immature while another player who does the exact same thing, is running the game properly?



why can the dm come up with plot twists on the snap ????????????????
uh......'cause he is the dm !


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2011)

Then why can't the players do the same thing?  You keep dancing around the question, but never really come to the point.

No one, at least not me, is saying you cannot come up with justifications for why something happened (or failed to happen) after the fact.  Of course you can.  My question is why is this the sole domain of the DM?

The DM says a snake cannot be knocked prone.  The player disagrees and gives a plausible explanation for how it could be knocked prone.  (note, this could be applied to any situation, not just this specific one)  But, apparently, the player is not permitted to do this and is a crybaby for doing so.

Yet, when the shoe is on the other foot, and the DM makes a claim that the player disagrees with, the DM makes a plausible explanation and the player must accept it, or the player again becomes a crybaby.

Why is the DM's sensibilities the only ones that matter?


----------



## Styxs (May 10, 2011)

Some good ideas in the article but I don't think everything it said should be brought into play.


----------



## Hussar (May 10, 2011)

Stepping away from D&D for a second.  One of my favourite games that I haven't gotten to play yet (sigh) is 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars.  In 3:16, you play Colonial Marines out to make the universe safe for Humanity by blowing the crap out of every alien you meet.  It's not a terribly serious game.    There's more to it than that, but, that's the basic gist.

One thing I love in the system is each PC has a number of Strengths and Weaknesses.  These are left blank at the start of the game and the character has a limited number of each.  More can be gained through play, but, once you use either a Strength or a Weakness, it cannot be used again.

Using a Strength allows the player to declare the current contest over and that PC has won.  So, you could spend a Strength in the middle of a firefight with xenomorphs and they'd all die and you win.  To use a Strength, you have to detail some element of your history and then apply that to the current situation.  If you're in dark tunnels a la Alien, maybe you grew up on a mining colony and you use your knowledge of mining techniques to plan and execute an ambush and collapse a cave on the bugs.  That becomes part of your character from that part forward.

To use a weakness, it's basically the same thing, only this time, the player declares that his character has lost the conflict.  The character is removed from the current conflict but, and this is the important part, the player gets to dictate the terms of that loss.  Maybe he was captured by the aliens.  Maybe he was medevac'd by emergency teams.  Maybe the tunnel he was in collapsed, trapping him away from the firefight and he wandered his way back to the surface to rejoin the group.  Whatever.  The same thing applies here though that applies to the Strengths - you have to detail some element of your history that causes this weakness to manifest and remove you from play.  Again, this becomes part of your character from then on.

What I find really interesting in games like this is the concept of shared narrative.  The player is empowered specifically, in a very limited way, to be able to shape the story of the game in precisely the same way that the DM can do.  Having read and played more than a few of these style of games, I find myself wanting to apply the same concepts to more traditional games.  

If the player can come up with a plausible explanation, even if its one that I don't really buy, but, I can accept that he buys it, I'm pretty inclined to go with whatever the player wants.  I have a player right now who is playing a Bard in a 4e campaign.  Fun character.  But, in the last session, they faced wraiths (note to self, NEVER use that creature again. - my first real experience in 4e grind.  Yikes).  The bardic abilities are skinned in such a way that the character is basically insulting the creatures to death.

Which, honestly, doesn't make a lick of sense to me.  But, the player explained it thusly:  while the specific ability says that X happens, don't get too hung up on it.  Instead of the insult breaking the baddies brain, maybe it simply bolster's the bard's comrades to the point where they become stronger.  Or maybe it's like that creature in Harry Potter, the Boggart, where if you laugh at it, it becomes helpless.  There are a number of possibilities available if you don't get too tied into the specific description in the books.

Which, to be honest, is good enough for me.


----------



## billd91 (May 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Possibly.  And, you are of course right that there are a number of points in between.  But, this sidesteps my question:
> 
> Why is it ok for the DM to be the sole arbiter of what is "believable"?




Because final rule interpretation and administration, from an impartial perspective, are among the jobs of the game master, not the players who can be expected to be partisan and, from time to time, divided in their opinions. Additionally, only the GM is in a position to apply those interpretations to elements of the campaign as yet unseen and unexperienced by the PCs. If the GM is swayed by the player's (or players') arguments, that's fine. But if he's not, how is the deadlock broken without recognizing that one vision must prevail? Some final arbitrator is needed and that job is the GM's.


----------



## pemerton (May 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> That said, the GM has the perogative of throwing unexpected, and perhaps suspension-of-disbelief-bending, things at the players because that is part of the job description.





Crispy Critter said:


> I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that your player cried foul over a creature being in the wrong terrain instead of his character being incredibly curious about a wyvern being so far from home? I mean where's the sense of adventure and discovery. Is the minutia of the rules that much more important than the story being told?



I tend to agree with what RC says here, but Crispy Critter's comment does suggest some limitations on RC's general proposition.

For example, if a player has signed up to play (let's say) a Dragonlance campaign, with the expectation not that s/he would be exploring an unknown wilderness and making sense of it, but rather reliving the epic tale of Tanis et al (though perhaps with his/her own PC in a GM-authored pastiche), then the Manticore may well be just an error on the part of the GM. And it is completely clear why such a player wouldn't be all that interested in why the Manticore is so far from home - because s/he didn't sign up to play Pet Detective.

Given the range of reasons and aesthetic experiences for which people play RPGs - especially commercially  mainstream ones like D&D - I think it helps to be careful and even sympathetic, rather than judgemental, in imputing motivations to the range of responses that participants have to ingame situations.



Raven Crowking said:


> the GM has the perogative to adjust the rules as needed to maintain the fiction because that is also part of the job description.



This is a proposition of which I am, over the years, becoming more and more sceptical - at least as a general claim.

In a certain sort of simulationist game, in which everyone at the table understands that the purpose and logic of the rules is to reflect ingame causal logic, than this may be true - although even then, some groups may expect that responsibility for preserving the integrity of the fiction by way of rules adjustments is a distributed responsibility rather than solely the GM's prerogative.

But if the rule in question works in a different way - for example, if its function is to confer a certain sort of narrative authority on the player who has used it - then it seems to me that the GM doesn't have any special privilege of suspending or altering the rule. The whole point of _this_ rule, after all, is to confer on the player a privilege that, in a mainstream game, tends to default to the GM. For the GM to purport to take that privilege back at the precise moment the player in question uses the rule looks to me at least prima facie like an unjustified breaking of the rules.

To flesh this out with a concrete example: some event, narrated by the GM and resolved and adjudicated in the usual fashion results in the death of a PC. The player of that PC then declares "I'm spending my last Fate Point to save my PC's life". The GM says "There's no way _anyone_ could have survived that!" The player then gives some contrived and or improbable, but by no means impossible within the fictional context, explanation of the PC's survival. Should the GM nevertheless be able to veto because s/he doesn't like the story? Doesn't look like it to me. If you GM a game with Fate Points, you've agreed to cede narrative authority at certain key points to your players. Part of playing the game, then, is putting up with their Fate Point usages and incorporating them into the overall shared fiction.

In my view, knocking a snake prone in 4e is like this. 4e powers are, in part, rules for distributing narrative authority among participants. When a 4e player uses his/her "knock prone" power on a snake, s/he has, in effect, played a Fate Point which says "However hard it is to grap this snake by the tail and flip it onto its back, my PC has just done it!"

Adjudicating the typical skill use, and the related issue of adjudicating page 42, are different matters. The rules make it clear that feasibility is meant to be a constraint (although not the only one) on the GM setting DCs. But a player using his/her powers is _not_ invoking page 42. I've got no objection to the GM inviting the player (and/or the rest of the table) to help work out exactly what happened in the fiction. But as this thread has shown, and in my own experience GMing, finding some story to tell shouldn't normally be that hard.

I therefore agree with this:



Thasmodious said:


> I have no issue with tripping a snake tripping someone's sensibilities, but once reasonable explanations have been put forth, there is no need for the DM to dismiss the imaginative vision of the player and trump the players abilities.




Now if the GM has ruled that _this particular snake_ cannot be knocked prone, because it is bearing a magical "tatoo of ventral righting" or whatever, that is a different matter. The setting of monster traits is the GM's prerogative in 4e, as in many other fantasy RPGs. But according to the 4e DMG, in such a situation the GM is obliged to inform the player that there is a reason the "knock prone" attempt failed - perhaps "As you try to flip the snake over, you see a sigil drawn on its belly flash with arcane power. This snake cannot be knocked prone."

EDIT:



billd91 said:


> Because final rule interpretation and administration, from an impartial perspective, are among the jobs of the game master, not the players who can be expected to be partisan



The whole purpose of a Fate Point mechanic is for the player to be partisan in how s/he uses it. Likewise for a "knock prone" power in 4e. It produces stories about how awesome, or lucky, or whatever, the PC controlled by that player is.

This is only a concern if you're worried that such partisanship, and the ensuing tale of luck/awesomeness is going to not only alter but derail the shared fiction. But I haven't seen any practical evidence that this is a genuine threat.


----------



## pemerton (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> As a player in a *role-playing game*, I am here to play my role -- not to play God with the whole world!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





Ariosto said:


> we should be concerned with the actual physical process undertaken and its consequences for the snake.
> 
> The emerging 4e philosophy objects that the real game now is in the selection of powers for 'builds' and their interaction in the mathematical ideal. That involves critical choices among limited options, and what matters is not the imagined processes in the secondary world but the cost:benefit relationships in how often an investment in Power 54(b) lets a player "get his way". The characteristics of characters, snakes, space, etc., are not in fact being specifically modeled, and so a critique on the basis of fidelity or lack thereof is to miss the real purpose that is  balance of the abstract game. References to such phenomena are just decoration, like images of sheep or grain on Settlers of Catan cards that do not really particularly model the behavior of sheep or grain.





Ariosto said:


> No, the only reason you have this problem at all is because you insist on interactions that "arise from the mechanics" instead of just the opposite (which has been the mainstay of RPGs from the start).



While these posts make some interesting points, in my view they draw too sharp a dichotomy between so-called "roleplaying games" and so-called "storytelling games".

The 1st ed AD&D DMG indicates that a saving throw is always permitted - no matter how absurd the prospects for survival might look to the GM - and that, if the save is made and the PC survives, the story as to how this happened - a last-moment hiding behind a shield, or in a cleft in the rocks, or an unexpected divine intervention - can be worked out afterwords.

Hit points are stated to work in a similar manner, although (in my view) the discussion of hit points is not as clear as the discussion of saving throws.

So for over 30 years D&D has had at least _that much_ storytelling gaming as part of it. I don't think it suddenly transforms the game from an RPG to a storytelling game to give the players this sort of capacity for narrative stipulation outside the context of saving throws, and to extend it to certain attacks also. The PC is still the locus of the non-GM participants engagment with the game, and the PC's capacity to stipulate the fiction is still linked, in various ways, to his/her PC (just as is the saving throw description in AD&D).

As for the claim that references to the fiction in 4e are decoration, like references to sheep in Settlers, that is manifestly not so. It is clearly not so when page 42 is in play, or when a skill challenge is being resolved, but it is not true even in a combat when an ordinary power is used. For example, if a snake has been knocked prone - which is to say, that it has been flipped over onto it's back - and a PC is then trying to see what colour the markings are on its back, the Perception check will be more difficult than if the snake were not prone and on its front. Or, to move beyond the Case of the Prone Snake, if a power results in forced movement, which then pushes two PCs apart, it will then become more difficult for one PC to whisper something to another without using a power like Ghost Sound, even though there are no express mechanics governing the relationship between whispering and adjacency.

Any number of other examples of the way in which 4e fiction governs 4e action resolution could be given. But anyway, the takehome lesson from the Snake Case is not that 4e is a board game or a storytelling game but that it is an RPG which (i) confers narrative authority on players more liberally than did AD&D, (ii) is unconcerned about some aspects of the fiction - like facing in combat - but not others - like position, just as an RPG like Rolemaster is concerned about facing in combat but less concerned about position, and (iii) combines these two features in a way that irritates some RPGers (as in the case of the player narrating the proneness of the snake by invoking those aspects of the fiction - like the snake being on its back or front, or coiled or uncoiled, or whatever - that the mechanics, by default, tend to pay little attention to).


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 10, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> did we switch scenarios? if the player uses a power and the dm decides it doesnt work, then the player should either try something else, or figure out why it didnt work by a means that doesn't involve quoting a rule book he shouldn't have access to, or throwing his pencil or slamming a door.




If the player uses a power the DM decided can't work, then the DM has the responsibility of at least cluing the player as to why it didn't work.  



> Certainly, the player should not be able to add details after an unfavorable ruling...




And this is complete rubbish.  If you do something with the expectation that it will work you can go light on the details because you already have the shared narrative to flesh out details.  Adding additional details is an attempt to line up your narrative with the DM's.



Ariosto said:


> The DM -- in old D&D, if not in 4e -- not only can but should consider relevant situations. If you're trying to swing your sword at a troll that is simply out of reach,




If you are trying to swing your sword at a troll that is out of reach then the fault is almost entirely with the DM; your character will know the length of his sword and you had reasonable cause to believe that the troll was in reach or your character would not have swung.  Therefore it is the DM's fault for not aligning the narratives properly.



> intangible,




If the DM says you "miss" because the troll is intangible then the DM sucks.  You _don't_ miss.  Your sword passes through the troll without touching anything.  A completely different story.



> Trying to petrify what is already stone, to knock down something already as low as it can go, to blind the sightless, to "turn undead" that are not really that, or any other such thing, may likewise be ruled simply futile.




You shouldn't be ruling them simply futile.  There's a world of difference between futile and not working for a reason.  Not working for a reason provides _information_.  For instance if the reason the Cleric failed to turn the undead is that they are in fact Scooby Doo Zombies (i.e. living people with makeup), the Turn attempt provides information.  There was nothing there that could be turned.  Which means it's not something that is simply futile - it's a clue rather than an attack.  And you haven't disempowered the PCs by having the turn attempt do nothing - the turn attempt has done something.  Just not the something expected.



> That's no accident, either. Your problem, if you are really having it, is quite obviously either (a) misunderstanding as to what is being attempted or (b) disagreement over what is feasible in the imagined situation. If not for that, pray tell, on what would you base disagreement over the proposed rule?




But apparently (at least according to TheUltramark), "Certainly, the player should not be able to add details after an unfavorable ruling."  If it's a misunderstanding you aren't allowed to try to clear it up?  Or if you do you'll at least be badged as "whiny"?



> If you are continually arguing with the DM, then you are in the wrong place. Go start your own game, do the work of a DM, and show 'em "how it's done". If you get more players, then you can brag.




This is ENWorld.  If I remember the survey accurately something like 2/3 of ENWorld regular posters do DM.  Myself included.  And Hussar.  And Pmerton.  And I think every other person on our side of this thread.



billd91 said:


> The DM and players are engaged in a a collaboratively imagined game world, but that doesn't mean that the players have equal power with the DM over the details.




Oh, indeed.  The DM has a lot more power than the players.  Which gives the DM a lot more _responsibility_.



> Disallowing effects of powers in situations where they don't make sense does not dismiss the imagination and creativity of the other 3-5 brains around the table




It _explicitely_ tells the player you're dismissing their visualisation of the gameworld.  It says "I'm the DM.  You're a player.  I'm big.  You're little.  I'm right.  You're wrong."  If they didn't believe they could do something, they wouldn't have done it.  And you have the _power_ to overrule them because you are the DM.  But doing so means that you have ed up badly.  You've failed to communicate your vision of the gameworld to them, and you've weakened their experience and their faith in the world by making them feel as if the laws of physics have changed.



> Depending on the approach taken, disallowing the effects of a power may be based on quite a bit more creativity than simply allowing the rules to play out as written. There's most definitely a middle ground in there, a mix of creative application of the rules and creative negation of them.




Oh, indeed.  There can be more creativity in disallowing rather than allowing.  But (to take an extreme example) there is more creativity in having someone framed for murder than letting them walk around free.  Creativity is of itself not an inherent good unless it is applied to an end.  And sharing the gameworld is far more useful for immersion, and for handling challenges, than negating their contribution.



billd91 said:


> Additionally, only the GM is in a position to apply those interpretations to elements of the campaign as yet unseen and unexperienced by the PCs.




Indeed.  But that doesn't mean that except in _incredibly_ rare situations you negate what the PC did.  Having a sword swing straight through an illusion is not negating the actions of the PC.  It's allowing them and giving them a reward for doing so - just not the one they expected.



> If the GM is swayed by the player's (or players') arguments, that's fine. But if he's not, how is the deadlock broken without recognizing that one vision must prevail? Some final arbitrator is needed and that job is the GM's.




If it needs to go to arbitration then something's got ed up down the line.  The DM has the right to arbitrate like this.  But every time he does so, and does so against the explicit rules, it is a failure as a DM that let it get that far.

(Note that to make things clear pre-existing house rules count as the rules for the game.  I don't think _anyone_ is arguing that house rules made clear in advance are something that shouldn't exist.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> It _explicitely_ tells the player you're dismissing their visualisation of the gameworld.  It says "I'm the DM.  You're a player.  I'm big.  You're little.  I'm right.  You're wrong."




No.

And I am sorry that your gaming experience has led you to believe this.

Mine certainly has not.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But if the rule in question works in a different way - for example, if its function is to confer a certain sort of narrative authority on the player who has used it - then it seems to me that the GM doesn't have any special privilege of suspending or altering the rule. The whole point of _this_ rule, after all, is to confer on the player a privilege that, in a mainstream game, tends to default to the GM. For the GM to purport to take that privilege back at the precise moment the player in question uses the rule looks to me at least prima facie like an unjustified breaking of the rules.



Can't XP you at the moment, but just an excellent post full of excellent points.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> No.
> 
> And I am sorry that your gaming experience has led you to believe this.
> 
> ...



Then what does it say?

The two times I've had a common call of "you can't do that" other than utter absurdity have been either that from the worst DM (or rather Storyteller) I've ever had the misfortune to have or the DM (or whatever it is in Cybergeneration) saying that "I can't handle that ability".  The cybergeneration case we were all teenagers.  I had a low level telepathic power - and _every_ NPC had a device to prevent surface thought detection.  Without exception.  (After two sessions I forget which of us suggested I do a new character).  The second was a "This is _my_ story" WoD storyteller who inflicted one DMPC on the party per PC (and I mean DMPC in the worst way).  Oh, and inflicted my PC with the backstory of having been responsible for what was going wrong in a way that moved him way, way OOC - and then gave him amnesia (I lasted three sessions - that's only the tip of the iceberg).


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 10, 2011)

Well, let me begin by stating that the point of this thread has shifted to something I think is much more clear than knocking a snake prone. That is, whether or not the game is one of a shared narrative, and how good or bad it is if it is/isn't.

Personally, I subscribe to no social contract, implied or not, that says that the game world is a shared narrative. It is not. The players have no place in it. As a GM, I feel I have very little place in it. I will react to player actions, telling them how their proactive interactions with the game world transpire. I do not allow them to ever dictate how something occurs, in any situation, but merely how they attempt to achieve something. The huge majority of the time, there is no issue, and they perfectly achieve what they attempted (I'm going to the inn, I'm trying to make a swing at one of its legs, I'm trying to push it back, etc.). However, when they achieve something, they do not at all detail how it is done, unless I ask them to.

Sometimes, someone says "I want to do X. [fill in fluff text here]" I'll respond with, "Okay, go ahead (and roll if appropriate). [more fluff]" If the situation warrants it, I'll ask "how exactly did you do what you wanted to?" and they'll let me know. We move on.

Other times, I say the attempt succeeded in a certain way. Or that it failed in a certain way. Or that it simply failed, with no explanation (if none is due, such as a player casting an enchantment at an animated suit of plate armor).

This way of play is the expected social interaction with my group. And with the other gamers I've run across (which is admittedly small, as I have an exceptional group where mutual tastes, free time, and friendship are concerned). There is no expectation of players being able to dictate the results of anything. They can dictate any attempt they wish. They even state it as "I do _X_" and that's fine with me. I don't mention anything unless something specifically interferes or foils their attempt.

The main reason we play this way? Immersion. You know what is exceptionally fulfilling for me, but is not immersive? GMing. I'm constantly dealing with the gears behind the scene, making things fit into a neat little presentation for my players. It is constant reminder of the fact I'm running a game, that sheets I may need to reference (too many NPC names...) are only a few feet away, in a binder in my house.

The players, however, do not have to deal with the meta-mechanics as often (even though they obviously do). As such, they have much more opportunity to be immersed in the game world (at least with my group).

I do admit, if a discussion took place that interrupted any particular encounter, than it would be immersion killing. Thus, the less those discussions take place, the better. One way to do that is to give the players more narrative control over their characters. Another way to do that (and my preferred way) is to give the say to one member of the table (the impartial one, if played the way we do), and simply accept his decisions. That way, no big disagreements occur, the game moves on, and people remain immersed.

Mutants and Masterminds is a great game. I love playing it, and I do semi-regularly when our group needs to scratch the superhero itch, via one-shots. It's given players some measure of narrative control (albeit not as far as it could go by any means). It makes for an incredibly fun game. It's not immersive, though, and it doesn't scratch the role playing itch we have. For that, we turn to my game, where I will act as arbiter, and they will interact with the world displayed before them, forgetting all the gears behind the scene for a time.

Personally, I don't want to play a narrative game. I strongly, strongly dislike the mindset. Why? It's not as immersive _for me._ It's preference, plain and simple. I know other people like it, and that's cool. One of my players likes it quite a bit. Do we argue about it? Nope. We know it's preference. We're content to play things however we like, only play the games we enjoy, and get along.

But, if anyone is interested in listening to a narrative approach to gaming, here's a link I found a little while ago: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S86mSEIqQcg&feature=channel_video_title]YouTube - John Wick Reddit Interview (1)[/ame] . I disagree with a lot of what he says, even if it is somewhat interesting seeing what other people enjoy in their game. However, he does much prefer a narrative approach to his game, and some of what he says is intriguing (even if it's usually something I would not want to do).

At the end of the day, it comes down to why people play the game. When we play M&M, we have a blast for pretty much the entire night. It's trumped, however, by the immersion the players feel in our regular game. So, we play for that. We play to explore bits and pieces of our mind through the game. Or for simple escapism. Or to overcome challenges not meant to be tilted in the favor of the PCs. It varies from player to player.

Which, of course, leads me conveniently to: play what you like


----------



## Kerranin (May 10, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Because final rule interpretation and administration, from an impartial perspective, are among the jobs of the game master, not the players who can be expected to be partisan and, from time to time, divided in their opinions. Additionally, only the GM is in a position to apply those interpretations to elements of the campaign as yet unseen and unexperienced by the PCs. If the GM is swayed by the player's (or players') arguments, that's fine. But if he's not, how is the deadlock broken without recognizing that one vision must prevail? Some final arbitrator is needed and that job is the GM's.



I agree it is the GM's remit to act as final arbitrator on in-game issues, but any GM who regards this as carte-blanche to do as they wish without explaining themselves, is a GM who usually finds themselves without players.

RPG games are fundamentally a cooperative endeavour, best solution is usually to explain your thinking, and either get player buy-in, or have them convince you of a reason why it can work.


----------



## pemerton (May 10, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> The main reason we play this way? Immersion.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Personally, I don't want to play a narrative game. I strongly, strongly dislike the mindset. Why? It's not as immersive _for me._



Ron Edwards, in The Forge :: GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, Chapter 3, offers these thoughts on immersion:

*Immersion* is another difficult issue . . . The most substantive definition that I have seen is that immersion is the sense of being "possessed" by the character. This phenomenon is not a stance, but a feeling. What kind of role-playing goes with that feeling? The feeling is associated with decision-making that is incompatible with Director or Author stance. Therefore, I suggest that immersion (an internal sensation) is at least highly associated with Actor Stance. Whether some people get into Actor stance and then "immerse," or others "immerse" and thus willy-nilly are in Actor stance, I don't know. ​
This is consistent with the idea that immersion is at odds with player narrative control, because player narrative control requires stepping out of actor stance into author or director stance, as the player decides "what would be cool for his/her PC" (author stance) and manipulates the gameworld appropriately (director stance).

Both as a player and a GM I find engagement with the narrative more important than "immersion" in this sense of being possessed by a character or by the internal logic of the gameworld (which seems to me to be the GM's version of immersion).

Obviously others' preferences vary!


----------



## Thasmodious (May 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But if the rule in question works in a different way - for example, if its function is to confer a certain sort of narrative authority on the player who has used it - then it seems to me that the GM doesn't have any special privilege of suspending or altering the rule. The whole point of _this_ rule, after all, is to confer on the player a privilege that, in a mainstream game, tends to default to the GM. For the GM to purport to take that privilege back at the precise moment the player in question uses the rule looks to me at least prima facie like an unjustified breaking of the rules.




This is at the core of what I've been arguing.  You just stated it much better than I have managed to so far.  

I would add that the narrative control ceded to the player here isn't really any different than the narrative control the player has always had.  The powers of 4e are, typically, contingent on a single roll, rather than a series of rolls or the use of charts, or a back and forth dance of rolls to produce a single outcome (like 3e grapple).  Knocking something prone because your chosen power does that is not really grabbing some special control that PCs didn't have before.  Spell effects, damage, feats, whatever, these are all examples of the player telling the DM what is happening to his monster.  It's packaged a bit differently in 4e, expanded a bit, perhaps, through sheer volume (since most powers do damage +).  But at the end of the day it isn't functionally much different to say to the DM:

"Thorax has hit your beast for 7 damage."  
or
"Thorax has hit your beast for 7 damage and knocked it prone." 

The arguments against knocking a snake prone have been pretty soundly defeated.  At the end of the day, snakes do not have an immunity to special conditions in the system, so to deny the player the ability to apply one requires a pretty tight case.  In this situation, the case has been solved, repeatedly, by numerous examples.  

IS there a situation in 4e where a power applying a condition to a creature not already immune to such things simply can't be rationalized?  I don't know, I haven't found one.  Prone oozes, petrified stone golems, blinded bats, yeah, I can rationalize those, as player or DM.  





> To flesh this out with a concrete example: some event, narrated by the GM and resolved and adjudicated in the usual fashion results in the death of a PC. The player of that PC then declares "I'm spending my last Fate Point to save my PC's life". The GM says "There's no way _anyone_ could have survived that!" The player then gives some contrived and or improbable, but by no means impossible within the fictional context, explanation of the PC's survival. Should the GM nevertheless be able to veto because s/he doesn't like the story? Doesn't look like it to me.




It seems to me that several of the people arguing the other side here would say that absolutely the DM could veto the Fate Point.  I don't agree and you very well sum up the reason why:



> If you GM a game with Fate Points, you've agreed to cede narrative authority at certain key points to your players. Part of playing the game, then, is putting up with their Fate Point usages and incorporating them into the overall shared fiction.




Exactly.


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> EnWorld is the wrong place?



No, *that DM's table* is the wrong place.

This is really just common sense, being in touch with reality. I do not see how WotC could exercise any more practical "game police" power than TSR!



			
				Gygax said:
			
		

> Participants in a campaign have no recourse to the publisher, but they do have ultimate recourse -- since the most effective protest is withdrawal from the offending campaign. ...You, the reader, as a member of the campaign community, do not belong if the game seems wrong in any major aspect. Withdraw and begin your own campaign...




The problem with your assumption that the DM must capitulate to your demand is that IT IS THE DM'S JOB to be the final arbiter. That is why we choose to have a DM in the first place. If you want to be where the buck stops, then go for it -- but do not so confuse the different roles, trying to "have your cake and eat it too".


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Then what does it say?




"Effects of powers may be disallowed in situations where they don't make sense."


----------



## Thasmodious (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> The problem with your assumption that the DM must capitulate to your demand is that IT IS THE DM'S JOB to be the final arbiter. That is why we choose to have a DM in the first place. If you want to be where the buck stops, then go for it -- but do not so confuse the different roles, trying to "have your cake and eat it too".




There is no demand.  We are talking about a basic PC ability.  In no edition of D&D has the player ever had to ask the DMs permission to damage monsters. 

"If it pleases you, oh overlord, I have rolled 7 damage"
"Nay, worthless whelp!  I will allow your roll of 20 to stand, but your damage is 2!"   

Why have a DM? Certainly not just to pass proclamations upon the heads of the unworthy players.  The DM is the player of the game who frames the game world, sets up the settings and the encounters, provides the basic fiction (hopefully, heavily influenced by player action), not to play overlord to the players, deciding, through his beneficence whether he will allow them to use their abilities to damage his creatures or not at will and without regard to their reasoning or imagination.  You want to play "I am DM! And DM is GOD!", by all means, go right ahead.  Don't bother reserving a seat for me though, I won't be there.


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Why is it ok for the DM to be the sole arbiter of what is "believable"?



Everyone else is free to make suggestions. It is "ok" for the DM to make the final decision because that is WHY we have a DM in the first place. It is a game of limited information, and the DM *allows us not to know* things.

You want to play a different kind of game? Suit yourself.




> So, if the DM can veto something based solely on his interpretation of what is believable, why can't the player do the same thing?



They are different positions. That is why we call them by different names.

*In what game does a player 'veto' a referee?* Where do you get such unclarity on this concept?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> The problem with your assumption that the DM must capitulate to your demand is that IT IS THE DM'S JOB to be the final arbiter. That is why we choose to have a DM in the first place.



I agree that the DM is the final arbiter _in cases where a decision must be made_. The point Thasmodious is trying to make, I think, is that the rules state that when a player rolls damage, the monster takes that damage, no arbitration is needed. And in 4E, the same applies to th effects of powers: no arbitration is needed because the effect is cut and dried.

So allowing a snake to be knocked prone does nothing to take away a DM's role as arbiter. It only changes the specific things that require said responsibility to be used. This often happens when editions change.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> There is no demand.  We are talking about a basic PC ability.  In no edition of D&D has the player ever had to ask the DMs permission to damage monsters.
> 
> "If it pleases you, oh overlord, I have rolled 7 damage"
> "Nay, worthless whelp!  I will allow your roll of 20 to stand, but your damage is 2!"




1e:

PC:  I strike.....7 points of damage!
DM:  You hear your sword strike with a clang against the gargoyle's stone hide, but sadly can see no sign of damage whatsoever.

3e:

PC:  I strike.....7 points of damage!
DM:  Sadly, the monster's damage resistance can take 10 points from the weapon you are using........



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> I agree that the DM is the final arbiter _in cases where a decision must be made_. The point Thasmodious is trying to make, I think, is that the rules state that when a player rolls damage, the monster takes that damage, no arbitration is needed. And in 4E, the same applies to th effects of powers: no arbitration is needed because the effect is cut and dried.
> 
> So allowing a snake to be knocked prone does nothing to take away a DM's role as arbiter. It only changes the specific things that require said responsibility to be used. This often happens when editions change.




At any game that you are running, you absolutely have the right to decide that.  However, you do not have the right to decide that no arbitration is needed for anyone else.  Moreover, the 4e rulebooks explicitly state that the DM has the right to arbitrate in the manner in question.

Remember all of those early arguments about the 4e books stripping the DM's power to rule in this way?  Remember pointing out that this was explicitly untrue?  Should we drag up those threads again?  Really?


RC


----------



## Thasmodious (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Everyone else is free to make suggestions. It is "ok" for the DM to make the final decision because that is WHY we have a DM in the first place.




You are arguing something other people aren't.  Final does not mean sole.  No one has said the DM isn't final arbiter.  What we are saying is it would be bad form for the DM to overrule a player with a reasonable explanation and to only account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences.




> *In what game does a player 'veto' a referee?* Where do you get such unclarity on this concept?




Really?!  Any game with action points, fate chips, or some other mechanic specifically designed to give players "veto" power.  And there are a lot of those system these days.  In Savage Worlds, for example, the use of a fate chip (called bennies) actually rewrites the results of an already resolved damage roll.  So the DM may state "you take 4 wounds from that." But the player can respond with "I spend a benny, make a soak roll, and... actually take no wounds!"


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> There is no demand.  We are talking about a basic PC ability.  In no edition of D&D has the player ever had to ask the DMs permission to damage monsters.



That is very simply and obviously false. A player can do *N O T H I N G* in the DM's world without the DM's leave. The player's persona does not exist in the DM's world except as the DM wills.

Player proposes, referee disposes. I do not know that I know all there is to know about the situation. It is THE JOB of the DM to make sure that I do not. 

That he or she fulfills that well is the reason I continue to be a player in his or her game.

Now, I must say that my DMs consider my views as a player, and I as DM consider their views as players. That is NOT the same as turning another player at his whim into the DM for only so long as he wishes to wield the power without the responsibility! Considering arguments is part of being a judge, but hearing the arguments is to the end of the judge passing judgment.

If you and your fellow participants do not treat each other with such consideration, then that is an interpersonal problem you will have to address among yourselves.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> 1e:
> 
> PC:  I strike.....7 points of damage!
> DM:  You hear your sword strike with a clang against the gargoyle's stone hide, but sadly can see no sign of damage whatsoever.
> ...




Yes. Very good.  We've already covered that there are many legitimate reasons why damage could be reduced or ignored.  "Cause I'm the DM" is not one of them.  But by all means, keep amusing yourself with irrelevancies.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> You are arguing something other people aren't.  Final does not mean sole.  No one has said the DM isn't final arbiter.  What we are saying is it would be bad form for the DM to overrule a player with a reasonable explanation and to only account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences.




You are arguing something other people aren't.  No one has said the DM should overrule a player with a reasonable explanation and to only account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences.

HOWEVER, insofar as the bigger picture is the province of the DM, rather than the players, the DM should keep the big picture in mind.  Also, insofar as the DM _*must enjoy the game in order to run it well *_(or at all), he should not move so far from his preferences as to ruin the game for all.



> Really?!  Any game with action points, fate chips, or some other mechanic specifically designed to give players "veto" power.




Yup.  No argument there.



RC


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> PC:  I strike.....7 points of damage!
> DM:  Sadly, the monster's damage resistance can take 10 points from the weapon you are using........



Aboslutely. If the monster's stat block says "cannot be knocked prone" or what have you (analagous to the damage reduction here), then he's simply applying the rules, not vetoing a rule.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> That is very simply and obviously false. A player can do *N O T H I N G* in the DM's world without the DM's leave. The player's persona does not exist in the DM's world except as the DM wills.




Oh come on. Now your just being facetious.  I've lost any interest in continuing discussing this with you in particular.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> Yes. Very good.  We've already covered that there are many legitimate reasons why damage could be reduced or ignored.  "Cause I'm the DM" is not one of them.  But by all means, keep amusing yourself with irrelevancies.




I repeat:  You are arguing something other people aren't. No one has said the DM should overrule a player with a reasonable explanation and to only account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences.  No one has said "Cause I'm the DM" is a legitimate reason why damage should be reduced or ignored.

If that's your actual point, then AFAICT, no one disagrees with you.

HOWEVER, I do disagree with the assertation that anyone is, in fact, saying that DM overruling a player is _ipso facto _only taking into account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences, even if the player believes his explanation to be reasonable, or that reducing damage somehow _ipso facto _becomes "Cause I'm the DM".


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> You are arguing something other people aren't.  No one has said the DM should overrule a player with a reasonable explanation and to only account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences.



Wait, so if the player proposes a reasonable explanation of how knocking a snake prone happens, the DM should allow it even if it makes no sense to him? Hasn't this proposition been rebutted in this thread? I thought it was you doing the rebutting, I could be wrong about that though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Aboslutely. If the monster's stat block says "cannot be knocked prone" or what have you (analagous to the damage reduction here), then he's simply applying the rules, not vetoing a rule.




Out of curiosity, how do you, as a player, know what the creature's stat block says?  How do you know that it is not modified?  Stat block modifications have existed since 1e or earlier.

Moreover, the rules state clearly in many instances that you roll the dice and apply the results.  Yet, in your case, I know as a fact that you veto that on occasion because it doesn't produce the result you want.  How do you explain the disconnect here?


RC


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodeus said:
			
		

> Any game with action points, fate chips...



I was going to mention those as things you might try -- but they really are not to the point.

You already have the Power, which is a 'rule' just as much as a "fate chip"!

In fact, it is the very specificity and limitation of Powers, the prohibition against using given abilities if one has not 'bought' them with game currency, that makes the game so appealing. What could be simpler than to toss all those persnickety rules and replace them with "DO ANYTHING" entitlements?

Of course, the actual fact in most games is that the referee does indeed retain the power to say, "You can't do _that!_" over any use of "fate points" or the like. In the remainder, why should there be a referee in the first place?

Again, if you want to play such a thoroughly different game then suit yourself. Complaining that D & D is not it seems a bit silly.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> In Savage Worlds, for example, the use of a fate chip (called bennies) actually rewrites the results of an already resolved damage roll.  So the DM may state "you take 4 wounds from that." But the player can respond with "I spend a benny, make a soak roll, and... actually take no wounds!"



4E has something similar in immediate interrupts. Some of them are triggered when you are *hit* by an attack, and allow you to avoid damage or reduce damage or teleport or what have you. Not when you're attacked, mind you; you wait until you know whether you're hit or not before triggering the power. The DM says your character is hit by an attack, you say "no, actually my PC teleported out of the way just in the nick of time." This sort of thing is built into the system.


Oh, and I use my new power to speak for you wisely sir. Won't abuse it at all, not at all...


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

double post


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> How do you explain the disconnect here?



The disconnect is the difference between a monster's traits, established before the encounter even begins, and the arbitrary "you can't knock a snake prone, that doesn't make any sense" vetoing of a PC's power after the fact.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Wait, so if the player proposes a reasonable explanation of how knocking a snake prone happens, the DM should allow it even if it makes no sense to him? Hasn't this proposition been rebutted in this thread? I thought it was you doing the rebutting, I could be wrong about that though.




Let's rephrase that, shall we:

if the player proposes a reasonable explanation of how knocking a snake prone happens, the DM should allow it even if he does not believe it is reasonable​
and there you have, I think, the crux of the argument.

If the player offers a reasonable explanation, and the DM agrees that it is reasonable, he should allow it.  

If the player offers an explanation that he believes is reasonable, but the DM does not, the DM should consider it carefully (or as carefully as can be without bogging the game down) and then make a ruling, one way or the other. 

In either event, the player should accept the ruling, and the game should move on.....*unless the ruling is so critical as to seriously swing the game in one direction or another*.  In this, and only in this, case, stopping to actually hash things out is of value.

If the ruling is not so critical, after the game, it may be raised again, hashed out, and either the player(s) convince the GM or not.  If not, then the GM is final arbiter within the province of any game he or she runs.  

The players, obviously, are the final arbiters of what games they are willing to play in.

This is simplicity itself:

1.  The players cannot force the GM to accept any rule or ruling that he or she doesn't choose to accept.

2.  The GM cannot force anyone to play in his or her games, and if his or her rulings are wonky enough, the GM will soon be left in the dark, alone, wondering where everyone else went.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> In the remainder, why should there be a referee in the first place?



At the very least, because there will always, _always_ be things that are not covered directly by the rules. No ruleset can hope to cover every possible eventuality. No rules for something? You need an arbiter.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> You are arguing something other people aren't.  No one has said the DM should overrule a player with a reasonable explanation and to only account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences.




You really want to go "nu-uh, you are" back and forth?  In these three threads on this same thing, several people have argued just that.



> HOWEVER, insofar as the bigger picture is the province of the DM, rather than the players, the DM should keep the big picture in mind.  Also, insofar as the DM _*must enjoy the game in order to run it well *_(or at all), he should not move so far from his preferences as to ruin the game for all.




I agree with the first statement and only partly with the second.  DMing has a big job description and, imo, a part of that is a certain level of sacrifice to his own preferences to create a game that is fun for all based on the group dynamics.  A player likes what he likes.  If he is a powergamer type, he wants to be awesome, a role-player wants to roleplay.  The DM can indulge himself here and there but he pushes aside the preferences of his players at his own risk.  A big part of DMing, imo, is finding a balance where the players get to indulge their preferences without the DM sacrificing all of his.  He's the one with the responsibility to sacrifice, though.  If he can't live with that, he shouldn't get behind the screen.  GMing has a broad enough scope that you can play to the players and still find your fun, even if it isn't your optimal preference.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> 4E has something similar in immediate interrupts. Some of them are triggered when you are *hit* by an attack, and allow you to avoid damage or reduce damage or teleport or what have you. Not when you're attacked, mind you; you wait until you know whether you're hit or not being triggering the power. The DM says your character is hit by an attack, you say "no, actually my PC teleported out of the way just in the nick of time." This sort of thing is built into the system.




You might be amused to know, given my "side" in this argument, that RCFG also has things like that built into it.

The problem, IMHO, is how often the "powers" of a particular ruleset clash with the fiction.  If you are ruleset-first, you apply the ruleset, and then determine how within the fiction the rules make sense.  If you are fiction-first, you determine what makes sense within the fiction, and then apply or change the rules as need be.

All of us, I think, are somewhere along the spectrum between these two extremes.  Where you lie along that spectrum depends, IMHO, on just what you want out of the game.  I am farther toward "fiction-first" and you toward "ruleset-first", but that shouldn't imply that you ignore the fiction or that I ignore the rules.  It implies only what is given primacy, in the majority of cases, when the ruleset and fiction clash.

Again, IMHO.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> If the player offers an explanation that he believes is reasonable, but the DM does not, the DM should consider it carefully (or as carefully as can be without bogging the game down) and then make a ruling, one way or the other.



The key part you're missing here is that we're talking about effects that are explicit within the rules. We're not talking about AD&D-style stunts where the player wants to try something, describes what he's doing and the DM makes a decision on the effect, if any. We're talking about things that are explicitly written in the rules.


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> At the very least, because there will always, _always_ be things that are not covered directly by the rules. No ruleset can hope to cover every possible eventuality. No rules for something? You need an arbiter.




So? Thasmodeus and Hussar are pleased to exercise the _privilege_ of a GM with none of the _responsibility_. If you are against democracy, then you can always go for their libertarian "every man for himself" plan!


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> You really want to go "nu-uh, you are" back and forth?  In these three threads on this same thing, several people have argued just that.




No.  No one has argued that the GM should disallow something that the GM believes to be reasonable.  What is "reasonable", and who has the final say as to what is "reasonable" is, AFAICT, the crux of the argument.

No one is saying that, given a belief that X is correct, the GM should do not-X.  

People are, on the contrary, suggesting that the GM may not believe X is correct, and that the GM should/must (in many, but not all, forms of games) have the power to determine on that basis.



> I agree with the first statement and only partly with the second.  DMing has a big job description and, imo, a part of that is a certain level of sacrifice to his own preferences to create a game that is fun for all based on the group dynamics.  A player likes what he likes.  If he is a powergamer type, he wants to be awesome, a role-player wants to roleplay.  The DM can indulge himself here and there but he pushes aside the preferences of his players at his own risk.  A big part of DMing, imo, is finding a balance where the players get to indulge their preferences without the DM sacrificing all of his.  He's the one with the responsibility to sacrifice, though.  If he can't live with that, he shouldn't get behind the screen.  GMing has a broad enough scope that you can play to the players and still find your fun, even if it isn't your optimal preference.




Everyone at the table has an equal responsibility to sacrifice, IMHO.  Not just the one doing the most work.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> The key part you're missing here is that we're talking about effects that are explicit within the rules. We're not talking about AD&D-style stunts where the player wants to try something, describes what he's doing and the DM makes a decision on the effect, if any. We're talking about things that are explicitly written in the rules.




So?

Again, 4e explicitly allows the DM to do this.  This is explicitly also -- and just as much! -- a part of the rules.

And again, if you are ruleset-first, you apply the ruleset, and then determine how within the fiction the rules make sense. If you are fiction-first, you determine what makes sense within the fiction, and then apply or change the rules as need be.

All of us, I think, are somewhere along the spectrum between these two extremes. Where you lie along that spectrum depends, IMHO, on just what you want out of the game. I am farther toward "fiction-first" and you toward "ruleset-first", but that shouldn't imply that you ignore the fiction or that I ignore the rules. It implies only what is given primacy, in the majority of cases, when the ruleset and fiction clash.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> No ruleset can hope to cover every possible eventuality.



Actually, that is quite easily done by the simple expedient of *declaring impossible* whatever the rules do not stipulate.

That is, one might notice, logically implied in the "down with the DM's discretion, up with rigid interpretation of the rules" position.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> I was going to mention those as things you might try -- but they really are not to the point.
> 
> You already have the Power, which is a 'rule' just as much as a "fate chip"!




If the players ability to do these things isn't veto power because its a part of the system, then neither is the DMs.  The DMs authority isn't handed down by divine writ, but is a part of the rules system.  Various systems modify that role and authority in any number of ways.  The point comes back to what is known and agreed upon beforehand.  The social contract.  If we are playing 4e, that carries certain conceits and expectations.  If those are not the expectations in play, the DM is obligated to inform the players so they can make appropriate adjustments to their expectations.  

I know, I know, the DM isn't obligated to anything other than RULE THE PLAYER'S WITH AN IRON FIST!  I'm kidding.


----------



## Rel (May 10, 2011)

Folks, I'll remind you that conversing in a friendly manner is what we do here.  Taking snarky pot shots at each other is not.  Keep that in mind or take a break from the thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> If the players ability to do these things isn't veto power because its a part of the system, then neither is the DMs.  The DMs authority isn't handed down by divine writ, but is a part of the rules system.




Ultimately, neither is derived from the system.

The GM's power comes from the same source as the players' power -- they can walk.  Frankly, if the game is actually a power struggle in this manner, they _*should*_ walk!

Anyone who doesn't believe that the GM should have the ability to arbitrate the game should walk from any game I am GMing, and I will surely walk from any game he or she runs!


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:
			
		

> If you are trying to swing your sword at a troll that is out of reach then the fault is almost entirely with the DM



Not when the player is stubbornly insisting that he _can_ reach the troll despite the DM's statement to the contrary.

The case is no different if the player is obstinate about something else. Once the proposition is understood and disposed of by the referee one way or another, that is the end of the matter.



> If the DM says you "miss" because the troll is intangible then the DM sucks.  You _don't_ miss.  Your sword passes through the troll without touching anything.  A completely different story.



Besides being what it means in conventional English when you "don't touch" the target, "miss" is D&D technical jargon for an attack that has no effect. It has been so for about 40 years now.



> There's a world of difference between futile and not working for a reason.



Not in English.

Also, I used those examples because the reasons should be obvious! Expecting the DM to make every ruling in accord with a view so eccentric as not to grasp those very plain points is just preposterous. People out of sync with common sense have it incumbent upon them (or 'us', on occasions when I am in that position) to adjust to the consensus.


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> I agree that the DM is the final arbiter _in cases where a decision must be made_. The point Thasmodious is trying to make, I think, is that the rules state that when a player rolls damage, the monster takes that damage, no arbitration is needed.



Sorry, but in no game I have ever seen would you be allowed to sit around and roll attacks as many times per minute as you please and *force the referee* therefore to declare dead some mass of figures.

No, I am afraid that you would need the referee's approval to make any action valid. Communicating your intent clearly is a team effort to avoid misunderstanding. Adjudication is the DM's responsibility.

Now, the game-balance philosophy that I and others have outlined is certainly an argument worthy of consideration. Consideration does not guarantee agreement, though. Perhaps a DM who does not presently embrace it, and thus conclusions drawn from it, will change her or his mind in the future.

If someone is unwilling to accept a DM's rulings in the meantime then that person should seek entertainment elsewhere.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> No.  No one has argued that the GM should disallow something that the GM believes to be reasonable.  What is "reasonable", and who has the final say as to what is "reasonable" is, AFAICT, the crux of the argument.
> 
> No one is saying that, given a belief that X is correct, the GM should do not-X.
> 
> People are, on the contrary, suggesting that the GM may not believe X is correct, and that the GM should/must (in many, but not all, forms of games) have the power to determine on that basis.




Who has the final say has not been in question.  No one has said the DM cannot overrule a power.  What has been argued is that the DM *should not* overrule a power unless absolutely necessary. And when is the prone or not prone condition of a snake ever central to the game as a whole?

The argument that a snake being knocking prone is UNreasonable has been soundly, objectively defeated.  

What is the crux of the argument is whether the DM should tend to refuse a player explanation that doesn't entirely satisfy the DM, but isn't impossible.  My, and others, position is that the DM should not tend to overrule because doing so invariably leads to a feeling among the players of arbitrary rulings and "guessing" the DM.  My position is no remotely plausible explanation or action should be overruled.  I use the same position when a player is justifying using a skill in a skill challenge that at first doesn't seem to fit.  I may have no bias towards outcome, victory or defeat both have the potential for drama and advancement, but I do have a bias towards the players getting the opportunity to play the characters they are envisioning.  This includes giving them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to "wonky" situations.

Why would the benefit of the doubt be with me?  I don't have a bias to the outcome.  Why do I really care if the snake has a -2 to hit, grants CA, and gets a bonus against ranged attacks next round?  I don't.  So if there is any reasonable way to see a player's choice through, it's going to happen.  That is also the stated position of the 4e system itself.  



> Everyone at the table has an equal responsibility to sacrifice, IMHO.  Not just the one doing the most work.




In gamer utopia, sure. But in reality, it's your game and part of the job is to make it enjoyable for others.  Everyone has a responsibility towards that, not being disruptive, not playing "loners who would never travel with a party", etc.  But DMing is a big, largely thankless, job and bears most of the burden for making a good game that is engaging to 3-5+ completely different personalities.  If something has to give, it's almost always going to fall on the DM.  And should.  That's why we're such awesome people.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 10, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Oh, and I use my new power to speak for you wisely sir. Won't abuse it at all, not at all...




Yes, I can see it clearly -

New thread
Fifth Element - Thasmodious would like it known by all that the EnWorld moderators are "poopyheads", especially Rel, and he dares them to respond!


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> Who has the final say has not been in question.




No?



> What has been argued is that the DM *should not* overrule a power unless absolutely necessary.




Who decides what is "absolutely necessary"?

"The argument that a snake being knocking prone is UNreasonable has been soundly, objectively defeated" only if you accept the evidence given.  And, if you accepted the conclusion before the evidence......Well.  Of course you conclude that it is soundly, objectively defeated.

And, again (so that we don't lose track), I accept that, under some circumstances, a snake *can* be knocked prone.

But *far more importantly*, IMHO, I accept that the GM may rule otherwise.  And I don't require that the GM prove it is "absolutely" necessary, either.  Just that the GM believes that it is the best call, to make the best game, at that moment.  That's all.

Accepting that is part of being a good player, IMHO and IME....a *major* part.  I don't expect a "gamer utopia", but neither do I believe that GMing is "a big, largely thankless, job and bears most of the burden for making a good game that is engaging to 3-5+ completely different personalities".  I have certainly been thanked.  I've been thanked a lot over the years.  I've had former players from over 20 years ago look me up through the Internet to thank me....to tell me that they are continuing campaign milieus I created.....and to ask me for advice.

Nor do I believe that "If something has to give, it's almost always going to fall on the DM.  And should."

I run games I enjoy running.  I run games that I would enjoy playing in.

If you don't want to play in the games I'm running, that's fine.  I have _*always*_ had more people looking to get in than I have at the table anyway, and I can do something else with you that we both enjoy.  That's worked for me now for over 30 years, and to this day I could still get 15 new players for the weekend if everyone dropped out right now.

FWIW, I think my system works fine.  I run the best game I can, and that requires running a game I enjoy, in a manner that I enjoy, with people whose company I enjoy, and who also enjoy the game as it is run.  There is no shortage of such people, so it's winning all around IME.

YMMV, though.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Hey, if having to spend a "Fate Chip" to use your Power will satisfy you, then go ahead and suggest that to your DM.

I'm just not seeing that as what you are really arguing for so far, though.


----------



## RedTonic (May 10, 2011)

I've found that outrageous stunts are more linked to the players and the tenor of the game than the underlying mechanics. Of course, when we were playing in high school and didn't have more than a fast and loose grip on the rules, we tended to accept tons more outrageous stuff than my current group does--like hang gliding with a gigantic leaf from a more than colossal tree in order to attack an ancient red dragon (whose demise wasn't grandma friendly at all and had more to do with me overwhelming the GM than the statistical power of my character).


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Actually, that is quite easily done by the simple expedient of *declaring impossible* whatever the rules do not stipulate.



While true, this is not relevant to the discussion at hand. No edition of D&D has ever done this. They've all said something along the lines of "if the players want to try something not covered by the rules, you're going to have to improvise."



Ariosto said:


> That is, one might notice, logically implied in the "down with the DM's discretion, up with rigid interpretation of the rules" position.



Flatly untrue. I'm saying that if someone is explicitly covered by the rules, the DM's role as arbiter is rarely, if ever, needed to be applied. There are enough cases where the DM will have to be arbiter (ie, the many things not covered by the rules), that questions of "if you can knock a snake prone, who needs a DM at all?" are specious.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Not when the player is stubbornly insisting that he _can_ reach the troll despite the DM's statement to the contrary.



To bring it back to an equivalence of the dreaded snake example, let's say you're using a battlemat in your 4E game and your PC is standing adjacent to the troll. You roll an attack because, according to the rules, you can reach the target. Can the DM say "nope, you're only using a dagger and there's no way you could reach the troll, you're standing five feet away from it"?

That's akin to disallowing the proneness of the snake. Rules say one thing, DM can't imagine it that way and therefore overrules the rules.


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> To bring it back to an equivalence of the dreaded snake example, let's say you're using a battlemat in your 4E game and your PC is standing adjacent to the troll. You roll an attack because, according to the rules, you can reach the target. Can the DM say "nope, you're only using a dagger and there's no way you could reach the troll, you're standing five feet away from it"?
> 
> That's akin to disallowing the proneness of the snake. Rules say one thing, DM can't imagine it that way and therefore overrules the rules.




I do not think so. I do not expect that we shall see 23 pages of debate on _that_ question!

However, if you are for some reason unable to get closer than 60 inches or to extend the blade tip more than 42 inches, then indeed you are out of luck. Maybe you can _throw_ the dagger.


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

4e PHB

p. 277: "PRONE...You're lying on the ground."

p. 288: "When you are prone, you can crawl."

p. 292: "If you've been knocked prone, you need to take a move action to get back on your feet."

It looks to me as if prone is a snake's default condition. Has it any feet to get back on?

There may well be a counter-argument on the same basis of reference to rules and reality. Certainly there is (and I have presented) a counter-argument that this is the wrong basis in 4e.

However, I do not think there is warrant for the "obviously we are objectively right and those who disagree with us are objectively wrong in their ruling" attitude.

At any rate, what is objectively true is that we have no legal right (at least in the U.S.A.) to hold Dungeon Masters in involuntary servitude, nor they to keep us in bondage as players. Each must choose for himself with whom he will associate in either capacity.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> 4e PHB
> 
> p. 277: "PRONE...You're lying on the ground."
> 
> ...



Since the PHB includes no player races that lack feet, there's no reason to put such a thing in the PHB. The "you" in these descriptions, after all, applies to player characters.


----------



## the Jester (May 10, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> DMing has a big job description and, imo, a part of that is a certain level of sacrifice to his own preferences to create a game that is fun for all based on the group dynamics.  A player likes what he likes.  If he is a powergamer type, he wants to be awesome, a role-player wants to roleplay.  The DM can indulge himself here and there but he pushes aside the preferences of his players at his own risk.  A big part of DMing, imo, is finding a balance where the players get to indulge their preferences without the DM sacrificing all of his.  *He's the one with the responsibility to sacrifice, though.*  If he can't live with that, he shouldn't get behind the screen.  GMing has a broad enough scope that you can play to the players and still find your fun, even if it isn't your optimal preference.




Not only no, but HELL NO. The dm puts in the vast majority of the work for any given game. He is responsible for his fun first. Selecting the right players is key- but a dm should absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him.


----------



## Ariosto (May 10, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Since the PHB includes no player races that lack feet, there's no reason to put such a thing in the PHB.




Should we presume, then, that you rule the text not to be in the PHB?

It is really not at all clear to me what point you are trying to make.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 10, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> "The argument that a snake being knocking prone is UNreasonable has been soundly, objectively defeated" only if you accept the evidence given.




Well, of course, but when that evidence is real world snake behavior, it would be foolish not to.  



> And, if you accepted the conclusion before the evidence......Well.  Of course you conclude that it is soundly, objectively defeated.




While that is not what I am saying, most of the time, at the table that is exactly what would happen.  I don't spend playtime worrying about how much "sense" it makes to apply this condition to this monster.  If it doesn't have an immunity, that is what happens because those are the rules we're using and its just a combat, which is not the focus of the game.  



> I don't expect a "gamer utopia", but neither do I believe that GMing is "a big, largely thankless, job and bears most of the burden for making a good game that is engaging to 3-5+ completely different personalities".  I have certainly been thanked.  I've been thanked a lot over the years.  I've had former players from over 20 years ago look me up through the Internet to thank me....to tell me that they are continuing campaign milieus I created.....and to ask me for advice.




Who else bears the bulk of the responsibility for making a fun game? Player 3? I explicitly stated the players bear some, but the burden falls on the DM.  It's not a big job?  Or are you solely objecting to the largely thankless part? I said largely, not entirely.   


> I run games I enjoy running.  I run games that I would enjoy playing in.
> 
> FWIW, I think my system works fine.  I run the best game I can, and that requires running a game I enjoy, in a manner that I enjoy, with people whose company I enjoy, and who also enjoy the game as it is run.  There is no shortage of such people, so it's winning all around IME.




But do you tailor your game to the particular players at the table or do you run a game where the player in seat #1 is irrelevant.  It could Bob or it could be number 3 on the waiting list?

I don't do that.  I tailor my games to the players I have.  One of my players is a powergamer, he loves being awesome.  He is happy when he gets to do cool things.  I make sure he has the opportunity to do that (big fan of pg. 42, that one, though I don't think he knows about pg. 42, I've certainly never told him).  Another is a casual player who enjoys getting into the game, but you have to directly coax him into the game.  I've gotten quite good at doing that in stark contrast to the other fella who DMs for our group, who has not.  Another player really wants the characters quirks, and his characters are always quirky, to really play up in the game.  When I make sure they do, he is quite rewarded.  

I'm not saying you don't do this, but it's not in your list.  My players like indulging their favorite things.  If you run a game where the game play doesn't change based on the players involved, they would be less happy in your game than they are in mine.  Maybe it's just a personality quirk of mine that I place my players fun above my own.  It would be more accurate, though, to say, I find my fun in theirs.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 10, 2011)

after sitting on the bench for 5 pages, I'm tagging back in
I find it ironic that some folks disagreed with me, but then argue there points in such a way that backs up everything i have said.  Let be perfectly clear on several points here.

1st- All of the following "rules" are home-brewed and I don't begrudge anyone for not finding them to their liking.

2nd- at our table no player has even uttered the phrase "I knock the snake prone" and if one did, it would cause a serious break in flow as evreyone tried to catch their breath from laughing so hard.

3rd - the DM has final say on ALL issues, but every dm at our table - including me - often yields to the players if they come up with even a half way plausible explanation for the whacky, seemingly impossible stupid human tricks they attempt.

4th - at no point during a battle does a dm "OWE" the players an explination of why something did or did not happen.  If a clue is present, then that clue *needs* be explained, but giving away the punchline because the player whines about the unfairness of the ruling is no way to run a game in my "humble" opinion 

5th - You can pull up nature channel videos, cite zoological papers, even do an actual demonstration, I will NEVER say it is possible for a punch to knock a snake prone.  Stop trying to sell me on it, stop insulting me, stop trying to make your case about flipping and grabbing and states of being and all that, and just hear me....you cannot knock a snake prone using a thrusted fist whilst you game at a table I dm on. period.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 10, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Should we presume, then, that you rule the text



No, just that text in the PHB cannot be considered definitive with respect to all creatures in the game. What does the DMG or MM say, for example? I'd look it up but I don't have my books with me.


----------



## Ariosto (May 11, 2011)

The MM has no "Prone" entry in the glossary.

The DMG has this important advice on page 40:


> "Dispensing Information" (page 26) discusses the information you should give your players that is most important in combat encounters: Avoid unfairly hitting them with "Gotcha!" abilities, be sure to communicate conditions and states, and alert them to possible dangers and hazards in their environment.




I would consider it fair warning to be informed that I cannot knock a snake prone whenever happened to be the first occasion the question arose.

However, a 4e DM cognizant of this thread might find it a good idea to give the answer as an "F.A.Q." before it actually gets asked.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> Well, of course, but when that evidence is real world snake behavior, it would be foolish not to.




Hrm..

Up until now, I thought we were supposed to ignore real snake behaviour in favour of the Defined Terms of the game.  Now that the Defined Terms seem to not be what they were thought to be, we are back to thinking in terms of real snake behaviour.

That is a form of progress, I guess.  

So, now I assume that you agree with me, that the benchmark is the expected outcome in the fiction, rather than, say, 4e's definition of Prone?





> But do you tailor your game to the particular players at the table or do you run a game where the player in seat #1 is irrelevant.  It could Bob or it could be number 3 on the waiting list?




I run a game where the players are largely irrelevant to the backdrop, but the focus of actual play is determined by the players through their choices.  So if, say, one player is a powergamer who loves to do cool things, the onus is on him to do those cool things within the framework provided.  Likewise, if you want to be quirky, you can be quirky.  The background reacts to you, but it doesn't exist to serve your needs.  

As I said, I run games I enjoy running. I run games that I would enjoy playing in.  And I guess, if I misunderstood what you were trying to say earlier, that I really don't understand what your "gamer utopia" comment was supposed to convey.  At my table, we all contribute to the fun.  We certainly don't say, "Sorry Bob, but since you're the DM, it's time for you to sacrifice your fun for ours!"

(And, although I have lots of potential players, _*none of them*_ is simply "Player #3".  And all of them have to accept that mature people contributing to each others' fun must be willing to give to everyone at the table, as well as take.  I find that, without exception, a group of people who are willing to give create far more than is possible than with a group of people who are focused on their own needs first.  YMMV.)

I think you will find that there is no sacrifice involved in enabling the fun of players who are also enabling your fun.

FWIW, I think my system works fine. I run the best game I can, and that requires running a game I enjoy, in a manner that I enjoy, with people whose company I enjoy, and who also enjoy the game as it is run. There is no shortage of such people, so it's winning all around IME.

Again, YMMV.



RC


----------



## RedTonic (May 11, 2011)

I like pre-empting those questions, but it's not always possible to foresee such weird and arguably random issues. I think a reasonable player with a decent relationship with the DM should be able to trust that said DM isn't trying to screw them with a given call, and on the DM's side, that call should be rational and follow a consistent pattern with other calls and explicitly followed rules. The DM is the ultimate arbiter of the rules, but the players are the final authority on whether a game survives... Vote with your feet, as they say.


----------



## The Shaman (May 11, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I run a game where the players are largely irrelevant to the backdrop, but the focus of actual play is determined by the players through their choices.



"You must spread some Experience Points . . ." - yeah, yeah, what else is new? 

Would someone please plant an XP on *RC* for me?

That's exactly how I approach things as well.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 11, 2011)

Pretty much the same for me, as well.


----------



## pemerton (May 11, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> The problem, IMHO, is how often the "powers" of a particular ruleset clash with the fiction.



This seems to me to beg the question. Knocking a snake prone doesn't clash with the fiction - it just requires a little more work for everyone at the table to work out exactly what the content of the fiction is.

That's part of a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic - the content of the fiction is negotiated among the game participants as one aspect of the process of action resolution.



TheUltramark said:


> at no point during a battle does a dm "OWE" the players an explination of why something did or did not happen.



Well, as Ariosto and I have both noted upthread, the 4e DMG expresses a slightly different view on this - that the GM _is_ obliged to inform players of the effect on action resolution of a creature's powers, traits etc.

This hasn't caused me any difficulties, because I've always been happy to inform players of the relevant mechanical traits of creatures they interact with - for example, if in Rolemaster a PC hit a monster with crit reduction, I will not only apply the crit redution but iniform the player that I have applied it.

Furthermore, 4e has fairly well-defined rules for using knowledge skills to learn a monster's skills and powers _before_ engaging it. This provides players with a further opportunity to learn if a snake has the Immune to Prone trait or a magical Scale of Ventral Righting.



TheUltramark said:


> I will NEVER say it is possible for a punch to knock a snake prone.



Fine - although I personally don't see why a superheroic punch to the head of a coiled snake couldn't hurt it sufficiently that it falls on its side, or in an uncordinated heap, and requires a move action to right itself.

But in any event, if a player at your table envisages his/her PC performing such a superheroic punch, and then is informed by you that such a thing isn't possible, are you saying that you wouldn't let them redescribe their unarmed attack as a grab and flip of the snake?

My own view is that a GM who is going to be liberal in modifying the application of the rules on the fly so as to defeat some player expectations ought at least to allow player takebacks or rewrites in response.



Ariosto said:


> the actual fact in most games is that the referee does indeed retain the power to say, "You can't do _that!_" over any use of "fate points" or the like. In the remainder, why should there be a referee in the first place?
> 
> Again, if you want to play such a thoroughly different game then suit yourself. Complaining that D & D is not it seems a bit silly.



First, I don't agree that the referee retains the power you describe in most Fate Point games. Where is the rule to that effect in OGL Conan, for example? Or in HARP? Or HeroWars/Quest?

Second, it's fairly obvious why you would continue to have a GM in a typical game in which the players enjoy some authority via Fate Chips. The GM has authority over the content of the bulk of the setting, and hence to a significant extent over backstory and situation. Plus the GM has a whole lot of responsibility in relation to action resolution. All this is independent of whether or not the GM has authority also over when and how players can spend their Fate Points.

A practical example - 4e! Which has a very clear role for the GM, even though (in my view) that role does not include vetoing player use of powers. That role is stated in the Rules Compendium in this way (at p 9):

The Dungeon Master controls the pace of the story and referees the action along the way. Every Dungeons & Dragons game needs a DM. The DM has several parts to play in the game.

**Adventure Builder:* The DM creates adventures, or selects published ones, for the other players to experience.

**Narrator:* The DM sets the pace of the story and presents the various challenges and encounters that the other players must overcome.

**Monster Controller:* The DM controls the monsters that the adventurers confront, choosing the monsters' actions and rolling dice for them.

**Referee:* The DM decides how to apply the game rules and guides the story. If the rules don't cover a situation, the DM determines what to do. At times, the DM might alter or even ignore the result of a die roll if doing so benefits the story.​
I'm not a big fan of the "licence to fudge" - and part of the strength of 4e design is that it works, in my experience, without fudging. Otherwise, this fits pretty much with what I said above: the GM is in charge of backstory and of establishing situation, and also plays an important role in action resolution, both by controlling the monsters/NPCs and by adjudicating the rules. All this can happen perfectly well and coherently without supposing that the GM has any special power to disallow players' use of their PCs' powers.

(As an aside - I'm not complaining about D&D. 4e _is_ the game I'm looking for. D&D has _already_ become the game that I want. That's why I play it.)



Ariosto said:


> if having to spend a "Fate Chip" to use your Power will satisfy you, then go ahead and suggest that to your DM.



I'm not sure which side of the debate this comment is meant to support, but I want to reiterate - in 4e, using a power is, in part, spending a Fate Point. It is shifting narrative control from GM to player. That is part of the game rules.



Thasmodious said:


> DMing is a big, largely thankless, job and bears most of the burden for making a good game that is engaging to 3-5+ completely different personalities.  If something has to give, it's almost always going to fall on the DM.



I don't find GMing particularly thankless or burdensome, but precisely because of this agree with your view about who should give when it comes to the narration of PC powers. Because of the GM's virtually overwhelming power in terms of situation design - even in a pure sandbox, the GM has overwhelming power in terms of populating the world and determining the motivations of its inhabitants, which sets what we might call the "possible situation space" for that world - it strike me as extremely unlikely that the GM is ever going to find the game going in an unenjoyable or uninteresting direction.

When this does happen - eg the GM who wanted to GM Dragonlance but has players who want to play Villagers: The Massacring - then the solution isn't to assert more GM power but to settle the underlying social conflict.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 11, 2011)

RedTonic said:


> I like pre-empting those questions, but it's not always possible to foresee such weird and arguably random issues. I think a reasonable player with a decent relationship with the DM should be able to trust that said DM isn't trying to screw them with a given call, and on the DM's side, that call should be rational and follow a consistent pattern with other calls and explicitly followed rules. The DM is the ultimate arbiter of the rules, but the players are the final authority on whether a game survives... Vote with your feet, as they say.




YES YES YES
the whole point of this is how do you handle the rarest of the rare scenarios
trust is at the very core of all of this discussion, if you think "the dm is out to get me" or "the dm is unfair to me" then for goodness sake, find a dm that you DO trust.
the way we play is obviously out of whack with what most people would call true d&d, and certainly it is a far cry from the way anyone else plays - but - not only does it work for us, it has worked for us for so long that it is second nature.  If a dm says "NO" - there is almost always some reason, and at minimum 95% of the time it leads to even more enjoyment for the group as a whole.


----------



## pemerton (May 11, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I run a game where the players are largely irrelevant to the backdrop, but the focus of actual play is determined by the players through their choices.



My approach is quite different from this. The backdrop is designed with the players and their PCs in mind. Actual play then determines exactly how that backdrop becomes relevant, and changes/develops over the course of the campaign.

Some illustrative examples from play:

*I came up with a backstory about how the minotaur tomb was infused with Orcus-ness - which backstory then affected in various ways how the adventure in the tomb unfolded - because the PC party contained three Raven Queen worshippers;

*I decided pretty spontaneously to introduce the idea that the dwarves in the region were once servants of, and tutored by, the minotaurs, entirely because I thought it would be something interesting for the player of the dwarf PC to engage with;

*I introduced a story about the rise and fall of various noble families into the backstory of a different campaign because two of the PCs were cousins, both samurai from a family down on its luck, and part of the goal of the players was to reverse that luck over the course of the game.

It's a very long time since I designed a scenario, or developed the backstory for a campaign, without thinking about how the players and their PCs will fit into it and make it their own.


----------



## RedTonic (May 11, 2011)

I think it's also important to give a new DM or an unfamiliar DM a fair shake--if you don't like a couple of decisions, stick around a little unless the type of game (and the people in it) aren't to your liking. Give constructive feedback. Say what you like and don't like and give it some time. We've probably all been part of a new DM's campaign, and I bet most of us have played in games where we haven't played with the DM before (who may be quite an experienced DM, or not!). Cut them some slack (and cut yourself some slack, too), relax, try to have fun. 

Ultimately, I don't think it's useful to argue the DM's specific calls, especially if one's central argument is that it isn't what you would do (or isn't what another DM does). That type of tack usually leads to the DM stiffening up and becoming defensive, and not without reason. Obviously if you just can't find or make enough common ground to enjoy the DM's style, then yeah, it's probably time to leave the game.

If you don't give a DM a chance to build trust with you, though, you're mainly hurting yourself--fewer chances to join potentially fun games and meet potentially cool people. Trust is a two way street; most of us feel that the DM should trust our judgment (even if we're a little biased ), after all.


----------



## Hussar (May 11, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> /snip
> 
> *In what game does a player 'veto' a referee?* Where do you get such unclarity on this concept?




NFL Football's coach's challenge rule would like to have a word with you.


----------



## Hussar (May 11, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Not only no, but HELL NO. The dm puts in the vast majority of the work for any given game. He is responsible for his fun first. Selecting the right players is key- but a dm should absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him.




Wow, no thank you kindly sir.  Why would a DM who absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him not run a lock step railroad?

After all, if any player did something that the DM didn't particularly care for, by this advice, he should slap the player down and force him back in line or boot the player from the table.

So, essentially you're saying make sure you have a table full of "yes men" who will kowtow to your every whim and you'll be the best DM in the world.  True enough I suppose.  At least for that particular table.



TheUltramark said:


> /snip
> 
> 5th - You can pull up nature channel videos, cite zoological papers, even do an actual demonstration, I will NEVER say it is possible for a punch to knock a snake prone.  Stop trying to sell me on it, stop insulting me, stop trying to make your case about flipping and grabbing and states of being and all that, and just hear me....you cannot knock a snake prone using a thrusted fist whilst you game at a table I dm on. period.




And this, right here, is where the problem comes.  The DM has decided that you absolutely CANNOT do something.  No matter what.  No matter how much evidence you provide or how fun it might be at the table, at Ultramark's table, you absolutely cannot do this.

Do people honestly think that being the DM entitles you to this level of power over the game?


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> NFL Football's coach's challenge rule would like to have a word with you.




Except that's a challenge, not a veto. The ref comes back, and he makes the decision. So... not exactly sure how you thought that proved your point.



Hussar said:


> Wow, no thank you kindly sir.  Why would a DM who absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him not run a lock step railroad?




Because it's not fun for the GM?



> After all, if any player did something that the DM didn't particularly care for, by this advice, he should slap the player down and force him back in line or boot the player from the table.




As has been expressed as of one page ago, a few of the opposition (to your preferred way of dealing with things) prefer to have a game world, and have it shaped by player interaction. As such, there is often no story to protect, no plot to shield. If you have no real investment in any particular outcome, than you really don't need to worry about railroading the party for your own enjoyment.



> So, essentially you're saying make sure you have a table full of "yes men" who will kowtow to your every whim and you'll be the best DM in the world.  True enough I suppose.  At least for that particular table.




This is obviously hyperbole, which isn't at all constructive. It is going to lead to more name calling, accusations, and people speaking for other people. The mods will come in and shut the thread down. Which is really too bad, as I think the last couple pages are much more interesting than any discussion on knocking a snake prone has been.



> And this, right here, is where the problem comes.  The DM has decided that you absolutely CANNOT do something.  No matter what.  No matter how much evidence you provide or how fun it might be at the table, at Ultramark's table, you absolutely cannot do this.
> 
> Do people honestly think that being the DM entitles you to this level of power over the game?




Utterly and completely. The players, of course, can walk away from draconian or unfair GMs. Start their own game. Find a new GM. They are not forced to play in the GM's game. However, the GM is indeed entitled to the power to say Yes, No, or Somewhat. That is really his only function. There are other things to consider, obviously, but rule-wise, that's his job. And, as far as I can tell, it's literally written in the book that the GM does indeed have this level of power over the game.

Having said level of power does not entitle you to players, nor does it mean it should be abused. I think all of the people at the table -players and GM alike (and I do separate the two roles)- should be in the game for enjoyment, whatever their other reasons may be. Obviously fun should be an important consideration for the group. What is "fun" is, however, much too objective to say "you should play this way" or "you shouldn't play this way" as your post seems to imply. I happen to disagree, but I don't think you should change your gaming style.

I do, after all, end many of my posts the same way. Play what you like


----------



## Mort (May 11, 2011)

Perhaps this is not the best way to go about it, but I simply cannot resist:



Thasmodious said:


> PC: ...and this knocks the snake prone
> DM: How do you knock a snake prone?!
> PC: You've seen people handle large dangerous snakes on TV, right? Well, that's what Thorax the Munificent does here, as the snake lunges for a strike, Thorax catches it off balance, delivers his Sweeping Strike and the snake ends up twisted onto its back, it's ventral scales up in the air.
> Good DM response: ok, makes sense, Barbarous Dan, it's your turn.
> Bad DM response: I invalidate your reasonable explanation, your imagination, and your very right to exist. Begone from my sight, foul beast. Henceforth, everyone at the table is commanded to shun the player of Thorax and all future generations of his line!




Then:



Raven Crowking said:


> The problem is that your argument relies upon "reasonable explanations have been put forth" and the question remains whether or not that is so.  I've got no problems with snakes being knocked prone under some circumstances (as described upthread), nor do I have a problem with your "Good DM response".
> 
> However, I think that your example "Bad DM" simply doesn't exist.  BUT if that's the only person you're worried about.........?




and then:



TheUltramark said:


> You can pull up nature channel videos, cite zoological papers, even do an actual demonstration, I will NEVER say it is possible for a punch to knock a snake prone.  Stop trying to sell me on it, stop insulting me, stop trying to make your case about flipping and grabbing and states of being and all that, and just hear me....you cannot knock a snake prone using a thrusted fist whilst you game at a table I dm on. period.




This really shows many styles exist - as long as the players and the DM are happy - that's what really counts.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Wow, no thank you kindly sir.  Why would a DM who absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him not run a lock step railroad?
> 
> After all, if any player did something that the DM didn't particularly care for, by this advice, he should slap the player down and force him back in line or boot the player from the table.
> 
> ...



Over the game? *Over the game?!* 
Being DM gives me power _over the *WORLD!!!*
Mwu ha ha ha ha ha!_
*Ominous roll of thunder*

Wait, what was the question again? 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Ariosto (May 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> First, I don't agree that the referee retains the power you describe in most Fate Point games. Where is the rule to that effect in OGL Conan, for example? Or in HARP? Or HeroWars/Quest?



I don't agree that those selected late comers necessarily represent most of the field. Since you asked, though:

1) I don't know from OGL Conan.

2) HARP page 53


> Fate Points may only be used for certain effects, as listed below.



 This is so limited already that it does not correspond to what I was talking about!

3) Hero Wars (1st printing) -- What a mess, with no index! Hero Points are used primarily to "cement benefits" (like experience points) and secondarily to "bump action rolls". Again, these are so rudimentary and conventional that the game system itself proscribes most uses.



> Second, it's fairly obvious why you would continue to have a GM in a typical game in which the players enjoy some authority via Fate Chips. The GM has authority over the content of the bulk of the setting, and hence to a significant extent over backstory and situation. Plus the GM has a whole lot of responsibility in relation to action resolution. All this is independent of whether or not the GM has authority also over when and how players can spend their Fate Points.



If your Fate Points are such weenie little things, then of course they don't give the players enough power to run the game alone. The subject under discussion was actual trumping of anything the DM might rule.

Such pitiful points are obviously not up to even the particular and very limited task immediately at hand: over-ruling the DM's ruling concerning snakes' vulnerability to getting "knocked prone".





> I'm not sure which side of the debate this comment is meant to support, but I want to reiterate - in 4e, using a power is, in part, spending a Fate Point. It is shifting narrative control from GM to player. That is part of the game rules.




Which part is that, specifically?

Anyhow, the comment is on neither side of the debate. If Thasmodious  would be happy having to spend a "Fate Point" to use his Power, then at least he would not be unhappily brow-beating the DM.

Per my next sentence in the post you quoted, though, I do not think that is what he really is after. I think he really wants the DM to agree to Thasmodious's version of rules. After all, he already has a Power. Why should that be insufficient? On the other hand, why should not the DM's ruling apply as well to use of a separate supposed entitlement merely under another name?

This is plainly a matter of disagreement as to how the DM's world should work, and the final authority is unalterably the DM. A player can either get along with the DM or get along to another game.

If punching snakes (or whatever it is that is at issue here) is not working out, then I'll bet a good player can find some other way to get ahead in the world. If the rest of the game is not worthwhile, then why give a flying Figaro about this minor thing? If the rest of the game is worthwhile, then why not concentrate on that?


----------



## Mort (May 11, 2011)

This thread seems to have morphed a bit - one of the current big topics - fiction first or mechanics first (or somewhere in the middle)?
One thing that really needs to be said about fiction first - it's missing an element (at least IMO) - the correct presentation is/or should be _fiction of the game world_.  Because in most circumstances (as magic and myth are certainly involved) the fiction of the game world does not fully correspond to the real world.
While only a slight difference in wording - it's a huge difference in both presentation and adjudication of the rules. For example (I refuse to use the snake example) in 4e gelatinous cubes are not immune to either stunning or backstab damage. But how can this be it's a lump of gelatin, how do you stun that? No idea in our world, but in the fiction of the 4e world (Eberron, Forgotten Realms, homebrew, etc.) these creatures exist and adventurers can be taught how to deal with them (maybe they have easy to access nerve endings). If a fighter knows how to stun a human he could also know how to stun a gelatinous cube etc.
In short, I can certainly see advocating _fiction first_, I’m not sure I can see it without adding that it be the _fiction of the game world_.


----------



## Tanstaafl_au (May 11, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> after sitting on the bench for 5 pages, I'm tagging back in
> I find it ironic that some folks disagreed with me, but then argue there points in such a way that backs up everything i have said. Let be perfectly clear on several points here.
> 
> (snip)
> ...




Any player badass enough to punch a snake in front of me gets a free pass for something, thats for sure.

I'm suprised you wouldnt take evidence of your own eyes for prrof it could be done though. Stubborn to the point of ignoring reality isn't the trait imo.


----------



## the Jester (May 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Wow, no thank you kindly sir.  Why would a DM who absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him not run a lock step railroad?
> 
> After all, if any player did something that the DM didn't particularly care for, by this advice, he should slap the player down and force him back in line or boot the player from the table.
> 
> So, essentially you're saying make sure you have a table full of "yes men" who will kowtow to your every whim and you'll be the best DM in the world.  True enough I suppose.  At least for that particular table.




I am amazed that you constructed that from "DMs, run the game you want to run!"


----------



## Thasmodious (May 11, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Hrm..
> 
> Up until now, I thought we were supposed to ignore real snake behaviour in favour of the Defined Terms of the game.  Now that the Defined Terms seem to not be what they were thought to be, we are back to thinking in terms of real snake behaviour.
> 
> ...




We were? I musta missed that memo.  Unless, you have coalesced everyone arguing on the "other" side into one metamind acting in accord through several different posters.  In other worlds, I didn't say anything about ignoring real snake behavior.  The defined terms are what they were thought to be and I'm still on the same page I was before (mentally, a few pages further on in this thread )



> I run a game where the players are largely irrelevant to the backdrop, but the focus of actual play is determined by the players through their choices.



Yeah, that's not so much for me.



> And I guess, if I misunderstood what you were trying to say earlier, that I really don't understand what your "gamer utopia" comment was supposed to convey.  At my table, we all contribute to the fun.  We certainly don't say, "Sorry Bob, but since you're the DM, it's time for you to sacrifice your fun for ours!"



I'm not saying that.  Perhaps an example - as DM, I may prefer a heavy roleplaying experience, voices, in-game chat only, whole nine yards.  But only one of my players is comfortable with that, two others don't really roleplay, and another does, but in a detached kinda way.

Now, I could insist on it, force the players into awkward exchanges that don't really work for anyone and only isolate them further as players.  Or I could engage their game interests and try to coax out more RP than they default to.  That's what I mean by sacrifice.  I, as DM, can't just insist on every aspect of the game being exactly as I'd prefer it.  And shouldn't.  The game is more rewarding for all if a balance is struck.  I am absolutely not saying I must make the game unfun for myself.


----------



## pemerton (May 11, 2011)

RedTonic said:


> I think it's also important to give a new DM or an unfamiliar DM a fair shake--if you don't like a couple of decisions, stick around a little unless the type of game (and the people in it) aren't to your liking. Give constructive feedback. Say what you like and don't like and give it some time.





JamesonCourage said:


> The players, of course, can walk away from draconian or unfair GMs. Start their own game. Find a new GM. They are not forced to play in the GM's game. However, the GM is indeed entitled to the power to say Yes, No, or Somewhat. That is really his only function. There are other things to consider, obviously, but rule-wise, that's his job. And, as far as I can tell, it's literally written in the book that the GM does indeed have this level of power over the game.



To the extent that there are differences here, I think I tend to lean RedTonic's way.

The frequent suggestion on this thread (not just from JamesonCourage but also Ariosto, I think RC, and maybe others I'm forgetting) that a player has the right to walk from a GM's game is true but not really helpful. We're here talking about what makes for better or worse GMing, across a range of editions of D&D (and some other games) and a range of playstyles. Given that purpose, I think there is a lot more to be said about _how to GM well_ than simply "Exercise whatever power you want to subject to the knowledge that if your players really hate it, they'll quit your game". After all, no creative writing course gives instructions saying "Write whatever you want, subject to the knowledge that you'll only make money from it if you find a publisher who thinks the public and/or critics will like it." Part of the point of a creative writing course is to _learn how to write stuff that will withstand critical scrutiny_. Similarly, part of the point of this discussion is presumably to _share a range of ideas about how a GM can make the play experience a better one_ (with "better" being relative to a range of rulesets, playstyles etc).

For some rulesets, it's _just not true _that the GM has the level of power over the game of being entitled to say "yes" or "no" to a player's call in respect of any of his/her PC's action. Now for some potential players, that might be a reason to avoid those rulesets, or to add such a rule into the way they play the game. But it's also interesting to think about _why_ a ruleset might be written which doesn't include such a rule, what sort of play experience it might be intended to promote, how that play experience might interact with other preferences and concerns at the table, etc.

For example, if a 4e GM purports to veto the Knocked-down Snake, and a player queries that, I don't think it's very helpful to just start talking about "pushy" or "whiny" players who don't understand the GM's role. What sort of play experience is the GM trying to promote. If it's about the coherence of the GM's fiction, what is the GM's understanding of the players' contribution to that fiction? Does the GM object to knocking a snake down per se, or to the fact that the PC can do it willy nilly when in the real world it would be very hard, or what? If the GM won't allow a player takeback, is that because of the effect of takebacks on immersion, or because the GM thinks that players should be bound by some sort of equivalent to chess's "touch, move" rule, or what?

Whether or not it would be productive to raise this sort of issue actually at the gaming table in question is one thing. But I can't see how it is remotely out of order to raise them on a discussion board. And once these sorts of questions are put into play, I can't see that the range of satisfactory, considered responses is exhausted by "Of course a GM has that sort of power, but equally players are free to quit the game". The actual history of RPG design and play shows that other things are possible!

EDITED TO ADD:

One of the premises of a creative writing course is that even if you know what you like when you see it, it can be non-trivial to _proudce_ that stuff yourself. Presumably the same is true for GMing. So while I agree that people should play what they like, I nevertheless think that critical reflection can help work out what it is that they're doing that is contributing to them getting what they like, and what it is that they're doing that is impeding them getting what they like. I will freely admit that my game has improved by becoming more self-conscious about my conception of the function of the rules, the GM, the way these can relate, the range of purposes they can serve, etc. Am I really an outlier? Is everyone else already running a game that is (by their own lights) the very best that it can be?


----------



## RedTonic (May 11, 2011)

I agree that reflection (by which I don't mean navel-gazing) is an important part of improvement. I would be surprised if anyone here who has GMed thinks they're extracting the maximum possible fun juice from gaming, period, or there wouldn't be so much energy devoted to playing with new rulesets, tinkering with old ones, RBDM roundtables, discussion about campaign and adventure structure, etc. 

I personally learn best by the "see an example, do it yourself, teach it to someone else" method, and I view most endeavors as ongoing education. I think that's probably the natural result of being a student for almost my entire life by this point. 

I appreciate players who have patience with me and are willing to discuss decisions with me outside of the actual session (I really don't like having my "flow" disrupted with lengthy rules discussions). I _really_ like it when my players will offer me plot hooks, tell me what they're enjoying, tell me what they could live without, and what they think could be better (and how). I find that getting that type of feedback is pretty difficult, but I don't know if that's an overall issue for DMs or if it's just specific to me/my group.

I also have a lot of respect for DMs who accept and solicit this type of interaction from players. I've seen some truly cool things come of it.


----------



## pming (May 11, 2011)

Hiya.

Guys...it seems a lot of folks are getting hung up on the snake thing as an "either/or" thing. Now, I don't play (and have never played) 4e, so I'm not sure how all the new kids are doing it, but back in my day (re: 30+ years ago), the DM was there to *adjudicate* situations. If he was lucky, it was a simple yes/no decisions. Alas, players (well, at least in my day) were a crafty bunch, and would find the most unusual ways to use a rope, a grappling hook, a block of cheese and a 7' ladder to open a stuck door...and in that case, it's not a yes/no decision. As a DM I was forced to think about the situation, then using my experience and expertise in the rules system come up with a likelihood of success.

So, with regards to knocking a snake prone, the DM's job wasn't just to veto player ideas "just because the rules don't cover it" or becaus the "rules don't say that". It was the DM's job to look at what the players were trying to have their characters do, then look at how they perposed to do it, and then filter that through the available rules in order to come up with a chance of success or a, sall I say, "compromise". The trick was to be neutral, fair and consistant. In the case of the snake/prone thing, perhaps I'd let the PC 'knock the snake around' in such a way that it becomes somewhat disoriented, granting the 'prone' adjustments, but also rule that the snake doesn't have to take time to 'stand up' from a prone position, so as soon as the characters attack is over, the snake is back to normal. 

For all those DM younglings out there...that's called "adjudicating". 

Anyway, that's my 2¢ worth of wisdom blather.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> This seems to me to beg the question. Knocking a snake prone doesn't clash with the fiction - it just requires a little more work for everyone at the table to work out exactly what the content of the fiction is.




Of course, that depends upon what the fiction _*is*_, and it seems a bit difficult for some folks to realize that others might be participating in a different fiction than the one they prefer.  Others find that "little" more work to be disruptive of immersion.  And, if immersion is one of your goals, better that the GM rules and the game moves on.



> I'm not sure which side of the debate this comment is meant to support, but I want to reiterate - in 4e, using a power is, in part, spending a Fate Point. It is shifting narrative control from GM to player. That is part of the game rules.




That contention seems in conflict with the bit you quoted about the DM being allowed to change the outcome of die rolls and interpret the rules.  Indeed, it seems to be in conflict with any passage in the RAW which states that the DM can disallow a power if he feels it doesn't make sense.

Back when, when the complaint was that 4e removed quite a bit of DM power to run a game, these sections were pointed out vehemently by some of the same people wanting to minimize their impact now.

Sorry, it may be a "Fate Point" at your table; it is not so at *all* tables.  And, if a DM chooses *not* to treat powers as "Fate Points", that does not making her a bad DM!



Mort said:


> This really shows many styles exist - as long as the players and the DM are happy - that's what really counts.




Exactly!



RC


----------



## TheUltramark (May 11, 2011)

Tanstaafl_au said:


> Any player badass enough to punch a snake in front of me gets a free pass for something, thats for sure.
> 
> I'm suprised you wouldnt take evidence of your own eyes for prrof it could be done though. Stubborn to the point of ignoring reality isn't the trait imo.




again - for the eleventeenth million time...a punch knocks the snake prone.

at my table, if a player says "I'm going to hit it with my sword" then he attacks using his sword, if he says "I'm going to try and grab it" then he makes that appropriate attempt.  If a player says "I'm going to punch the snake" then he attempts to punch the thing, not grab it and spin it around over his head and slam it to the ground, or flip it over with the flat of his pike, or block the snake's strike.  If enforcing that kind of "what you say is what you do" mentality makes us "sticklers" then I guess we are.


----------



## The Shaman (May 11, 2011)

pming said:


> Alas, players (well, at least in my day) were a crafty bunch, and would find the most unusual ways to use a rope, a grappling hook, a block of cheese and a 7' ladder to open a stuck door...



Our group used the cheese to grease the rope before running it through the rungs of the ladder.

Unfortunately the smell of melted cheese attracted a wandering monster who promptly turned us into nachos.

After that my characters started carrying a bottle of EVOO instead.







pming said:


> So, with regards to knocking a snake prone, the DM's job wasn't just to veto player ideas "just because the rules don't cover it" or becaus the "rules don't say that". It was the DM's job to look at what the players were trying to have their characters do, then look at how they perposed to do it, and then filter that through the available rules in order to come up with a chance of success or a, sall I say, "compromise". The trick was to be neutral, fair and consistant. In the case of the snake/prone thing, perhaps I'd let the PC 'knock the snake around' in such a way that it becomes somewhat disoriented, granting the 'prone' adjustments, but also rule that the snake doesn't have to take time to 'stand up' from a prone position, so as soon as the characters attack is over, the snake is back to normal.
> 
> For all those DM younglings out there...that's called "adjudicating".



Could someone please spread an XP for me?

The best thing about that ruling is that it's one which can be applied consistently to similar instances in the future.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 11, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Not only no, but HELL NO. The dm puts in the vast majority of the work for any given game. He is responsible for his fun first. Selecting the right players is key- but a dm should absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him.




The DM may put the most in - but also IME gets the most back out.  I certainly do or I wouldn't do it.  (Also DMing 4th is a _lot_ less work than previous editions).  

But seriously I get the most out when _everybody_ is engaged and having fun.  Looking primarily to my own fun is not only selfish but counterproductive.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> 5th - You can pull up nature channel videos, cite zoological papers, even do an actual demonstration, I will NEVER say it is possible for a punch to knock a snake prone.



Are you actually saying that even if someone were to prove to you that a snake can be knocked prone in real life with a punch, you would still not allow it at your table? Or are you being less literal than you seem?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> at my table, if a player says "I'm going to hit it with my sword" then he attacks using his sword, if he says "I'm going to try and grab it" then he makes that appropriate attempt.  If a player says "I'm going to punch the snake" then he attempts to punch the thing, not grab it and spin it around over his head and slam it to the ground, or flip it over with the flat of his pike, or block the snake's strike.  If enforcing that kind of "what you say is what you do" mentality makes us "sticklers" then I guess we are.



Okay - so as long as the player is careful in what he says, then you have no problem with it? The mechanics don't change, but the player, before making the attack roll, describes it as an attempt to flip the snake violently over. It's alright for a snake to be prone then?

Most of us have been arguing against a DM vetoing the _mechanics _of knocking the snake prone, not focusing on the "punching" part.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> But seriously I get the most out when _everybody_ is engaged and having fun.  Looking primarily to my own fun is not only selfish but counterproductive.



Agreed. DMing is a responsibility that you take on voluntarily. If you are more concerned with your own fun, you probably shouldn't be DMing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> The DM may put the most in - but also IME gets the most back out.  I certainly do or I wouldn't do it.  (Also DMing 4th is a _lot_ less work than previous editions).




Then I guess you're not making "sacrifices that make it less fun" for you?  You seem to be agreeing with The Shaman here, but I am not 100% certain?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Agreed. DMing is a responsibility that you take on voluntarily. If you are more concerned with your own fun, you probably shouldn't be DMing.




(1)  Every responsibility by necessity must bring with it the rights necessary to meet that responsibility.  In the case of GMing, that includes the right to adjudicate the rules.  Or, at least, it does in the vast majority of RPGs, including all editions of D&D (and explicitly so for all editions of D&D).

(2)  If I decided to quit GMing, I know quite a few people who would be unhappy.  I am guessing that TheUltramark is in the same boat.

Which brings me to 

(3)  The only metric of "you probably shouldn't be DMing" is that you cannot find players who enjoy your style of GMing.  Period.  These sort of "If you don't do it this way, it's wrongbadfun" remarks are, IMHO, extremely counterproductive.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Most of us have been arguing against a DM vetoing the _mechanics _of knocking the snake prone, not focusing on the "punching" part.




Just for the record, I don't think that you understand the opposing argument, if you think it is the _mechanics_ and not _the effect of the mechanics on the fiction_ or the concept that _the mechanics trump the fiction_ that people are claiming to dislike.

Dislike for the mechanics themselves only arises in terms of there being better mechanics, where "better" is defined as "match the fiction more closely" for the posters in question.


RC


----------



## Hussar (May 11, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> (3)  The only metric of "you probably shouldn't be DMing" is that you cannot find players who enjoy your style of GMing.  Period.  These sort of "If you don't do it this way, it's wrongbadfun" remarks are, IMHO, extremely counterproductive.
> 
> ...




There's a sucker born every minute.  Saying that a DM should not put his fun absolutely ahead of everyone at the table (which is what Jester SPECIFICALLY stated:  "The dm puts in the vast majority of the work for any given game. He is responsible for his fun first. Selecting the right players is key- but a dm should absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him.") and that a DM who does put his fun ahead of everyone else's at the table and should never make any sacrifices which reduce that fun is probably going to be a piss poor DM isn't a huge stretch.

Sorry, no one at the table EVER should put their fun ahead of anyone else's at the table.


----------



## Zhaleskra (May 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, no one at the table EVER should put their fun ahead of anyone else's at the table.




This part I agree with. If you are upsetting even one person at the table, then you are the problem.

The GM has just as much right to vote with his feet as players. And as mentioned above, it only takes one jerk.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 11, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> again - for the eleventeenth million time...a punch knocks the snake prone.
> 
> at my table, if a player says "I'm going to hit it with my sword" then he attacks using his sword, if he says "I'm going to try and grab it" then he makes that appropriate attempt.  If a player says "I'm going to punch the snake" then he attempts to punch the thing, not grab it and spin it around over his head and slam it to the ground, or flip it over with the flat of his pike, or block the snake's strike.  If enforcing that kind of "what you say is what you do" mentality makes us "sticklers" then I guess we are.




First, why are you so hung up on a punch?  There are many powers that apply the prone condition, why does it have to be a punch? I'm confused on this issue since you are the only one in all these discussions talking about punches.

Secondly, at no point in D&D has a to-hit roll represented a single swing of the sword.  Rounds used to be a full minute, for Pete's sake.  They are abstracted representations of a number of moves leading to a chance to do damage, not an 80s video game where you hit your button and stab then six seconds later the monster claws, then six seconds later you stab...
The 4e martial powers themselves are abstracted "moves" and the flavor text is not binding, but a suggestion of what the power could look like.  They are designed to be open for interpretation.  So a Sweeping Strike could be a sweep with the weapon at the legs or a feint with the weapon before you go all Cobra-Kai on them or whatever.  A slam attack could be with a fist or a full body, lead with the shoulder kind of move.  

Imagination and variety are the order of the day, not limited thinking and obstinate, arbitrary "never at my table" rulings.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 11, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> The DM may put the most in - but also IME gets the most back out.  I certainly do or I wouldn't do it.  (Also DMing 4th is a _lot_ less work than previous editions).
> 
> But seriously I get the most out when _everybody_ is engaged and having fun.  Looking primarily to my own fun is not only selfish but counterproductive.




I would give xp.  Instead, I'll QFT.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 11, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Okay - so as long as the player is careful in what he says, then you have no problem with it? The mechanics don't change, but the player, before making the attack roll, describes it as an attempt to flip the snake violently over. It's alright for a snake to be prone then?



not automatically, but I am easy to talk into stuff


Fifth Element said:


> Most of us have been arguing against a DM vetoing the _mechanics _of knocking the snake prone, not focusing on the "punching" part.



yes I know, and its been driving me bat-crap


----------



## TheUltramark (May 11, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> First, why are you so hung up on a punch?  There are many powers that apply the prone condition, why does it have to be a punch? I'm confused on this issue since you are the only one in all these discussions talking about punches.
> 
> Secondly, at no point in D&D has a to-hit roll represented a single swing of the sword.  Rounds used to be a full minute, for Pete's sake.  They are abstracted representations of a number of moves leading to a chance to do damage, not an 80s video game where you hit your button and stab then six seconds later the monster claws, then six seconds later you stab...
> The 4e martial powers themselves are abstracted "moves" and the flavor text is not binding, but a suggestion of what the power could look like.  They are designed to be open for interpretation.  So a Sweeping Strike could be a sweep with the weapon at the legs or a feint with the weapon before you go all Cobra-Kai on them or whatever.  A slam attack could be with a fist or a full body, lead with the shoulder kind of move.
> ...




that was the scenario - can you punch a snake prone, and not one person provided a useful explanation.  All I got was "you're unfair" or "that's not how you should play" or"you can pick up a snake" or "use the flat end of your weapon" or "why does it have to be a punch"

from your post, I would ask the following question:

if a player says I want to grab the "monster A" by the neck, do you then have the player roll to grab? of course you do.  If the attack is successful, the player doesn't get to roll sword damage, does he? of course not.  The words the player uses to describe his action define what he does.  I appreciate your 80's video game reference, and your attempt to fill me in on 2e rules and nuances, it was quite enjoyable and a good chuckle is always nice, but my limited thinking probably got in the way.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Just for the record, I don't think that you understand the opposing argument,



For the record, I was respoding to TheUltramark, who apparently does not have a problem per se with knocking a snake prone, but will disallow it if not described appropriately ahead of time. In other words, a snake having the prone condition is fine, as long as the players provides a reasonable explanation. I was just clarifying, since I didn't want to misread him.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> (3)  The only metric of "you probably shouldn't be DMing" is that you cannot find players who enjoy your style of GMing.  Period.  These sort of "If you don't do it this way, it's wrongbadfun" remarks are, IMHO, extremely counterproductive.



Re-read what this was a response to. Of course you should best be DMing for players who share common play preferences. But the comment was that the DM should put his fun first, ahead of the players. That's what I disagree with.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> that was the scenario - can you punch a snake prone, and not one person provided a useful explanation.  All I got was "you're unfair" or "that's not how you should play" or"you can pick up a snake" or "use the flat end of your weapon" or "why does it have to be a punch"



Someone may have used "punch" at some time, but the term most often used (and the technical term in 4E) is "knocked prone", which does not specify the type of attack that caused the prone position.


----------



## chaochou (May 11, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> The GM's power comes from the same source as the players' power -- they can walk.




This has been touched on, but I think it deserves more consideration.

I don't think power at the table comes from the ability to quit the game. It comes from the social contract of the people at the table.

If you say that the power in the game comes from a threat of walking,  well, that's a horrible mess. Because then, presumably, it also comes  from a threat of not giving someone a lift home, or not sharing the beer  or pizza. That's not cool.

And if I actually walk from a game I no longer have any power in that game. So what my walking represents is an admission that the 'rules' can not enforce a structure of authority and that any such structure is voluntarily.

Once it's agreed that the structure of authority is voluntary, well then it's a case of agreeing one. We can agree that the GM has the final say on rules or rulings. Or  we can agree that a decision requires complete concensus. Or a simple  majority. Or the flip of a coin.

We choose that structure as part of the social contract before we  play. And I'd assert that such a choice may be informed by, but cannot be enforced or governed by, the rules. The social contract is self-governing, beyond the reach of the rulebook.

What I think the dreaded snake example has demonstrated is a certain incoherence in the design of 4e. I may be assuming that my prone power is giving me narrative rights as a player. You may be assuming that GM fiat is explicitly allowed in all cases. What we have is a mismatch of social contracts, and no debating over 'the rules' or citations of 'the rulebook' is going to solve it.

The problem was caused by the rules, but the solution is not within the rules.


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 11, 2011)

Oh, for crying out loud.  Wear an iron gauntlet (or be _good_ at hitting) and hit it in the back of or on the top of the head when it coils and its hood starts to expand.  Sending it face down into the dirt.  But apparently there are no circumstances ever when you would allow a punch to knock a snake prone...

And have you ever played 4e or any Indy game with narrative rather than simulationist mechanics?  In Wushu you gain a bonus to dodge if you dodge through a hail of bullets rather than just stay put.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 11, 2011)

This thread seems like it is in danger of spiralling into complaints by people with radically different (yet equally valid) playstyles. I don' t know how useful it will be from here on in, as the original question seems long gone - however, I'll be OK with leaving it open for a while longer.

We are starting to see reported posts from this thread though, and I'd rather close the thread than start taking action against individuals.

Anyway, try to avoid getting involved in personal confrontations. There are no 'wrong' people here that you have to 'correct' (xkcd: Duty Calls).

Thanks


----------



## TheUltramark (May 11, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh, for crying out loud.  Wear an iron gauntlet (or be _good_ at hitting) and hit it in the back of or on the top of the head when it coils and its hood starts to expand.  Sending it face down into the dirt.  But apparently there are no circumstances ever when you would allow a punch to knock a snake prone...
> 
> And have you ever played 4e or any Indy game with narrative rather than simulationist mechanics?  In Wushu you gain a bonus to dodge if you dodge through a hail of bullets rather than just stay put.




i am the one crying out loud
now you want to include and iron gauntlet and a block....sure, whatever.

let me turn this into a game-time scenario the way everyone seems to be arguing it.

player: I punch the snake
dm: ...uh....ok....why?
player: I want to knock it prone
dm: I'm gonna say that a punch can't knock a snake prone
player: but it says so on my sheet
dm: can you come up with any way possible?
player: I pick it up and throw it down.
dm: well, first then, roll to see if you grab it
player: no, I said punch it
dm: then if you hit the snake will not be prone
player: I lift it up with end of my sword
dm: that's a different attack too, I won't give you sword damage
player: I said I punch the snake???? are you stupid????
dm: I'm sorry but your punch will NOT affect the snake in that way
player: what if I put on an iron gauntlet and hit the snake when it raises up
dm: so you ready an action?
player : are you deaf??? I said I punch the snake

-------
like I said before
bat-crap


----------



## Thasmodious (May 11, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> that was the scenario - can you punch a snake prone, and not one person provided a useful explanation.  All I got was "you're unfair" or "that's not how you should play" or"you can pick up a snake" or "use the flat end of your weapon" or "why does it have to be a punch"




Whose scenario?  The original scenario that spawned this was a slam attack on a hydra.  If it was just some scenario you made up, clearly the punch has not been the focus of the discussion.



> if a player says I want to grab the "monster A" by the neck, do you then have the player roll to grab? of course you do.  If the attack is successful, the player doesn't get to roll sword damage, does he? of course not.




This is a completely invalid example.  I also wouldn't let a player initiate a grapple and then polymorph the creature he grappled.  This is silly and has nothing to do with what is being discussed.  The scenario was never "I'm going to punch and if I hit, the snake will be prone".  A punch leads to punching damage.  A 4e power that does damage and applies the prone condition is something else entirely.  Powers are specifically not bound to the brief, example flavor text that describes the action.



> The words the player uses to describe his action define what he does.




Only if they are game terms.  If a player says he is going to grapple, he grapples.  But a powers flavor text is just that, flavor.  If you start punishing players for misspeaking during dramatic description, they'll simply stop doing it.  The power isn't defined by its flavor or its title, but by it's effects and any means of delivering those effects is valid, imo.  I certainly don't want players describing every power in the same way every single use.  I want it be varied, fun, dynamic and to fit the fiction of the moment. Heck, we've been flavoring our spellcasting since the 80s, adding character flourishes, different visuals, etc.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 11, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> player: I punch the snake
> dm: ...uh....ok....why?
> player: I want to knock it prone
> dm: I'm gonna say that a punch can't knock a snake prone
> ...




Of course this is bat crap, you made it up to be bat crap.  This is a straw man scenario.  No one, but you, has envisioned a scenario where they claim a punch attack will prone a snake.  This entire discussion has been about the use of 4e powers, not the punch mechanic.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 11, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> --
> 
> This is a completely invalid example.  I also wouldn't let a player initiate a grapple and then polymorph the creature he grappled.  This is silly and has nothing to do with what is being discussed.  The scenario was never "I'm going to punch and if I hit, the snake will be prone".  *A punch leads to punching damage.  A 4e power that does damage and applies the prone condition is something else entirely.  Powers are specifically not bound to the brief, example flavor text that describes the action.*



I don't think I understand this at all...if you are using your fist as the weapon, and your power knocks something prone, that means your punch knocks the thing prone, right?



Thasmodious said:


> Only if they are game terms.  If a player says he is going to grapple, he grapples.  But a powers flavor text is just that, flavor.  If you start punishing players for misspeaking during dramatic description, they'll simply stop doing it.  *The power isn't defined by its flavor or its title, but by it's effects and any means of delivering those effects is valid*, imo.  *I certainly don't want players describing every power in the same way every single use.  I want it be varied, fun, dynamic and to fit the fiction of the moment*. Heck, we've been flavoring our spellcasting since the 80s, adding character flourishes, different visuals, etc.



This is EXACTLY what I am arguing FOR!  
When a player tries something unusual, he had better have more than "it says so on my sheet" - I've said that at least a dozen times so far.  As far as "punishing players for misspeaking" thats far from how I operate, I am all for letting players do what they want to do, but it has to fit some semblance of structure.  There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't think that'll work like that, but what can we come up with instead that will get that done"

I've also said that plenty of times a dm (be it me or someone else) can be swayed by the players.  I have been wrong tons of times, and what I thought was the right call was so opposed by the players who gave valid points as to why it was wrong, that I have changed my rulings. Not only that, but if a player wants to do some impossible trick, and i can't come up with the right check or roll off the top of my head, I'll ask the table, and we'll take 2 minutes to hash it out in a way that leaves everyone happy.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2011)

chaochou said:


> I don't think power at the table comes from the ability to quit the game. It comes from the social contract of the people at the table.




No matter how you slice it, though, at the end the social contract is enforced by the simple fact that each person decides to be there, or not, under the given conditions.

This is not to say that you spend your game days threatening each other to not play next time, or to not give someone a lift home, or to not share the beer or pizza.  In fact, seldom have I ever seen such a thing occur, and on the few occasions when it was so, "There's the door" has been the response.  And I do not mean, "Unless you change your mind, there's the door" either.  I mean, having progressed so far, you have made your decision.

The social contract at the table exists, primarily, so that you can all get together and play without acrimony.  So that you can have fun.  The social contract is not the source of the power, it is the settlement that allows you to ignore the source of power during actual play.

Or, as you put it, 

Once it's agreed that the structure of authority is voluntary, well then it's a case of agreeing one. We can agree that the GM has the final say on rules or rulings. Or  we can agree that a decision requires complete concensus. Or a simple  majority. Or the flip of a coin.​
And whatever social contract you decide upon is fine.  But I disagree that it is self-governing -- it is governed by the willingness of the people at the table to continue with, and abide by, that contract.



> What I think the dreaded snake example has demonstrated is a certain incoherence in the design of 4e.






> The problem was caused by the rules, but the solution is not within the rules.




In both these instances, we agree.  But, in both cases, I would say that these are not limited to 4e, or to D&D.


RC


----------



## Rel (May 11, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> that was the scenario - can you punch a snake prone, and not one person provided a useful explanation.  All I got was "you're unfair" or "that's not how you should play" or"you can pick up a snake" or "use the flat end of your weapon" or "why does it have to be a punch"
> 
> from your post, I would ask the following question:
> 
> if a player says I want to grab the "monster A" by the neck, do you then have the player roll to grab? of course you do.  If the attack is successful, the player doesn't get to roll sword damage, does he? of course not.  The words the player uses to describe his action define what he does.  I appreciate your 80's video game reference, and your attempt to fill me in on 2e rules and nuances, it was quite enjoyable and a good chuckle is always nice, but my limited thinking probably got in the way.




Are we even talking about a 4e power that knocks a foe prone at this point?  If the player has a power called, "Prone Punch" that says that they do unarmed attack damage AND knock the foe Prone then that doesn't mean the execution must be described as a punch.

If the player says, "I want to use Prone Punch on the snake." and your reply is, "I cannot envision a way to punch a snake in such a way as to make it prone." then that strikes me as rules lawyering the player by the GM.  The player could justly respond, "Well I don't feel that my PC must punch the snake per se.  Maybe I'll grab him and twist him, causing my normal Unarmed Attack damage and it'll take a moment for the snake to get itself untwisted and ready to attack, reflecting the Prone condition."


----------



## The Shaman (May 11, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> But the comment was that the DM should put his fun first, ahead of the players. That's what I disagree with.



If I'm not having fun, then I stop running the game. Period, end of story, good night sweet Charlotte.

So yes, I put my fun first.

That in no way implies that there is no give-and-take - there is - or that other people's fun isn't a part of my enjoyment of playing a roleplaying game - it _very much_ is.

But you can pay the organ grinder all you want - this monkey only dances so long as he likes the tune.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 11, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> I don't think I understand this at all...if you are using your fist as the weapon, and your power knocks something prone, that means your punch knocks the thing prone, right?




Why? It's flavor text.  And since when can't a punch knock something prone, ever watched a fight?  We aren't talking about tiny garden snakes here, but large, fantastical, deadly snakes.  Certainly punchable.  Not every bit of sword damage is a cut, it couldn't be or the HP system would fall apart.  I recall the example kicked around in the 80s was Fighter School, where a 10th level fighter demonstrates to the class how to handle getting hit by an axe.  If you take HP as literal wounds, then the 10th level fight can let a level 1 student hit him in the face with the axe and suffer little damage.  Silly. But as an abstraction, he slips the blow, or blocks the haft with his arm, sustaining some damage.  Damage is abstract, too.  What you roll may be [weapon damage] but it doesn't have to come from the weapon in the "regular" way or from the weapon at all.  Swords cross and the hero headbutts the opponent, resulting in weapon damage and the stun condition would be a good flavoring for a power that has that effect.  

In 4e D&D, a punch isn't as mundane as you are making it to be. These guys can do near mystical things with their weapons.  An uppercut sending a snake flying so it lands in a heap and has to right itself?  I like that, sounds badass.  




> This is EXACTLY what I am arguing FOR!
> When a player tries something unusual, he had better have more than "it says so on my sheet" - I've said that at least a dozen times so far.  As far as "punishing players for misspeaking" thats far from how I operate, I am all for letting players do what they want to do, but it has to fit some semblance of structure.  There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't think that'll work like that, but what can we come up with instead that will get that done"
> 
> I've also said that plenty of times a dm (be it me or someone else) can be swayed by the players.  I have been wrong tons of times, and what I thought was the right call was so opposed by the players who gave valid points as to why it was wrong, that I have changed my rulings. Not only that, but if a player wants to do some impossible trick, and i can't come up with the right check or roll off the top of my head, I'll ask the table, and we'll take 2 minutes to hash it out in a way that leaves everyone happy.




This seems almost like a tale of two ultramarks.  In one post, you loudly declare that no matter what evidence, no way, no how, will you ever... Then in another you talk about open to the players, willing to work with em, retcon, have a discussion at the table, whatever.  These seem to be in conflict.

One thing to drive home, though. You're the only one demanding it must be a punch.  The rest of us seem to be talking about the general prone-ness or not prone-ness of a snake and the interplay of 4e powers with the fiction.  I am firmly in the camp that a moving, active snake is not at all prone, since, like the rest of us, certain parts of it have to be in contact with the ground in order for it move.  And I'm firmly in the camp of, use the powers, move on.  We got more important things to do.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> If I'm not having fun, then I stop running the game. Period, end of story, good night sweet Charlotte.



That's not putting your fun _ahead of_ the players' fun, though is it? You can put them all on an equal level.

I'm not arguing that opposite - that the _players'_ fun should come first, which is what you seem to be reading into this. The players' fun is just as important as the DM's, that's all. The original claim was that since the DM puts more work in, his fun should come first, instead of being part of the group's fun. I reject that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2011)

Rel said:


> Are we even talking about a 4e power that knocks a foe prone at this point?




Honestly, I don't think that we ever were.  I think we were always talking about a disconnect between the fiction and the mechanics.  TheUltramark's example, above, seems to indicate as much.  IMHO.

Or, as chaochou put it, "I think the dreaded snake example has demonstrated is a certain incoherence in the design".  I think that this sort of incoherence always occurs, to varying degrees.  It is cast in sharp focus, to me, when one assumes that the "flavour text" isn't important, that the fiction is essentially "fluff" that should be retconned on the basis of the rules.  I.e., what has been referred to in the past as "pop quiz role-playing".

That doesn't make either style inherently bad, but it does mean that those who favour one style are likely to be dissatisfied with the other.  Which, as should come as no surprise, is exactly what we see here.

This also, I believe, explains Thasmodious' "tale of two ultramarks" -- for good or ill, there is a lot of "talking past each other" going on in this thread.

I think we all agree that (use the powers/GM adjudicates) and move on with the game is the best solution.  We simply disagree which of those two options in parenthesis is better.  And there is no objective answer to that question, regardless of what anyone says.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> That's not putting your fun _ahead of_ the players' fun, though is it? You can put them all on an equal level.
> 
> I'm not arguing that opposite - that the _players'_ fun should come first, which is what you seem to be reading into this. The players' fun is just as important as the DM's, that's all. The original claim was that since the DM puts more work in, his fun should come first, instead of being part of the group's fun. I reject that.




I begin to wonder if there is any actual disagreement, apart from that caused by the terminology used to describe positions, in this entire thread, with the sole exception of whether "rules-first use the powers as written" or "fiction-first let the GM adjudicate as needed" is generally superior.

And I don't think that there is an objective answer to that one.


RC


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The frequent suggestion on this thread (not just from JamesonCourage but also Ariosto, I think RC, and maybe others I'm forgetting) that a player has the right to walk from a GM's game is true but not really helpful.




I disagree. More to come.



> We're here talking about what makes for better or worse GMing, across a range of editions of D&D (and some other games) and a range of playstyles. Given that purpose, I think there is a lot more to be said about _how to GM well_ than simply "Exercise whatever power you want to subject to the knowledge that if your players really hate it, they'll quit your game".




That's true. I mean, I don't think anyone has disputed that. That seems to be an unfair attempt to shoehorn my post into something I didn't say. I never said, at any point, that the bit of above advice ("exercise whatever power you want to subject to the knowledge that if your players really hate it, they'll quit your game") is the only way to GM a game well. Ever.

I said that it's the right of the GM, when Hussar said the following: 







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> And this, right here, is where the problem comes. The DM has decided that you absolutely CANNOT do something. No matter what. No matter how much evidence you provide or how fun it might be at the table, at Ultramark's table, you absolutely cannot do this.
> 
> Do people honestly think that being the DM entitles you to this level of power over the game?"




The context of my quote was in response to that. It was not in response to "how would you describe, in a short paragraph, the best way to GM?" Had that been the case, my answer would have been dramatically different. To that end, I think the context of my quote is exceptionally important, since I think you've framed it unfairly (by comparing it to a question I have yet to comment on).



> After all, no creative writing course gives instructions saying "Write whatever you want, subject to the knowledge that you'll only make money from it if you find a publisher who thinks the public and/or critics will like it." Part of the point of a creative writing course is to _learn how to write stuff that will withstand critical scrutiny_. Similarly, part of the point of this discussion is presumably to _share a range of ideas about how a GM can make the play experience a better one_ (with "better" being relative to a range of rulesets, playstyles etc).




When it comes to the underlined section, you can bet I'll speak directly about it. However, once again, the quote you used from me is being applied to the wrong question.

As far as my thought on the underlined portion go, I'd say what I always do: play what you like. If you want to use all the rules, use them. If you want to use no rules, don't use any. If you want to compromise, do that. If you want to let the GM decide things without questioning it, do that. It's really that simple to me. It's too subjective. Find what works for you within your group dynamic and play that game.



> For some rulesets, it's _just not true _that the GM has the level of power over the game of being entitled to say "yes" or "no" to a player's call in respect of any of his/her PC's action. Now for some potential players, that might be a reason to avoid those rulesets, or to add such a rule into the way they play the game. But it's also interesting to think about _why_ a ruleset might be written which doesn't include such a rule, what sort of play experience it might be intended to promote, how that play experience might interact with other preferences and concerns at the table, etc.




That's true. I suppose that's relevant in a roundabout way to my quote. But again, if you apply my quote to it, it's out of context.

As far as playing with the ruleset (where the GM doesn't have the same level of veto power I commented on), I'd say play it if you like it. If you don't like it, don't play it. Pretty straightforward to me.

I can't honestly give much more advice on "how to GM well" when:
1) Enjoyment is way too subjective.
2) The type of game keeps changing in the conversation (GM has veto power, GM doesn't have veto power, etc.).



> For example, if a 4e GM purports to veto the Knocked-down Snake, and a player queries that, I don't think it's very helpful to just start talking about "pushy" or "whiny" players who don't understand the GM's role.




That's true.



> What sort of play experience is the GM trying to promote. If it's about the coherence of the GM's fiction, what is the GM's understanding of the players' contribution to that fiction? Does the GM object to knocking a snake down per se, or to the fact that the PC can do it willy nilly when in the real world it would be very hard, or what? If the GM won't allow a player takeback, is that because of the effect of takebacks on immersion, or because the GM thinks that players should be bound by some sort of equivalent to chess's "touch, move" rule, or what?




I'm guessing the end goal is subjective enjoyment, ideally. That's pretty much the common thread no matter which way you rule things.



> Whether or not it would be productive to raise this sort of issue actually at the gaming table in question is one thing. But I can't see how it is remotely out of order to raise them on a discussion board.




Well, I think people have implied "this is the one true way to play for maximum fun" (including Hussar's quote above) but I don't know who you think wants to stop talking about it. I think it's fine to talk about this at the gaming table. Preferred, even, if it helps the group find what they like. But, I know you meant (I think...) that it shouldn't pop up regularly at it, and I'll pretty much agree with you.



> And once these sorts of questions are put into play, I can't see that the range of satisfactory, considered responses is exhausted by "Of course a GM has that sort of power, but equally players are free to quit the game". The actual history of RPG design and play shows that other things are possible!




Yeah, they're possible. I never implied they weren't. I never said that the only way to play the game is how you portrayed me. The context of my quote was very different from how it was portrayed, and that's a little disconcerting to me.

If we want to start giving tips on how to run a game better, I'm down. The majority focus has not yet slipped there, nor have I addressed it in-depth yet. Especially not in the quote of mine you used.



> EDITED TO ADD:
> 
> One of the premises of a creative writing course is that even if you know what you like when you see it, it can be non-trivial to _proudce_ that stuff yourself. Presumably the same is true for GMing. So while I agree that people should play what they like, I nevertheless think that critical reflection can help work out what it is that they're doing that is contributing to them getting what they like, and what it is that they're doing that is impeding them getting what they like. I will freely admit that my game has improved by becoming more self-conscious about my conception of the function of the rules, the GM, the way these can relate, the range of purposes they can serve, etc. Am I really an outlier? Is everyone else already running a game that is (by their own lights) the very best that it can be?




I'm not sure where you're headed with this, honestly. Can you help me out? If the rhetorical questions were leading somewhere, I unfortunately missed it.


----------



## The Shaman (May 11, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> That's not putting your fun _ahead of_ the players' fun, though is it? You can put them all on an equal level.



If the players are having a ball and, despite my best efforts to be accomodating, I'm not, then I'm going to call a halt, so yes, I am putting my fun first.







Fifth Element said:


> I'm not arguing that opposite - that the _players'_ fun should come first, which is what you seem to be reading into this. The players' fun is just as important as the DM's, that's all.



That was the argument that *the Jester* disputed. I don't recall who the original source was - *Thasmodius*, perhaps?







Fifth Element said:


> The original claim was that since the DM puts more work in, his fun should come first, instead of being part of the group's fun. I reject that.



I read *the Jester*'s quote as saying if the referee isn't happy, there may be no game, hence the referee's happiness comes first but not exclusively.


----------



## JamesonCourage (May 11, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> This thread seems like it is in danger of spiralling into complaints by people with radically different (yet equally valid) playstyles. [RESPECTFUL SNIP]
> 
> Anyway, try to avoid getting involved in personal confrontations. There are no 'wrong' people here that you have to 'correct' (xkcd: Duty Calls).
> 
> Thanks






Raven Crowking said:


> I begin to wonder if there is any actual disagreement, apart from that caused by the terminology used to describe positions, in this entire thread, with the sole exception of whether "rules-first use the powers as written" or "fiction-first let the GM adjudicate as needed" is generally superior.
> 
> And I don't think that there is an objective answer to that one.
> 
> ...



I agree. These are equally valid playstyles and preferences. As such, they are subjective, and there is no objective way to determine how much enjoyment they will produce for any random group.



Neonchameleon said:


> The DM may put the most in - but also IME gets the most back out.  I certainly do or I wouldn't do it.  (Also DMing 4th is a _lot_ less work than previous editions).
> 
> But seriously I get the most out when _everybody_ is engaged and having fun.  Looking primarily to my own fun is not only selfish but counterproductive.






Hussar said:


> Wow, no thank you kindly sir.  Why would a DM who absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him not run a lock step railroad?
> 
> After all, if any player did something that the DM didn't particularly care for, by this advice, he should slap the player down and force him back in line or boot the player from the table.
> 
> ...




These quotes seem to say "if you don't play it the way I think, it's bad." Just as a general statement. Not "it's not how I like the game to work" such as the statements by others seem to indicate (Mort, Fifth Element, Pemertron, etc.).

I think we should just accept it as differences in preference. As such, I'm not sure how productive it is to keep going through this issue over and over. I say just play what you like, and have a great time


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 11, 2011)

Good post, JamesonCourage; sorry I cannot XP it right now.

The Shaman, I agree with you; if I am not having fun _*in the long run*_, someone else has to run the game.  End of story.  Obviously we don't stop GMing just because of momentary lapses in the fun!  But, equally obviously, no one wants to GM a game that they don't enjoy.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> If the players are having a ball and, despite my best efforts to be accomodating, I'm not, then I'm going to call a halt, so yes, I am putting my fun first.



I doubt the players would be able to have a ball in a game that you're not enjoying, in a practical sense. But I read "my fun first" as "my fun is more important." Is that not what you mean?

What Thasmodious said was "_A big part of DMing, imo, is finding a balance where the players get to indulge their preferences without the DM sacrificing all of his_."

To me, this reads as "the DM's and players' preferences are equally important at the table." The DM has to "sacrifice" in the sense that, theoretically, he can just do whatever the heck he wants since he's DM and he controls the game world. But he needs to consider the players as well, put their wants on equal footing with his, and DM accordingly.


----------



## LostSoul (May 11, 2011)

*Story-Games weighs in*

There are a couple of threads on Story Games now that I think are relevant to some of the ideas expressed in this thread (and those by the Primer):

Story Games - Let's talk about "fictional positioning"  This thread mentions 4E a few times.

Story Games - What is Parlour Narration ?  This one is more focused on a comment made by Ron Edward while judging games for "The Ronnies".  I don't think it really speaks to D&D, but some of the ideas are probably worth a read.


----------



## Ariosto (May 11, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> THIS IS A TREATISE that every GM should READ!
> 
> I believe, as the author of this document does, that modern roleplaying lends itslef to being "stale" and "boring" more often than old school gaming.




Maybe it is less interesting to some people because what once could matter is now seen as too dangerous unless it is reduced to "just fluff" that does not matter at all. There are only so many powers, feats and skills, and they are in sum rather more of a muchness -- some just numbers, others carefully itemized standard effects -- than the great variety of things that people in a world can do.

This, for me, goes right back to the initial appeal of _D & D_. The combinations of positions and moves in a conventional wargame might be inexhaustibly vast, but the components were of a repetitive sameness. Going from the operational to the tactical brought more distinctions into play, but everything was still quite stereotyped.

I daresay this is even part of the appeal of 4e for some folks, who see in old D & D a combat system in which small unit tactics exhaust the possibilities (often phrased along the lines of there being no individual move besides "I attack").

That is not really so in my experience, but it is fair to say that Arneson and Gygax expressed a desire generally to get to the results of a fight more quickly and get on with exploring the _consequences_ for the adventure. Adding all the "bells and whistles" to exploration of the _process_ was the exception rather than the rule.

Other processes, though, tend to get _more_ attention in the old style. While new style players are still working out the details of combat moves, old style players are detailing their moves in investigations that the new style reduces to rolls about like (or even more rudimentary than) common old style combats.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 11, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Good post, JamesonCourage; sorry I cannot XP it right now.
> 
> The Shaman, I agree with you; if I am not having fun _*in the long run*_, someone else has to run the game.  End of story.  Obviously we don't stop GMing just because of momentary lapses in the fun!  But, equally obviously, no one wants to GM a game that they don't enjoy.




Since this tangent arose from my post, I feel like you continue to paint my statement with the wrong brush, though I've elaborated on what I meant.  

At no point have I, nor Hussar or anyone else who has picked up on that, said that a GM must sacrifice and GM a game that they don't enjoy.  There is a large of play between "the way I would do it if all my players were just like me" and capitulating to the point where you running the worst game you can imagine having to run.  

I like games where the setting is very alive, the PCs become a part of the world, they have friends, acquaintances, and enemies (mundane and otherwise) among the cast of NPCs.  The threads of player driven plot are deep and complex, politics plays a role, and so on.  The kind of game where the players need to keep extensive notes, and the DMs prep time is spent up on the machinations of behind the scene villains.  This was the type of game I used to run and they ran well, with lots of player involvement.  Eventually a couple of the players had to drop out and a couple other players came in and the group dynamic changed, both at the table and in real life.  We were getting older, family and work priorities trump gaming and we had less time to devote to our hobby.  I learned the new players and learned what they like and what they don't and began to find my fun with other playstyles that struck a balance among all our competing needs.  A complex game just didn't fit the situation anymore.  But I found the fun in going even further with the idea of PC driven narrative, planning shorter campaigns that wouldn't take years to see through, relaxed the attitude at the table so everyone was having more fun, even if we got in less actual gaming.  The social aspect became as important.  This is what I mean by sacrifice.  Not sacrificing the total sum of your fun to the players, but adjusting from your ideal to find the fun in a game that suits the needs of everyone at the table.  It's their game, too.


----------



## Water Bob (May 12, 2011)

This quote, from pg. 7 of the 1E AD&D DMG, seems most appropriate for many of these posts...

"The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesireable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign.  Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly.  Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands (out of the DM's hands) and mold it to his or her own ends."

-E. Gary Gygax

The man knew what he was talking about.


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2011)

And, just because I seem to be getting painted with the same mis-representation that Thasmodius etc is getting painted with - I never said that the DM should have less fun than anyone else.  I specifically stated that anyone, regardless of what side of the screen they sit on, who puts their fun ahead of anyone else's at the table is a bad player.

Is this really problematic?

The point I was first responding to stated that a DM categorically should never accomodate his players if that accommodation would lessen his enjoyment of the game.  Sorry, I really don't buy that.  That way leads to rail road city because as soon as a player attempts to do anything the DM doesn't particularly care for, the DM is now entitled to shoot down the player's action, for the sole reason that the DM thinks its less fun.

Again, no thank you.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> The man knew what he was talking about.



Of course, this is not restricted to players. The DM molding the game to his or her own ends without considering the players is just as bad as the players doing it to the DM. It's also far easier for the DM to do, since he has so much authority over the game world by default.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The point I was first responding to stated that a DM categorically should never accomodate his players if that accommodation would lessen his enjoyment of the game.



This is how I interpret it when a DM says "my fun first". He considers his fun before the players', and if it's something that might reduce his fun a bit it's vetoed, regardless of what the group as a whole might prefer.


----------



## Ariosto (May 12, 2011)

It's a pretty thorny problem when different people are after opposing kinds of "fun".

Should a fight take 10 to 20 minutes, or about four times as long? Should determining how to open a secret passage require (absent demonstration) actual experiment, or should it be up to a toss of dice?

Should either activity even be liable to failure? Some people play for a real challenge, like taking on a board game or card game, a computer game or a sport. Others play to enjoy a story in which they get to "do awesome things" (whatever that means to them personally) without any real liability to disappointment.

Some compromises are pretty easy, others not so much.


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> It's a pretty thorny problem when different people are after opposing kinds of "fun".
> 
> Should a fight take 10 to 20 minutes, or about four times as long? Should determining how to open a secret passage require (absent demonstration) actual experiment, or should it be up to a toss of dice?
> 
> ...




Yes, but now you're going a bit further.  These are decisions that have to be addressed when deciding what system to use.  If you cannot find a common ground between everyone at the table on these elements, it's going to very difficult to run any game for this group - the play style differences are just too large.

And, no one is claiming that a DM should run a game he hates.  That would be stupid.  Just as stupid as claiming that players should play in games that they hate.  No one wins there.

But, closer to the issue at hand is, "Should the DM over rule the mechanics when no one else at the table has an issue with the mechanics?"  If half the group wants really crunchy combat that takes an hour to resolve and the other half wants less crunchy combat that resolves in ten minutes, someone's going to have to compromise here, or, you need to find new players.

But, once you've decided one way or the other (by choosing a system that fits (mostly) with what the group wants, is it fair that the DM then imposes his view of how things should work on the entire group?

---------------

Funnily enough, if you reverse the point about the DM should never sacrifice any of his fun for the table and always put his fun first, and apply it to a player, you get a description of the worst, table disrupting, prima donna player you can get.

I mean, would you really want to play with a player who puts his own fun ahead of everyone else's at the table?  When we talk about bad players, isn't this pretty much the root of the problem?

But, if I put that same player behind the DM screen, it's suddenly okay that he puts his fun ahead of everyone else's at the table?  Really?


----------



## TheUltramark (May 12, 2011)

You are never going to please everyone all of the time.  
Even in my game where the bulk of us have known each other all of our lives disagreements and style clashes occur.  If I am the dm and a player is having a bad night because of me, it drastically affects my "fun level".  Not because of some sort of pride of "dm-ship" but because he is my firend.  If I am a player and the dm and another player "get at it" it drags me down too, again, these are my friends.  At the same time I have been the butt of a joke or two in my time, and while its never fun, when the rest of the table is laughing hysterically, it's hard not to shrug it off and laugh along.

I've played in some on-line games with bad dm's, bad for any number of reasons, but it seemed the game never lasted


----------



## pemerton (May 12, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> if immersion is one of your goals, better that the GM rules and the game moves on.



I noted this upthread - or maybe in one of the crossover threads with much the same posters. It was in response to something posted by Jameson Courage, explaining why he(?) doesn't like narrative-style play, precisely because it breaks immersion.



Raven Crowking said:


> it may be a "Fate Point" at your table; it is not so at *all* tables.  And, if a DM chooses *not* to treat powers as "Fate Points", that does not making her a bad DM!



I never said that it makes the GM a bad one. In my previous post to this one (#370 upthread) I said that

For some rulesets, it's just not true that the GM has the level of power over the game of being entitled to say "yes" or "no" to a player's call in respect of any of his/her PC's action. Now for some potential players, that might be a reason to avoid those rulesets, or to add such a rule into the way they play the game.​
But I do think that treating powers in a non-Fate Point fashion is departing from the general orientation of the 4e rules. At least in my mind, the most coherent reading of the 4e rules is the Fate Point/"distributed narrative authority" reading. And I believe that this reading is supported by the designer sidebars in DMGs 1 and 2.



Raven Crowking said:


> That contention seems in conflict with the bit you quoted about the DM being allowed to change the outcome of die rolls and interpret the rules.  Indeed, it seems to be in conflict with any passage in the RAW which states that the DM can disallow a power if he feels it doesn't make sense.



I agree there is a degree of tension. As I've posted in the past, the 4e rulebooks aren't entirely coherent. Some people think this is the inevitable consequence of trying to right a rulebook that will appeal to a wide spectrum of gamers. That may be so, although I tend to think that some of the incoherence also comes from a reluctance on the part of the writers to drop some of the conventions of earlier D&D editions in their presentation, even though those conventions don't really fit with the overall direction of 4e - ie my diagnosis tends to be one of overcautious conservatism on the part of the rules writers, rather than the necessity for them to maintain mass appeal (of course, the two are related to an extent).

All of that said, in my view the tension is not terribly great. For example, the treatment of powers as Fate Points doesn't mean the GM has no interpretation to undertake, because there is a lot to the game's action resolution mechanics besides powers - for example there are rituals, and also the interrelated devices of skill checks, skill challenges and page 42. All of these requires interpretation and adjudication by the GM, which the rules make amply clear. 

But I'm curious as to which bits of text you have in mind when you talk about "passage in the RAW which state(s) that the DM can disallow a power if he feels it doesn't make sense". I'm not familiar with such passages, but that could be because I have selective memory for the parts of the rules that support (my view of) the most coherent reading of them.



Raven Crowking said:


> Back when, when the complaint was that 4e removed quite a bit of DM power to run a game, these sections were pointed out vehemently by some of the same people wanting to minimize their impact now.



Well I wasn't such a person. I've never been coy in expressing my belief that 4e does change the role of the GM in certain aspects of action resolution, and even encounter design (the DC guidelines, for example), from traditional D&D. That's why I play it. (And the rules of previous versions of D&D in relation to these matters were one of the reasons why I didn't play them very much - this is especially true for 2nd ed AD&D.)

One interesting thing, which I've also commented on before, is that in some respects the tone of Essentials tends to hark back to those earlier approaches to the game. Upthread I posted the following extract from the Rules Compendium (page 9):

*Referee:* The DM decides how to apply the game rules and guides the story. If the rules don't cover a situation, the DM determines what to do. At times, the Dm might alter or even ignore the result of a die roll if doing so benefits the story.​
The corresponding passage in the original 4e PHB (at page 8) reads:

*Referee:* When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.​
I regard the difference between these two passages as more than merely a difference of wording. I think that they state two different roles for the GM - in particular, the Essentials one is closer to 2nd ed AD&D/White Wolf-style versions of the GM's role and power to suspend the action resolution rules, although what is said is perhaps not quite as strong as some of those statements from other, earlier rulebooks.

Moreso than the changes in character building, which simply increase the range of options available, it is this change in the game's rules that makes me relatively unimpressed by Essentials. (It should also be noted that Essentials doesn't eleminate the incoherence. The statement I've quoted about the GM's power to suspend the action resolution mechanics for the sake of story, for example, doesn't fit at all well with the Rules Compendium's presentation of skill challenges, which makes fairly clear - especially via the example - that the whole point of a skill challenge is to turn a starting situation _into_ a story via the application of the action resolution mechanics.)



pming said:


> I don't play (and have never played) 4e, so I'm not sure how all the new kids are doing it, but back in my day (re: 30+ years ago), the DM was there to *adjudicate* situations. If he was lucky, it was a simple yes/no decisions. Alas, players (well, at least in my day) were a crafty bunch, and would find the most unusual ways to use a rope, a grappling hook, a block of cheese and a 7' ladder to open a stuck door...and in that case, it's not a yes/no decision. As a DM I was forced to think about the situation, then using my experience and expertise in the rules system come up with a likelihood of success.



4e also has elements like this, where the rules make it clear that the role of the GM is to adjudicate such matters in the way you describe.

But not all elements of 4e are like this. Some elements of 4e - the so-called "powers" - are things that a player can have his/her PC do. They are not unusual, or the result of crafty play. They are analogous to an AD&D PC making an attack or receiving a saving throw.

In the AD&D DMG Gygax writes that the PC is always entitled to a saving throw, even if the situation seems hopeless, not because it is realistic (within the fiction) but because the PC always has a chance of some last-minute luck or escape - a chance that is much higher in the mechanics than in the fiction. In my view, 4e powers make the most sense when read in this sort of way.

When an AD&D fighter chained to a rock with a shackled neck and eyes propped open by matchsticks nevertheless makes a save against the medusa's gaze, the rules don't encourage the GM to veto that save based on a sense of realism. They make it clear that the GM's role should be to narrate some last-second piece of luck - perhaps the shackle slipped or broke and the fighter managed to turn his or her head at the final instant.

Similarly, when a 4e fighter uses a power to knock a snake prone, the rules don't encourage the GM to veto that act based on a sense of realism. They make it at least tolerably clear that the GM's role should be to help the player narrate some lucky blow or trick or whatever that resulted in the snake being flipped or winded or otherwise in a worse position than it was.



pming said:


> with regards to knocking a snake prone, the DM's job wasn't just to veto player ideas "just because the rules don't cover it" or becaus the "rules don't say that".



In 4e, this will typically come up because the rules _do_ cover it - namely, the PC in question has a power that lets him/her knock things prone (even snakes, which as per the rules don't have any general immunity to being knocked prone).

So what we're talking about here, in relation to 4e, is not an action the rules don't cover, but rather the GM houseruling on the fly so as to prevent a player using a PC ability in a way that the rules, as written, fully contemplate and permit.



pming said:


> In the case of the snake/prone thing, perhaps I'd let the PC 'knock the snake around' in such a way that it becomes somewhat disoriented, granting the 'prone' adjustments, but also rule that the snake doesn't have to take time to 'stand up' from a prone position, so as soon as the characters attack is over, the snake is back to normal.



That could be one way to go, although I personally don't feel the attraction of it. Are snakes so underpowered that they need a special power of righting themselves that the rules as written don't grant them? Is verisimilitude so threatened by a snake, like every other monster, needing to spend a move action to right itself?

My feeling is that this sort of "special case" approach to snakes is pushing against, rather than playing with, the key features of 4e as a ruleset. I can see why you might do it if there are some features of 4e you like (perhaps the generally slick monster and encounter design) but you don't like the non-simulationism. But add in enough of these sorts of special cases and you're perhaps starting to lose some of those other features too.



Rel said:


> Are we even talking about a 4e power that knocks a foe prone at this point?  If the player has a power called, "Prone Punch" that says that they do unarmed attack damage AND knock the foe Prone then that doesn't mean the execution must be described as a punch.
> 
> If the player says, "I want to use Prone Punch on the snake." and your reply is, "I cannot envision a way to punch a snake in such a way as to make it prone." then that strikes me as rules lawyering the player by the GM.  The player could justly respond, "Well I don't feel that my PC must punch the snake per se.  Maybe I'll grab him and twist him, causing my normal Unarmed Attack damage and it'll take a moment for the snake to get itself untwisted and ready to attack, reflecting the Prone condition."



I can't XP Rel at the moment, but I agree entirely with this. That's why, in my view, talk about "the GM's role in adjudicating when the rules run out" or when players try tricky things, is quite inapposite when it comes to a discussion of a player's use of a PC power in 4e.


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> You are never going to please everyone all of the time.
> Even in my game where the bulk of us have known each other all of our lives disagreements and style clashes occur.  If I am the dm and a player is having a bad night because of me, it drastically affects my "fun level".  Not because of some sort of pride of "dm-ship" but because he is my firend.  If I am a player and the dm and another player "get at it" it drags me down too, again, these are my friends.  At the same time I have been the butt of a joke or two in my time, and while its never fun, when the rest of the table is laughing hysterically, it's hard not to shrug it off and laugh along.
> 
> I've played in some on-line games with bad dm's, bad for any number of reasons, but it seemed the game never lasted




Oh sure.  Totally agree with that.  It would seem that you don't put your fun ahead of everyone else's at the table - after all, if someone is not having fun, that drags down your fun too.  Sounds like a perfectly healthy table to me.

But, again, what's that got to do with the idea that the DM is entitled (apparently) to over rule the mechanics when he is the sole person at the table who has a problem with the mechanics?  Why is the DM the sole decider on what is plausible or not?


----------



## pemerton (May 12, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> That seems to be an unfair attempt to shoehorn my post into something I didn't say.



I hadn't intended to be unfair, so for that I apologise. It's just that your post - which was part of a sequence of posts about the power of GMs and/or players to "walk" - triggered the thoughts that I then posted.



JamesonCourage said:


> I'd say what I always do: play what you like. If you want to use all the rules, use them. If you want to use no rules, don't use any. If you want to compromise, do that. If you want to let the GM decide things without questioning it, do that. It's really that simple to me.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I think we can take for granted that the end goal is subjective enjoyment. But I think it is possible to say a lot about the various techniques that might help or hinder us on our way there.

That's why I drew the analogy to creative writing classes (or drawing classes, or dance classes, or whatever). You don't help someone learn to draw better by saying "Make your pictures more beautiful". Or by saying "Use more pink if you feel like it". You teach them about techniques of composition, shading etc. Likewise when it comes to GMing. So I don't think it's goes very far to just say "Use the rules if you like, or give the GM veto power over the rules if you like". What is more helpful, in my view, is to look in more detail at the effect that particular techniques - for action resolution, assigning narrative authority, etc - have on various aspects of the play experience, and then thinking about how those various aspects of the play experience contribute to the likelihood of subjective enjoyment.

So I guess I don't feel it's so straightforward. To give a real example: twenty years ago I used to assert, very strongly, that it was a mistake in an RPG to balance mechanical benefits via roleplaying disadvantages (as per the AD&D paladin). But it turns out, as it happens, that that sort of approach to PC building - of completely divorcing the mechanical build of the PC, and the PC's thematic location in the fiction - is in fact at odds with the sort of play experience that I am looking for. But I only learned that through a lot of reflection, reading a wide range of game rules, playing a wider range of RPGs, reading essays at The Forge, etc.



JamesonCourage said:


> I'm not sure where you're headed with this, honestly.



I hope the previous paragraph gives you a clearer idea.


----------



## pemerton (May 12, 2011)

chaochou said:


> I don't think power at the table comes from the ability to quit the game. It comes from the social contract of the people at the table.
> 
> If you say that the power in the game comes from a threat of walking,  well, that's a horrible mess.
> 
> ...



I can't XP you yet, but think this is a great post.

As well as QingFT, I did want to add something.

What I think close attention to the rulebook _can_ do is to help the participants in the game think through the range of possibilities, and what (presumably clever and experienced) designers had in mind as the way to play the game, and what effect those different sorts of possibilities might have on the play experience.

So the rulebook can't solve the problem, but it can help through up possible solutions. I know this because I have experienced it - that is, reading a wide range of rulebooks, paying attention to what they suggest rather than just projecting my own habits and expectations, has helped me appreciate the range of possible ways of RPGing, and GMing and RPG, and this has in turn helped settle the terms of the social contract at my table.


----------



## TheUltramark (May 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Oh sure.  Totally agree with that.  It would seem that you don't put your fun ahead of everyone else's at the table - after all, if someone is not having fun, that drags down your fun too.  Sounds like a perfectly healthy table to me.
> 
> But, again, what's that got to do with the idea that the DM is entitled (apparently) to over rule the mechanics *when he is the sole person at the table who has a problem with the mechanics?*  Why is the DM the sole decider on what is plausible or not?




AS i have said, there have been times I was dead set against something, but the table basically stages a coup and overrules me, it sucks "being wrong" but you have to know when to pull the chute and give in, especially to an entire table.  Now, I know my table, and have for such a long time I basically know where each person will stand on any given issue (and they know where I stand too)  that is why I say with such confidence that a certain physical action against a certain reptile would never be allowed.
If I were at a table of strangers my attitude would be completely different, but that's not going to happen any time soon.


----------



## Hussar (May 12, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> AS i have said, there have been times I was dead set against something, but the table basically stages a coup and overrules me, it sucks "being wrong" but you have to know when to pull the chute and give in, especially to an entire table.  Now, I know my table, and have for such a long time I basically know where each person will stand on any given issue (and they know where I stand too)  that is why I say with such confidence that a certain physical action against a certain reptile would never be allowed.
> If I were at a table of strangers my attitude would be completely different, but that's not going to happen any time soon.




Again, now this I agree with.  If the DM rules against something and the rest of the table agrees with the DM, then fair enough, no harm no foul.  Everyone's happy.  And, in your specific case, this is true - it's not necessarily that you are determining the plausibility of the action alone, but with the consensus of the entire table.

Isn't this what I've been advocating all the way along in this thread?  I'm sorry, I thought you were going the other way with this - that the DM doesn't need the consensus of the table.  My bad for misunderstanding.


----------



## pemerton (May 12, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Every responsibility by necessity must bring with it the rights necessary to meet that responsibility.



Somewhat off-topic, this is actually a very controversial question in political and moral philosophy.

For example, the American political and moral philosopher Michael Walzer, in his work on "dirty hands", argues that politicians sometimes have duties (arising out of their public/political roles) to do things which they enjoy no moral permission to do - meaning that they are obliged to do things for which they can be justly morally sanctioned. The German social theorist Max Weber puts forward a similar argument in his famous essay on Politics as a Vocation.

A related topic of debate is whether "ought" implies "can". The majority view probably is that it does, but some significant figures disagree. For example, I think that Socrates, on the reading put forward by Raimond Gaita in Good and Evil: An Absolute Conception, probably denies that "ought" implies "can". That is, we can sometimes find ourselves in morally tragic situations where we lack the capacity to do what we are morally obliged to do.

The analogue of moral tragedy in GMing, presumably, is a GM who believes, or even knows, that the only way to give the group the play experience that they want is to do XYZ, but has a social contract at the table that precludes XYZ. I'm not sure how often this comes up, but it seems to me a conceivable source of group rupture.

An analogue of dirty hands in GMing _might_ be when a GM in this sort of situation covertly does XYZ, so as to maintain the illusion of compliance with the social contract while in fact violating it in order to produce the group's desired play experience. Personally this strikes me as a recipe for gaming dysfunction, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens from time to time (eg fudging in a 2nd-ed style game, where the social contract contains both "let the dice fall" and "we want a good story", but the mechanics are such that there is no guarantee that letting the dice fall will in fact produce a good story).



Raven Crowking said:


> In the case of GMing, that includes the right to adjudicate the rules.



Isn't what is, in part, up for grabs in this discussion to what extent and in what ways the GM, in carrying out his/her responsibility, is obliged to adjudicate the rules?

I'll repeat an example I gave upthread: if a player has his/her PC knock a snake prone, and if the consensus at the table is that this means that the snake has been flipped onto its back and hence is at least moderately indisposed, then this has implications for the DC of a Perception check to notice any markings on the snake's back. In a mainstream game it is the GM who has responsibility for adjudicating this situation, and setting the DC (and I think this also relates to LostSoul's idea of "the moment of judgement").

But the GM having _that_ particular adjudicative responsibility is quite consistent with the GM _lacking_ any more general power to suspend the action resolution rules (eg by declaring unilaterally and spontaneously that a "knock prone" power won't work against a snake). And there is no reason to think that the GM lacking that more general power will, as a matter of necessity or even as a matter of course, deprive the GM of the capacity to deliver a fun game. Of course for certain gaming groups interested in certain sorts of fun, it might, but that turns on details about particular play experience desired (eg consensus vs immmersion vs coherent fiction vs etc, etc) and what sorts of understandings about who enjoys what authority will reliably produce that experience - which I believe to be a fairly subtle matter.


----------



## pemerton (May 12, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> There are a couple of threads on Story Games now that I think are relevant to some of the ideas expressed in this thread (and those by the Primer)



Thanks for the links. Interesting. It also took me back to the Lumpley Games posts about character sheets and currency that I haven't thought about for a while.

Obviously I'm of the view that 4e does have fictional positioning - both in combat and out of it - but it makes some featuers of the fiction more salient than others. The example of the DC to spot the markings on the prone snake's back is a fairly uninteresting example. Skill checks, page 42, some aspects of cover and difficult terrain, some aspects of movement and tactical location, etc are more front and centre in the game. One of the posters on the positioning thread suggested that nothing in 4e requires fictional positioning to feed into skill challenge resolution, but again I don't really think this is right. Or, at least, I'm curious: how do groups work out what is going on in a skill challenge, what each roll means, and thereby what the outcome is, if they don't rely (at least in part) on fictional positioning?

The currency stuff, on the other hand, I'm less confident about. I think a lot of the currency rules in 4e play (at least my game) are unstated and ad hoc. For example, one of the PCs in my game is a Warpriest of Moradin. Given this positioning, he was able to use both his polearm fighting abilities and his Diplomacy and Intimidate skills (both elements of effectiveness) to get some dwarf warrior NPCs to become his followers for a little while (new positioning, plus some new effectiveness and resources). In a fight with a hobgoblin-controlled Spirehorn Behemoth the behemoth used its Trample attack to take down a number of these NPCs (who, mechanically, are minions) - which meant that the behemoth won't have the trample avaiable to hurt the other PCs (so the NPCs became a resource, which was spent) but also makes the Warpriest someone who led his followers into defeat (further positioning, which has implications for the effectiveness of his Diplomacy in future dealings with the dwarves). Most of these currency rules aren't there in the rulebooks - it's my adjudication as GM, constrained by my sense of what the shared fiction permits or mandates.

Any thoughts on how to unpack this more coherently (whether in general, or in relation to 4e)?


----------



## Neonchameleon (May 12, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> This quote, from pg. 7 of the 1E AD&D DMG, seems most appropriate for many of these posts...
> 
> "The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesireable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands (out of the DM's hands) and mold it to his or her own ends."
> 
> ...




Indeed.  Gary knew what he was talking about (which doesn't mean what he says applies everywhere).  "The dangers of a mutable system."  In the discussion in question, the system is being mutated on an ad-hoc and arbitrary basis _by the DM_.  Turning it from a consistent and fair system into a system mutated by how well you can convince your DM to do things.  The people on the side of the argument that says you shouldn't be able to knock snakes prone are the ones arguing for the more mutable system.  Rulings not Rules is actively advocating a mutable system.

So thank you, that was relevant.  It cut against the original document and cut against the people saying that the DM should step in to overrule the game rules so you can't knock the snake prone.  Not the argument I think you wanted to make?


----------



## Nagol (May 12, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> I doubt the players would be able to have a ball in a game that you're not enjoying, in a practical sense. But I read "my fun first" as "my fun is more important." Is that not what you mean?
> 
> What Thasmodious said was "_A big part of DMing, imo, is finding a balance where the players get to indulge their preferences without the DM sacrificing all of his_."
> 
> To me, this reads as "the DM's and players' preferences are equally important at the table." The DM has to "sacrifice" in the sense that, theoretically, he can just do whatever the heck he wants since he's DM and he controls the game world. But he needs to consider the players as well, put their wants on equal footing with his, and DM accordingly.




I've certainly been in the situation where I as GM was finding no enjoyment, but the players were very happy with the campaign when I pulled the plug.  There's been a variety of reasons: personal burnout in a multi-year campaign, running a genre I don't like (started as a one-shot, went over very well and I got talked into continuing over my better judgement), and the game situation spiraling into areas I didn't want to explore theme-wise.

In each case I pulled the plug because I wasn't having fun and frankly, although I can act as the entertainment facilitator for the group, I will only do so when I am enjoying it.  In other words, my fun comes first.


----------



## chaochou (May 12, 2011)

Water Bob said:


> This quote, from pg. 7 of the 1E AD&D DMG, seems most appropriate for many of these posts...
> 
> "The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesireable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign.  Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly.  Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands (out of the DM's hands) and mold it to his or her own ends."
> 
> ...




Crucially, though - no he didn't.

Sorry if that's slaughtering some folks' sacred cows, but Gygax wrote this stuff in ignorance of the Threefold Model, GNS and later game theories which have developed and informed play since the early 90s.

So some of it is simply outdated, inherently assuming specific modes of play, social contracts and creative agendas which weren't necessarily true even in 1979 and certainly can't be assumed now.

Other sections of the DMG were pretty silly even back then - attacking 'problem players you deem worthy of saving' with ethereal mummies, bolts from the heavens and lowering their stats until they do what you say - and look, to me and others, both hysterically funny in their pomposity and terrible, dysfunctional advice.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2011)

Thasmodious said:


> Since this tangent arose from my post, I feel like you continue to paint my statement with the wrong brush, though I've elaborated on what I meant.




I'm sorry that you feel that way, as it certainly was not my intention.  As mentioned upthread, I am no longer certain that your difference in this area is of kind (i.e., that you actually disagree with anyone's held opinion) but of language (i.e., that you disagree with the way said held opinion is expressed).

I could, of course, be wrong.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I never said that it makes the GM a bad one.




No; I know that, and I did not mean to imply that you did.

In most of these discussions IME and IMHO you retain a moderate position, promoting the style you enjoy while being aware that others have other preferences.  I appreciate that, actually!  

Your post sparked the thought, but the thought was a response to the thread, not to you specifically.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 12, 2011)

chaochou said:


> Crucially, though - no he didn't.




Six of one; half dozen of the other.

I still find that the 1e DMG has the best advice for GMing overall, of any product that I've ever read, and energized one for the task far more than every other edition's DMG to boot!  "Threefold Model, GNS and later game theories" be damned -- Gygax knew people, and he knew games.  IMHO, most of the problems of later editions occur because the designers failed to understand the earlier work, and tinkered without compensating for the knock-on effects that even broad-based balance has.  Or, in some cases, they may not have understood the appeal (to some, not all) or function of broad-based balance.

OTOH, things like "attacking 'problem players you deem worthy of saving' with ethereal mummies, bolts from the heavens and lowering their stats until they do what you say" was bad advice even the day before it was written.


RC


----------



## Ariosto (May 12, 2011)

I am inclined to agree with pemerton's assessment.

For me, this is one reason why 4e (in the words of the OP) "lends itself to being 'stale' and 'boring'."


----------



## Ariosto (May 12, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'll repeat an example I gave upthread: if a player has his/her PC knock a snake prone, and if the consensus at the table is that this means that the snake has been flipped onto its back and hence is at least moderately indisposed, then this has implications for the DC of a Perception check to notice any markings on the snake's back.



Are the implications

-- that it is easier because the snake is indisposed?
or
-- that it is harder because the back is not visible?


----------



## Ariosto (May 12, 2011)

chaochou said:


> Sorry if that's slaughtering some folks' sacred cows, but Gygax wrote this stuff in ignorance of the Threefold Model, GNS and later game theories which have developed and informed play since the early 90s.




The only sacred cows on the chopping block from my perspective are your favored fads and fallacies. Ignorance of nonsensical or false claims and overbearing ideologies is hardly an impediment to offering sound advice from *actual experience*!

Your advice that's great for playing some other game would be pretty crappy for playing Gary's game -- that launched the hobby and industry, and is still played today. Just how that's a knock against _him_ is a puzzle.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> Ignorance of nonsensical or false claims and overbearing ideologies is hardly an impediment to offering sound advice from *actual experience*!



Well, if you want to invoke experience, chaochou was talking about things developed from peoples' actual experience in playing RPGs for several decades after Gygax's words were written.

The DMG was published in what, 1977? We (as in, people involved in the hobby) have an awful lot more experience in playing RPGs in 2011 that we do in 1977. So if experience is all that matters, we have massive advantages over 1977-vintage Gygax. 34 years' worth of advantages.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 12, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Isn't what is, in part, up for grabs in this discussion to what extent and in what ways the GM, in carrying out his/her responsibility, is obliged to adjudicate the rules?
> 
> I'll repeat an example I gave upthread: if a player has his/her PC knock a snake prone, and if the consensus at the table is that this means that the snake has been flipped onto its back and hence is at least moderately indisposed, then this has implications for the DC of a Perception check to notice any markings on the snake's back. In a mainstream game it is the GM who has responsibility for adjudicating this situation, and setting the DC (and I think this also relates to LostSoul's idea of "the moment of judgement").
> 
> But the GM having _that_ particular adjudicative responsibility is quite consistent with the GM _lacking_ any more general power to suspend the action resolution rules (eg by declaring unilaterally and spontaneously that a "knock prone" power won't work against a snake). And there is no reason to think that the GM lacking that more general power will, as a matter of necessity or even as a matter of course, deprive the GM of the capacity to deliver a fun game. Of course for certain gaming groups interested in certain sorts of fun, it might, but that turns on details about particular play experience desired (eg consensus vs immmersion vs coherent fiction vs etc, etc) and what sorts of understandings about who enjoys what authority will reliably produce that experience - which I believe to be a fairly subtle matter.




This is money, IMO (and couldn't xp you for it).  

To the question first, that's what I've been arguing.  The GMs ability to adjudicate comes into play when the rules don't expressly cover something or a corner case comes up where different rules conflict or are unclear.  Adjudicating does not include the arbitrary overriding of established rules that the players are working off of as the basis for predictive interaction with the gameworld.  The designers assigned the monsters immunities where appropriate (stone golems can't be sleeped or poisoned, etc), and on the spot assigning new ones affects player choice on the fly without player input.  

For me, if the DM feels that 4e powers present situations which defy logic and he wants to overrule them when he feels that way, this is something that players should know before the game begins so they are informed of the modification to the source they have to base their expectations on (the rules).  If I knew my DM hated Come and Get It because of the *seeming* mental domination aspect (an interpretation of the power I don't agree with), I just wouldn't take it in the first place.

I am not a RAW-uber-alles type at all.  I modify the heck out of about any system I touch, but those modifications are presented to the players before the game begins and if I find a reason to tweak with elements of a system later, any changes are communicated with the group and voted on.


----------



## Ariosto (May 12, 2011)

Fifth Element said:


> Well, if you want to invoke experience, chaochou was talking about things developed from peoples' actual experience in playing RPGs for several decades after Gygax's words were written.
> 
> The DMG was published in what, 1977? We (as in, people involved in the hobby) have an awful lot more experience in playing RPGs in 2011 that we do in 1977. So if experience is all that matters, we have massive advantages over 1977-vintage Gygax. 34 years' worth of advantages.



1979.

How can you miss something so obvious as that Gary was talking about playing *his* game -- ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS -- not about playing a Ron Edwards or Vincent Baker game?

I think the actual bit of advice actually in question, though, is probably not just applicable to their games but repeated by them. It has been most thoroughly taken to heart, indeed been the great rallying cry, of *the majority of fans of 3e and 4e D&D*, _especially_ informing the assessment of "flaws" in the former to be corrected in the latter.

The Forge-ies have great advice about how to follow their ideologies, if that's your bag. They don't know (and don't _want_ to know) jack about being a Dungeon Master, though.

It's like claiming that a great winemaker is handicapped by being ignorant of the religious beliefs of my tea-totaler grandparents!


----------



## Fifth Element (May 12, 2011)

Ariosto said:


> How can you miss something so obvious as that Gary was talking about playing *his* game -- ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS -- not about playing a Ron Edwards or Vincent Baker game?



I'm not restricting my comment to the Forge stuff. There have been a very large number of people playing Gygax's game for over three decades since those words were written. To assume a 32-year-old opinion overrides that is folly.


----------



## Ariosto (May 12, 2011)

Fifth Element, that you may happen to prefer Hopscotch does not by any logical stretch make advice on how to play Baseball wrong for people who want to play Baseball!

It is an unfortunate state of affairs that some people are very contentiously invested in replacing "Dungeons & Dragons" -- not only the original, but *also the current nominee*, and by all evidence of history, the next and the next after that -- with their own One True Way.

"All you who actually like the game are just ignorant fools," these insurgents are perennially insisting -- when they are not calling the happy players of whatever it may be willfully, objectively and perhaps morally *wrong*.

And so the wheel turns, and turns again. Is this progress? No.

It is merely, year after year, *further evidence* of just what Mr. Gygax wrote. This is not astounding to those of us who appreciate that he was writing about a _human nature_ that probably has not changed in at least 100,000 years.


----------



## Ariosto (May 12, 2011)

I mentioned a few posts ago the fellow who _does not want_ to be challenged. For him, there simply is no question of "becoming strong and powerful far too quickly". It is not "an undesirable direction" that will have him "ending up with a short-lived campaign" out of boredom.

The really undesirable direction for that fellow is to tell him that what he wants is to play AD&D!


----------



## Rel (May 12, 2011)

So I'm pretty sure that we've hashed out all that needs to be said in this thread and it's probably not going anywhere productive.  Let's just call it a day here.


----------

