# Waibel's Rule of Interpretation (aka "How to Interpret the Rules")



## Sacrosanct (Dec 31, 2014)

EN World member Sacrosanct has created a useful little flowchart which tells you how to interpret rules in D&D 5th Edition and similar games.  He's called it "Waibel's Rule of Interpretation". If you're ever stuck on how to use a rule, quickly consult this chart to find out what to do!


View attachment 65885​
[Promoted to news article. - Morrus.]


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 31, 2014)

Oh, I'm sure in short order someone will make a comment about how it's totally wrong, because all rules should be without any ambiguity and everything should be spelled out or it's a bad game or something along those lines.

To that I just shrug and move on.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 31, 2014)

A lot of folks cannot seem to handle the fact that, yes, it really is that simple.


----------



## KarinsDad (Dec 31, 2014)

It's actually simpler than this.

1) Read rule.
2) Adjudicate.
3) Ignore Internet interpretations.


----------



## Astrosicebear (Dec 31, 2014)

I didn't create this. 

View attachment 65884


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2014)

Not to be a killjoy, but, "makes sense" to who?  That's generally where the issue comes up at the table.  I've had DM's make all sorts of rulings that "made sense" to them and I'm sure as a DM I've done exactly the same thing.  "Makes sense" isn't always what's best for the game.


----------



## Jester David (Dec 31, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Not to be a killjoy, but, "makes sense" to who?  That's generally where the issue comes up at the table.  I've had DM's make all sorts of rulings that "made sense" to them and I'm sure as a DM I've done exactly the same thing.  "Makes sense" isn't always what's best for the game.



I'd had a few experiences like that, but my problem was seldom with the DM ruling not making sense but being non-favourable to me or the party.

If you trust the DM this isn't an issue, because you have faith in their ability to make sense if thing. 
Problems arise when you don't trust the DM to play fair or lack faith in their ability to make sense of things.

In the first case, rules that allow the trusted DM to tell stories they want without being shackled by the rules leads to a better experience. When the DM is having fun it's infectious. In the latter case, bad DMs can be held in check by rules, but they'll find a way (accidentally or on purpose) to impact the fun.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2014)

Jester Canuck said:


> I'd had a few experiences like that, but my problem was seldom with the DM ruling not making sense but being non-favourable to me or the party.
> 
> If you trust the DM this isn't an issue, because you have faith in their ability to make sense if thing.
> Problems arise when you don't trust the DM to play fair or lack faith in their ability to make sense of things.
> ...




I'm not sure it's even a trust issue.

I'll give you an example.  I had a DM tell me that there was no plate mail in her world because plate mail was a later invention than chain mail and she wanted a historically accurate game.  I pointed out that plate mail actually predates chain by a considerable margin.  But, she stuck to her guns and insisted that her interpretation of history was right because, well, why would chain mail, with an AC of 5 be a later invention than plate mail with an AC of 3?

Not a trust issue, but, well before the days of Wikipedia so finding answers were not so easy.

Or, another time, I bombed the party with a manticore.  I love manticores.  One of my favourite critters.  A player piped up and complained that I was using a manticore in a completely wrong terrain - manticores in 2e were desert monsters and we were in a temperate forest.  Now, he was 100% right, but, I stuck to my guns.  It wound up being a rather lengthy argument at the table, so it stuck in my mind.  I often wonder if I had of just admitted that I screwed up and skipped the encounter, if it wouldn't have been a better solution.

And again, DM's good and bad are sometimes wrong.  It happens.  AFAIC, a good DM knows when to step back and relax.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 31, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Not to be a killjoy, but, "makes sense" to who?  .




The DM.  That's really the only person who _needs_ to know how the rules work.  He or she is the one running the game, not the players.  Also, there's some pretty significant historical precedence that shows that the game can easily be played this way.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 31, 2014)

Hussar said:


> I pointed out that plate mail actually predates chain by a considerable margin.




Are you sure you have the same ideas of what constitutes "plate mail"?  If, for example, you are thinking someone wearing a breastplate and greaves constitutes plate mail, and she's thinking plate mail is gothic knightly full plate armor, then, yes you would have some disagreement.

As far as I'm aware, there's evidence of Etruscan pattern mail from the 4th Century BC, possibly as far back as 7th Century BC.  You arguing that plate mail is older than that?  

The Europeans didn't start using 4-in-1 weave until the Middle Ages, but maille in general is far older than 4-in-1 weave.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2014)

Sacrosanct said:


> The DM.  That's really the only person who _needs_ to know how the rules work.  He or she is the one running the game, not the players.  Also, there's some pretty significant historical precedence that shows that the game can easily be played this way.




Sure, I'm not disputing that.  What I'm disputing is the idea that this is the only way to play.  You can very easily have disagreements about what "makes sense" and the type of big daddy pants style game that you're leaning towards is very, very much not to my taste.

Plus, I loathe playing with players who don't understand the rules.  Hate it with a passion.  They slow the game down to a crawl and make me want to paint the walls with my brains as we have to explain someone's character sheet for the seven hundredth time.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Are you sure you have the same ideas of what constitutes "plate mail"?  If, for example, you are thinking someone wearing a breastplate and greaves constitutes plate mail, and she's thinking plate mail is gothic knightly full plate armor, then, yes you would have some disagreement.
> 
> As far as I'm aware, there's evidence of Etruscan pattern mail from the 4th Century BC, possibly as far back as 7th Century BC.  You arguing that plate mail is older than that?
> 
> The Europeans didn't start using 4-in-1 weave until the Middle Ages, but maille in general is far older than 4-in-1 weave.




Fair enough.  But, then, you're just proving my point.  Because it is so easy for miscommunications, it can be very easy to get into arguments over "what makes sense".


----------



## Authweight (Dec 31, 2014)

I'm with Hussar. If it makes sense to everyone at the table that something should work a certain way, then sure, just do it that way. If people have different ideas of what makes sense, though, you need to navigate it with some delicacy. Obviously, rules disputes are impossible if only one person is concerned with the rules. The written text is there to help resolve places where what "makes sense" is different for everyone at the table.

That said, I think that in a functional gaming group, trust can go a long way. Players should generally give the DM a fairly wide latitude. DMs should give their players some latitude too though - if someone really feels like something should work a certain way, and it matter to their character a lot, their position should IMO be privileged over the intuitions of the DM.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 31, 2014)

As DM it is your job to make people want to play in your game.  

Once you have achieved this, the question of who else the rulings make sense to is moot.  

If you need to have a side conversation with someone so that everyone has fair expectations.  Then cool.  
But if you are constantly needing to deal with someone who isn't willing to work with the method described in the OP, then you are better off without that player than you are with a game compromised by that person.

If losing one or more players means you can't keep a table, then you have not achieved the first line of this post.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2014)

Here's a perfect example in this forum.  There's an ongoing discussion on how blindsight works in this thread:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...nd-opinions-after-8-levels-and-a-dragon-fight .  Now, I have my interpretation and Celtavian has another one.  Which one makes sense?  Well, mine makes sense to me and his makes sense to him.  Can a creature with blindsight see through doors, for example.  No one is being unreasonable but, disagreements do happen.

I'm not comfortable with the idea that "It makes sense to the DM, so, that's what we do".  It's not to my taste.  I'd prefer a much more consensus approach.  Not that I'm saying it's better.  I'm not.  For some groups, go with what the DM says.  Fair enough.  Like I said, it's purely a taste thing.


----------



## Quatermane (Dec 31, 2014)

Rules lawyers around the world both love and hate this flowchart.
They love it because it represents the processes they use every day.
They hate it because... well...  now everyone knows their tricks.  Kinda takes the fun out of being a rules lawyer.


----------



## Jester David (Dec 31, 2014)

Hussar said:


> I'm not sure it's even a trust issue.
> 
> I'll give you an example.  I had a DM tell me that there was no plate mail in her world because plate mail was a later invention than chain mail and she wanted a historically accurate game.  I pointed out that plate mail actually predates chain by a considerable margin.  But, she stuck to her guns and insisted that her interpretation of history was right because, well, why would chain mail, with an AC of 5 be a later invention than plate mail with an AC of 3?
> 
> ...



There's still trust involve. 
Did you trust her to tell a good story regardless of historical armour beliefs? Then it wasn't really a problem. 

Bringing up the terrain of a manticore was a dick move. A reasonable player (who trusted the DM) would not have brought that up, or raised it in a non-confrontational manner. Or a super DM might have slyly smiled and said "yes, that is odd" and used that for a potential story hook. 



Hussar said:


> And again, DM's good and bad are sometimes wrong.  It happens.  AFAIC, a good DM knows when to step back and relax.



Which is true for rules, non rules, plot points, NPCs, and lots of other things. Learning to make good calls is part of learning to be a good DM.


----------



## DaveDash (Dec 31, 2014)

The problem I have with this, and 5th edition in general, is that myself and my friends all have expectations on certain aspects of the game. No amount of DM empowerment through the books will change this. The DM changing things or ruling against our expectations (myself included when I DM) will ruin the enjoyment of the game.

For the flowchart to be accurate, it really needs to say "Does the ruling make sense for the table", not "Does the ruling make sense to you".


----------



## steeldragons (Dec 31, 2014)

DaveDash said:


> For the flowchart to be accurate, it really needs to say "Does the ruling make sense for the table", not "Does the ruling make sense to you".




No. It really doesn't. For the flowcart to be accurate _to you_ it needs to say that. That is personal preference, not some objective accuracy.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 31, 2014)

That's really nitpicking though.  I don't think either of you are really wrong.  The important thing is the overall point.  That being, "If a rule at first doesn't seem to make sense, evaluate it in the context of other similar rules and the intent of the design.  If it still doesn't make sense, do what you want with it and don't let it stop your gaming."


----------



## BryonD (Dec 31, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Here's a perfect example in this forum.  There's an ongoing discussion on how blindsight works in this thread:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...nd-opinions-after-8-levels-and-a-dragon-fight .  Now, I have my interpretation and Celtavian has another one.  Which one makes sense?  Well, mine makes sense to me and his makes sense to him.  Can a creature with blindsight see through doors, for example.  No one is being unreasonable but, disagreements do happen.
> 
> I'm not comfortable with the idea that "It makes sense to the DM, so, that's what we do".  It's not to my taste.  I'd prefer a much more consensus approach.  Not that I'm saying it's better.  I'm not.  For some groups, go with what the DM says.  Fair enough.  Like I said, it's purely a taste thing.



Lets assume Celtavian is running a game and you and I are players.  
Celtavian is running a great game.

This (or some other issue) comes up.  For sake of argument, presume I agree 100% with you.
If this becomes more than a 15 second conversation, I will be annoyed with you as a player.
Whenever the issue passes, if your engagement and attitude at the table is negatively impacted, I will be annoyed with you as a player.
(If neither of those happens then you are misrepresenting in this thread).

It is not about which side you are on for any given issue.  It is about enjoying a great game run by a great DM.


----------



## Authweight (Dec 31, 2014)

Sacrosanct said:


> That's really nitpicking though.  I don't think either of you are really wrong.  The important thing is the overall point.  That being, "If a rule at first doesn't seem to make sense, evaluate it in the context of other similar rules and the intent of the design.  If it still doesn't make sense, do what you want with it and don't let it stop your gaming."




I guess my problem is that this is sort of like saying, "is your car broken? Well if it is, you should go fix it." It's not wrong exactly, it's just not very helpful.

To good DMs, it's advice so obvious as to be pointless, and to beginner DMs it's advice so vague as to be unhelpful. The difficult parts are in deciding questions like "does it make sense?" or what changes you should make if it doesn't. Changing the rules on the fly is like fixing a car: if you know what you're doing, it works just fine, but if you have no idea what's going on you should probably leave it to the pros.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 31, 2014)

Authweight said:


> I guess my problem is that this is sort of like saying, "is your car broken? Well if it is, you should go fix it." It's not wrong exactly, it's just not very helpful.
> 
> To good DMs, it's advice so obvious as to be pointless, and to beginner DMs it's advice so vague as to be unhelpful. The difficult parts are in deciding questions like "does it make sense?" or what changes you should make if it doesn't. Changing the rules on the fly is like fixing a car: if you know what you're doing, it works just fine, but if you have no idea what's going on you should probably leave it to the pros.




And yet, as kids in the early 80s, we didn't know what the hell we were doing and we had a blast.  Perhaps we should just let people have fun without trying to quantify how "right" they are or aren't.  If you (or your table) is OK with a rule, it really doesn't matter if they are experts or novices, does it?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2014)

Jester Canuck said:


> There's still trust involve.
> Did you trust her to tell a good story regardless of historical armour beliefs? Then it wasn't really a problem.
> 
> Bringing up the terrain of a manticore was a dick move. A reasonable player (who trusted the DM) would not have brought that up, or raised it in a non-confrontational manner. Or a super DM might have slyly smiled and said "yes, that is odd" and used that for a potential story hook.
> ...




Yeah, personally, I kinda think it's a dick move too.  But, then, I wasn't the one bringing it up.  He didn't think he was being a dick.  And, considering the amount of ink spilled over the last couple of years about the importance of D&D canon (cf. anything to do with Planescape or any 4e changes to monsters), I'd say there is a significant portion of gamers for whom this sort of thing matters.  

Obviously, it didn't matter to me.    Heh,  I was shocked to read the climate/terrain bit in the Monster Manual for 2e.  I had been using manticores for years in all sorts of situations and never gave it a moments thought.  But, the point here is, I was wrong.  It's no different than trying to drop a tiger in Africa.  I was 100% wrong here.  Manticores, by the rules, don't live where I put that one.  So, is the player really wrong for bringing this up?  At the time, I was kinda peeved, since it ground the game to a screeching halt.  But, looking back at it, it's not cut and dried.


----------



## Authweight (Dec 31, 2014)

Sacrosanct said:


> And yet, as kids in the early 80s, we didn't know what the hell we were doing and we had a blast.  Perhaps we should just let people have fun without trying to quantify how "right" they are or aren't.  If you (or your table) is OK with a rule, it really doesn't matter if they are experts or novices, does it?




Obviously if everyone is fine with a rule/interpretation, it's best to go with that, and overthinking it can make things unnecessarily difficult. The issue, though, is when not everyone is fine with a rule/interpretation. IME that's where new groups usually run into trouble


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2014)

Sacrosanct said:


> And yet, as kids in the early 80s, we didn't know what the hell we were doing and we had a blast.  Perhaps we should just let people have fun without trying to quantify how "right" they are or aren't.  If you (or your table) is OK with a rule, it really doesn't matter if they are experts or novices, does it?




To be fair though, as kids in the early 80's, we had a LOT of crap games too.


----------



## Authweight (Dec 31, 2014)

Hussar said:


> To be fair though, as kids in the early 80's, we had a LOT of crap games too.




Haha yeah. I was a kid in the early 2000s, but I figure it was similar then. I had way more games brought down by dumb rules arguments than brought down by trying to cling to rules none of us liked. The difficult part was not in realizing that the rules are malleable, the difficult part was resolving disputes over how the rules should be interpreted.

These days we mostly don't argue over rules any more. When we do, it's with a sense of humor and a willingness to compromise to keep the game flowing. But we're mature adults (well, sort of), and we understand that 1) it's not worth fighting over and 2) if we don't like it, we can always just leave. But we're also much better at navigating disputes so that everyone comes out happy instead of digging our heels in and refusing to acknowledge that other people's opinions matter.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 31, 2014)

Hussar said:


> Or, another time, I bombed the party with a manticore.  I love manticores.  One of my favourite critters.  A player piped up and complained that I was using a manticore in a completely wrong terrain - manticores in 2e were desert monsters and we were in a temperate forest.  Now, he was 100% right, but, I stuck to my guns.  It wound up being a rather lengthy argument at the table, so it stuck in my mind.  I often wonder if I had of just admitted that I screwed up and skipped the encounter, if it wouldn't have been a better solution.
> 
> And again, DM's good and bad are sometimes wrong.  It happens.  AFAIC, a good DM knows when to step back and relax.




No player should ever be arguing you're using a monster in the "wrong" terrain.  This is a good example of "no arguing at the table, leave it to after the session" type thing. I mean come on now, players shouldn't ever be bringing up that sort of information.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 1, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> No player should ever be arguing you're using a monster in the "wrong" terrain.  This is a good example of "no arguing at the table, leave it to after the session" type thing. I mean come on now, players shouldn't ever be bringing up that sort of information.




I largely agree, but, there's a voice in the back of my head that says, "Why not?"  Why shouldn't the player bring this up.  Let's not forget, I was wrong here.  I've had players argue with me when I was right, and that probably irks me far more.  I have no problems with the player questioning me, heck, I'm not that strong on mechanics as it is, and I can play things pretty fast and loose sometimes, so, having a player get me back on the road isn't a bad thing IMO.  But, when I can point to chapter and verse in the rules and prove that I'm right, that should always be the end of the discussion.

I recall having one player argue that since in 3e a ring of sustenance cuts down on sleep time, and elves don't really sleep at all, combining the two would mean that his elf wizard would be able to re-memorize spells after something like 1 or 2 hours of rest.  When I pointed out that this was 100% wrong, the player quit the game.  Aw shucks.  I was totally bummed out.  ((note the sarcasm here))

But, in this particular case, I was wrong and chapter and verse showed that I was wrong.  Why should the fact that I'm sitting in the DM's chair mean that my mistakes don't matter.  If a player pulled a stunt like this - using something completely wrong by the rules - we'd call him a bad player.  Particularly if he insisted that he could continue to use whatever, even though it's wrong, just to "get on with the game".  I'm not sure if DM's should get a pass here.

OTOH, just to argue against myself, there's a LOT to be recommended for the idea of "shut up and play" and sort things out later.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> To be fair though, as kids in the early 80's, we had a LOT of crap games too.





Not in my experience.  Sure, there were a couple, but the vast majority of gaming was just going with the flow.  I've been playing AD&D since 1981 continuously, and I still don't have half the rules in the DMG memorized.  We had a blast just making  up and going with it.  maybe I just got really lucky and had a great group of friends, because we had a rule: if you don't like the DM's rules, DM yourself.  That solved 90% of arguments before they ever happened.




Mistwell said:


> No player should ever be arguing you're using a monster in the "wrong" terrain.  This is a good example of "no arguing at the table, leave it to after the session" type thing. I mean come on now, players shouldn't ever be bringing up that sort of information.




Indeed.  If I had a player arguing that manticore should be in the desert instead of a forest and wouldn't let it go immediately?  There would be issues.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Let's not forget, I was wrong here.




You as the DM putting a manticore in a forest instead of a desert?  You are not wrong.  


The sooner people start understanding this concept (DM empowerment for reasonable changes), the better.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 1, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> You as the DM putting a manticore in a forest instead of a desert?  You are not wrong.
> 
> 
> The sooner people start understanding this concept (DM empowerment for reasonable changes), the better.




Well, no, I was wrong.  The rules say that manticores appear in the desert.  I was using the manticore in a forested area out of ignorance, not because I had deliberately made any conscious changes to the rules. 

Now, was it a reasonable change?  Well, I certainly think so.  I would change it again in a heartbeat, and certainly have done so.  But, that wasn't the situation.  I put the monster there because I liked the monster and I wanted to use it, not because the monster should be there.  Again, considering the huge amount of angst over the past few years over changes to monsters in 4e, I'd say that this is a fairly important issue to some people.

Not me, mind you, but some people play D&D for the flavour of D&D and want that flavour to be maintained in the game.  Are they wrong for doing so?  

Now, for your second part, I do not want to play this way.  I don't like it as a DM and I don't like it as a player.  Again, for me, consensus is much more important than DM empowerment.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2015)

sigh...

you as the dm putting a manticore in the forest because you thought it was cool means you were _doing it right_.  That's what I'm trying to say.  No rule, not a single one, should prevent you from doing what you have fun doing.  Especially if it's entirely reasonable (like a manticore in a forest), and ESPECIALLY if you're the DM.

honestly, the fact that you felt like you had to change your cool idea based on metagaming, makes me pretty sad.  You're definitely not wrong by using your imagination.  Anyone who argues otherwise misses the whole point of D&D.. Just look at what the official motto of D&D was for all those years


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But, in this particular case, I was wrong and chapter and verse showed that I was wrong.  Why should the fact that I'm sitting in the DM's chair mean that my mistakes don't matter.  If a player pulled a stunt like this - using something completely wrong by the rules - we'd call him a bad player.  Particularly if he insisted that he could continue to use whatever, even though it's wrong, just to "get on with the game".  I'm not sure if DM's should get a pass here.




I like this style, and I think (and hope) I use it myself. It's not the DM's game--the DM is just one player who has a special role in running it. It is however the DM's _world_, so any time he says, "Don't worry, I did that on purpose," I expect the other players to roll with it.

I don't know what I would have done in the case of your plate vs. chain controversy, but I'd like to think I would have discussed it amicably with the player in question and come to some kind of resolution that we can both agree to live with, whether that means, "Okay, you've convinced me, so I'll outlaw chain mail too/allow plate armor" or "Yeah, it's interesting that they invented chain but not plate, huh?"


----------



## BryonD (Jan 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Not me, mind you, but some people play D&D for the flavour of D&D and want that flavour to be maintained in the game.  Are they wrong for doing so?



I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if anyone is remotely that stressed over a manticore in the forest, then they are not "wrong" but quite ridiculous.

Now, if the mechanics specifically made the issue meaningful, that would be different.
And getting upset over things that have a major impact on heavily established lore is a reasonable concern.  But there are reasonable (and I'd dare-say obvious) limits.




> Now, for your second part, I do not want to play this way.  I don't like it as a DM and I don't like it as a player.  Again, for me, consensus is much more important than DM empowerment.



DM empowerment is not an end to itself.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 1, 2015)

BryonD said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if anyone is remotely that stressed over a manticore in the forest, then they are not "wrong" but quite ridiculous.




Obviously it was important enough to the guy that he memorized what terrains manticores live in. If one of my players was obsessed enough to learn that kind of detail, why wouldn't I want to respect his feelings enough to at least _consider_ changing the encounter (or at least re-flavoring it as a different color of manticore, which lives in different terrain and may have different habits, lifecycle, or stats) instead of dismissing his concerns out of hand?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> Obviously it was important enough to the guy that he memorized what terrains manticores live in. If one of my players was obsessed enough to learn that kind of detail, why wouldn't I want to respect his feelings enough to at least _consider_ changing the encounter (or at least re-flavoring it as a different color of manticore, which lives in different terrain and may have different habits, lifecycle, or stats) instead of dismissing his concerns out of hand?




because metagaming with out of character knowledge is generally considered bad form at best?

heck, if I know I'm gaming with someone who wants to memorize everything in the book and apply it when their character would never have such knowledge, I will change things up on purpose.

no one likes a rules lawyer who sucks the fun out of the game.  "Products of your imagination" for a reason


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 1, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> because metagaming with out of character knowledge is generally considered bad form at best?
> 
> heck, if I know I'm gaming with someone who wants to memorize everything in the book and apply it when their character would never have such knowledge, I will change things up on purpose.
> 
> no one likes a rules lawyer who sucks the fun out of the game.  "Products of your imagination" for a reason




What makes you think the knowledge would be out-of-character? You don't even know what his character was. And, since the character didn't _do_ anything with the knowledge (only the player did), there isn't even an issue there.

Some people just notice things. If my DM tells me that my ship just got sucked into a black hole but I can _shoot my way back out of the event horizon using phasers_, to me it is immediately obvious that this is a stupid, unphysical plan, and the fact that the DM allows it doesn't make it not-groanworthy. Maybe this guy notices Manticore anomalies in that same way. You don't know the situation, don't judge.

Or do, if you want to. It's your game, YMMV.


----------



## Henry (Jan 1, 2015)

Now, if it had been a *SHARKNADO* in a forest... THEN you'd have been totally wrong.


----------



## Raith5 (Jan 1, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> No. It really doesn't. For the flowcart to be accurate _to you_ it needs to say that. That is personal preference, not some objective accuracy.




But isnt that the pathway to solo D&D? For rules to work in a social game there needs to be some common agreement or a meta agreement about how rules are changed or adjusted. 

I have no problem with DMs controlling which armours or monsters are present in a given context. The game requires scene setting authority with the DM. But I dont like unilateral changes or interpretation to rules which actively nerf individual players - I dont see how it makes a good game


----------



## aramis erak (Jan 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> To be fair though, as kids in the early 80's, we had a LOT of crap games too.




In the early 80's I was a monte-haul GM. I thought I was a major-monte-haul-from-hell, but then I met some guys in college who made me realize I was anything but... but by then, I was (1) no longer running D&D regularly, (2) no longer running monte-haul style, (3) MUCH much wiser about what made my games fizzle.

Rules interpretation by on-the-fly call and discuss after session by consensus seems to be the safest route. If you ≤Bleep≥ it up, admit so, make note of it†, and go forward from there.

I also learned to not look to prior editions for correct interpretations of current editions, but to look at them for explanations of why something odd was retained. And to treat each set of rules as a separate, stand alone game, so as to prevent assuming something was handled one way when the intent was some other way. (I've played almost all the editions for at least a couple sessions each... not holmes, and not 4e essentials.)

† make a physical note. The act of writing something down once has been shown to exceed the recall rate amongst elementary and middle school students over reciting it 10x... but it takes about 100 repetitions to ingrain something...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, personally, I kinda think it's a dick move too.  But, then, I wasn't the one bringing it up.  He didn't think he was being a dick.  And, considering the amount of ink spilled over the last couple of years about the importance of D&D canon (cf. anything to do with Planescape or any 4e changes to monsters), I'd say there is a significant portion of gamers for whom this sort of thing matters.
> 
> Obviously, it didn't matter to me.    Heh,  I was shocked to read the climate/terrain bit in the Monster Manual for 2e.  I had been using manticores for years in all sorts of situations and never gave it a moments thought.  But, the point here is, I was wrong.  It's no different than trying to drop a tiger in Africa.  I was 100% wrong here.  Manticores, by the rules, don't live where I put that one.  So, is the player really wrong for bringing this up?  At the time, I was kinda peeved, since it ground the game to a screeching halt.  But, looking back at it, it's not cut and dried.




There is a manticore in White Plume Mountain. There are manticores in the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. There are manticores wherever the heck the DM thinks it would be cool to have manticores. 

The only one who needs to know the who, what and why of everything is the DM. If you feel the need to know all this stuff then run your own game.


----------



## Authweight (Jan 1, 2015)

I really believe that everyone at the table should have an attitude of openness and willingness to compromise. If the DM has a really cool idea, the players should accept it and roll with it. If a player has a cool thing they want to do, the DM and everyone else at the table should be willing to roll with it unless it's causing real problems.

I also think that part and parcel of DMing is navigating the compromises necessary to make the game flow smoothly. If your players are upset, then you should be re-evaluating your approach. Sometimes your players are just unreasonable, but as often as not it really is your own fault.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Here's a perfect example in this forum.  There's an ongoing discussion on how blindsight works in this thread:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...nd-opinions-after-8-levels-and-a-dragon-fight .  Now, I have my interpretation and Celtavian has another one.  Which one makes sense?  Well, mine makes sense to me and his makes sense to him.  Can a creature with blindsight see through doors, for example.  No one is being unreasonable but, disagreements do happen.
> 
> I'm not comfortable with the idea that "It makes sense to the DM, so, that's what we do".  It's not to my taste.  I'd prefer a much more consensus approach.  Not that I'm saying it's better.  I'm not.  For some groups, go with what the DM says.  Fair enough.  Like I said, it's purely a taste thing.



There's no perfect situation. 

They can make rules that cover each potential situation, but that's going to take a lot of room and cut into other content. 
And, invariably, there's going to be some situation that doesn't work. For example, something with radar sense (like Daredevil) shouldn't be able to blindsense through a door but something with tremor sense should be able to feel vibrations. Or stealth rules that invariably end up either requiring DM adjudication or somehow just allow someone to "hide" in the middle of a featureless room because of how the rules are phrased. 

The unique thing about D&D and simmilar RPGs is that there is a sentient thinking being running the game. That's one of the few things that separates it from other forms of game or RPGs. That should be encouraged. Emphasized. Otherwise the game is just a computer RPG with a slower processor. You shouldn't just be able to replace the DM with simple procedural text or rules knowledge.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 1, 2015)

Raith5 said:


> But isnt that the pathway to solo D&D? For rules to work in a social game there needs to be some common agreement or a meta agreement about how rules are changed or adjusted.




You say that as if solo D&D is a bad thing. It's different, but still fun. (I believe the OP mentioned the Lone Wolf adventures, which aren't D&D but still...)


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Jan 1, 2015)

Authweight said:


> I'm with Hussar. If it makes sense to everyone at the table that something should work a certain way, then sure, just do it that way. If people have different ideas of what makes sense, though, you need to navigate it with some delicacy. Obviously, rules disputes are impossible if only one person is concerned with the rules. The written text is there to help resolve places where what "makes sense" is different for everyone at the table.




I'd rather just have the DM make a call and move on with the game.  I've seen rules discussions like this go on for entirely too long, and that's not what I'm at the game to do.  Accepting a DM decision, even one I don't care for, and playing for the next hour is far preferable to spending that hour in a rules discussion.  Even ten minutes is too large of a waste of time for me to tolerate.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jan 1, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Well, no, I was wrong.  The rules say that manticores appear in the desert.  I was using the manticore in a forested area out of ignorance, not because I had deliberately made any conscious changes to the rules.




This is totally foreign to me. 

As far as I'm concerned: This is not a rule, but a piece of lore, and the sole purpose of lore is DM inspiration. If it hadn't previously been established in the campaign (by the DM) that manticores only appear in deserts, then that's just not a thing. It's not a change if it hasn't been established!

I don't even know how I'd respond to a player who made such a point during a game. I imagine I'd open with a chuckle, but probably end up with a blank stare of confusion if he persisted.

.

But otherwise I agree. I'm vary of house rules based on what "makes sense" unless everyone is in agreement on what makes sense.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 1, 2015)

Mishihari Lord said:


> I'd rather just have the DM make a call and move on with the game.  I've seen rules discussions like this go on for entirely too long, and that's not what I'm at the game to do.  Accepting a DM decision, even one I don't care for, and playing for the next hour is far preferable to spending that hour in a rules discussion.  Even ten minutes is too large of a waste of time for me to tolerate.




Rules discussions like this *will *go on for entirely too long.  And they _*will go on at the table and be an interruption to play*_.  This is especially likely to happen when you're playing at a table where most participants, or everyone, are GMs or at least have GMing experience.  This is an inevitability of a "rulings not rules" ethos combined with a ruleset that has various rules intersections where one aspect that must be considered during adjudication is codified, measured, and pinned down with precision....while another aspect, or potentially multiple aspects, that must be referenced with respect to the first is scribed in an intentionally vague or deeply abstracted manner.  It will be intuitive to some to reference one precedent in the ruleset (which may be the vague part or the codified part) to determine what spits out of that mix, while it will be entirely intuitive for another to reference another, perhaps wildly, divergent precedence.

In these scenarios, when players have to rely on their reason and intuition (rather than symmetry and clarity within the rules) in order to form coherent action declarations...and then the GM vetoes it because of different reasoning or intuition...it should be expected that there is going to be some extremely jarring moments for players and likely some pushback (hopefully overt pushback rather than passive-aggressiveness).  Further, if it happens in _this _instance (where varying reason, intuition, and precedence invoked regarding the interpretation of the ruleset's intersections causes a divergence of expectations on action declaration and resolution), you can certainly expect it to happen in plenty of other instances.

While I understand your inclination toward wanting to "just have the GM make a call and move on....even if you don't care for the GM's decision", there is a problem with that that can, and will (and I'm sure you know this given you've been playing for some time) proliferate as the game moves on and this (good faith) variance in interpretations persist.  In order for the game to work at all, player expectation and GM expectation of what comes out of these rules intersections *must *be fairly congruent with extreme regularity.  When this doesn't happen, players are suddenly left in the uncomfortable position of making action declarations (of which they find intuitive and sensible) that are askew of what the actual world (in this case GM rulings) says is intuitive and sensible.  It becomes akin to a real person physically moving through our world suddenly having their proprioception and/or spatial awareness upended.  Expect a loss of confidence and faith in their senses, their mind's orientation toward all things, and their subsequent movements based on the combination of the two.  When another person's "say so" is the causal mechanism for the disruption of their sense of themselves and other objects in space, expect some bad feelings and some pushback.  That isn't immaturity or egoism.  That is inevitable and natural.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 1, 2015)

I keep wanting to start a thread of my own on the currency of trust, and the DM's authority. We see it come up here too. 

I always look at it this way, if you have 2 DMs, and one always makes fun and interesting games, and the other make OK games to bad games depending, then these nit picking styles show up more in the second DMs games... as a player if you are not having fun little things stick out more (like the manticore) and as a DM you should realize you are starting to lose your players at moments like this.

When in my deadlands game about 10 years ago I had to explain what a wandering Marshal was to a player that new almost nothing about the wild west (In fact didn't even know the genre existed) I said a bit like a Jedi (this was about the time the prequals where being made) a walking law man that could be a Judge Jury and Executioner. One of my other friends pitch a fit and the entire game ground to a halt with 3 hours of debate because all 7 of us involved (me and 6 players) could not agree on what a marshal was...

To this day Kurt and I disagree with how much a Marshal could or could not do...  the real problem was though that from game one there was a building issue, one where the players and the DM (me) where not on the same page. I was running fort courage and yosemity sam with a bit of Moo mesa and spaghetti westerns thrown in... some players were looking for realistic frontier, and others wanted dark gritty... 1 player had no idea what to expect and thought it would be more Victorian steam punk, and like I said there was a young girl from Russia that had no idea what "wild West" ment at game one...

I wasn't a bad DM (I hope) but I was running through my trust currency fast, and when it ran out with kurt things went south fast...


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 1, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> A lot of folks cannot seem to handle the fact that, yes, it really is that simple.




MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Seriously, if you think it is that simple _you have never been a DM_.

Missing from the flowchart are all sorts of little boxes with labels like:

"Are you in play or between sessions?"
"Are you the DM?"
"Do your player's trust you yet?"
"Will a player's PC or player be significantly inconvenienced by the rule change?"
"Is the life of a PC at stake?"
"Does everyone at the table agree that rule is unclear?"
"Does everyone at the table agree that your new rule is clear, balanced, and playable?"
"Is one of the players that is objecting normally an insufferable rules lawyer?"

And so on and so forth.


----------



## Paraxis (Jan 1, 2015)

We can only hope for an edition that one day where the rules don't need to be interpreted, 4e came close.  The more the DM feels the need to have to patch or houserule the worse the game is.  Just play as close to RAW as you can and change your story and world around it.


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 1, 2015)

Paraxis said:


> The more the DM feels the need to have to patch or houserule the worse the game is.




I believe there are a minimum of 1.5 to 2.5 decades of the game and players, including those who solely ran PCs, those who sometimes played PCs and sometimes DMed, and players who solely DM'd, who would disagree with this assessment.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 1, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> Obviously it was important enough to the guy that he memorized what terrains manticores live in. If one of my players was obsessed enough to learn that kind of detail, why wouldn't I want to respect his feelings enough to at least _consider_ changing the encounter (or at least re-flavoring it as a different color of manticore, which lives in different terrain and may have different habits, lifecycle, or stats) instead of dismissing his concerns out of hand?



Because he wasn't the one running the game and has no way of knowing that what he memorized has any bearing on the campaign that is currently happening.

Because he is one of many players at the table and disrupting the game over something this petty shows a great deal of lack of respect for the other people there to have a good time.

Because it is better to get rid of problematic players than settle for milktoast compromise on everything.  And if you have to compromise on something this petty, you are sunk.


----------



## Uchawi (Jan 1, 2015)

Above all else be consistent with you rulings. They should add a reminder to right it down, if you are making up a ruling on the fly, versus verifying an existing rule.


----------



## Henry (Jan 1, 2015)

Paraxis said:


> We can only hope for an edition that one day where the rules don't need to be interpreted, 4e came close.  The more the DM feels the need to have to patch or houserule the worse the game is.  Just play as close to RAW as you can and change your story and world around it.



Doesn't what you just said above fly totally in the face of the quote from Psion in your .sig? Psion's all about not being locked into a rule but making them serve the game or genre you're trying to play, and you just said to craft your story around the rules.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 1, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> I believe there are a minimum of 1.5 to 2.5 decades of the game and players, including those who solely ran PCs, those who sometimes played PCs and sometimes DMed, and players who solely DM'd, who would disagree with this assessment.



 there are also those that agree with him... funny how you always forget that...

now we can debate till we are blue in the face witch set of players is right or more numerous, but neither of us really knows...



BryonD said:


> Because he wasn't the one running the game and has no way of knowing that what he memorized has any bearing on the campaign that is currently happening.
> 
> Because he is one of many players at the table and disrupting the game over something this petty shows a great deal of lack of respect for the other people there to have a good time.
> 
> Because it is better to get rid of problematic players than settle for milktoast compromise on everything.  And if you have to compromise on something this petty, you are sunk.




I love that something that matters to a player (and presumable a friend, at least an acquaintance of some time) dome how is less important to you then other players (and presumable a friend, at least an acquaintance of some time) fun... how do I decide between Ross and Kurt when both I have know for almost twenty years?? I mean really, if a player says "Hey, stop the game something here is bugging me and making me have less fun" why NOT address it?


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 1, 2015)

Paraxis said:


> We can only hope for an edition that one day where the rules don't need to be interpreted




I hope not.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 1, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> Rules discussions like this *will *go on for entirely too long.  And they _*will go on at the table and be an interruption to play*_....expect some bad feelings and some pushback.  That isn't immaturity or egoism.  That is inevitable and natural.




No really, it's not inevitable, and it does not have to happen, and it really does not happen in my 5e games at all. I make decisions on the fly all the time, and we don't have a dispute erupt at all over it even if I happen to be wrong, because game flow without rules debate is more important for everyone at my table than being right about their view of the rules.

The game isn't the rules.  And frankly, not everyone cares as much as you do about their expectations concerning the rules being realized.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 1, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> game flow without rules debate is more important for everyone at my table than being right about their view of the rules.




witch is true at every table...until it isn't. At some point you run out of what I call Trust currency, right now your game works because you tell a good story and your players tust you to run a good game (great for you) but everytime they disagree with a dission or a ruleing it eats away at that trust currency. As long as you are all more or less on the same page it works... when you deviate it wont work anymore...


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> there are also those that agree with him... funny how you always forget that...




Didn't forget it, but it doesn't seem to be as many as you think







> now we can debate till we are blue in the face witch set of players is right or more numerous, but neither of us really knows...




We don't need to debate the #s.  We can look at the market and see what happened.  For people like yourself and Paraxis, you seem to be in the minority of what most gamers wanted.  Nothing wrong with your preferred style of play, but it seems obvious at this point you're not representative of the larger gamer market, which is what the D&D brand needs to target.  Being the most popular RPG and all.





Mistwell said:


> No really, it's not inevitable, and it does not have to happen, and it really does not happen in my 5e games at all. I make decisions on the fly all the time, and we don't have a dispute erupt at all over it even if I happen to be wrong, because game flow without rules debate is more important for everyone at my table than being right about their view of the rules.
> 
> The game isn't the rules.




Yeah, and to be honest, a lot of the experiences some folks have said sort of baffle me.  I mean, we're adults right?  The last time anyone at any table I ever played at got into a real argument over a rule was when I was a kid.  And I haven't played with only the same small group these 30+ years either.  I was in the military so we had a different gaming group every month, and I've played a lot at cons with pick up groups and whatnot.  It seems to be that some of these experiences are very much the exception.

I mean, even today I don't always agree with a ruling the DM makes, but as an adult, I realize that a) it's just a game, and b) he's the one DMing it, I just shrug and move on.  What's arguing the point going to accomplish?

99.99% of my experiences go like this:

DM ruling
Me: "Hmmmm, that doesn't seem to make sense to me.  Here's how I interpreted it."
DM: "OK, this is how I felt it means, and how I interpret it in my games."
me: shrug.  "Fair enough.  You're game.  I will adjust accordingly"

or

DM ruling
Me: "Hmmmm, that doesn't seem to make sense to me.  Here's how I interpreted it."
DM: "OK, this is how I felt it means, and how I interpret it in my games.  But I can see your point.  What does everyone else think?"


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 1, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> witch is true at every table...until it isn't. At some point you run out of what I call Trust currency, right now your game works because you tell a good story and your players tust you to run a good game (great for you) but everytime they disagree with a dission or a ruleing it eats away at that trust currency. As long as you are all more or less on the same page it works... when you deviate it wont work anymore...




No really, it doesn't.  I've been playing since 1977.  It's NEVER been an issue since I became an adult and started playing with adults.  And there are many people here at EW, and at other sites that talk about D&D, that verify this.  Sometimes people genuinely don't care.  They really don't care if their view of the rules works out or not.  They don't care if their view is constantly contradicted by the DM.  They real DON'T CARE.  It's not a priority for them.  They are there to play a fun game and be social with their friends.  They trust the DM to make it a fun game, even if it doesn't play out how they expect it will based on their view of the rules.

There's this bizarre conception that always causes problem on message boards.  The idea that ones experience is universal, and that you can discern universal claims about players and DMs based on your own experience.  You cannot.  I can honestly say what has happened with my games, and what others have reported about theirs.  There is no universal experience.  You cannot speak to a universal force operator that plays on rules interpretation in D&D.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 1, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> No really, it doesn't.  I've been playing since 1977.  It's NEVER been an issue.  And there are many people here at EW, and at other sites that talk about D&D, that verify this.  Sometimes people genuinely don't care.  They really don't care if their view of the rules works out or not.  They don't care if their view is constantly contradicted by the DM.  They real DON'T CARE.  It's not a priority for them.  They are there to play a fun game and be social with their friends.  They trust the DM to make it a fun game, even if it doesn't play out how they expect it will based on their view of the rules.
> 
> There's this bizarre conception that always causes problem on message boards.  The idea that ones experience is universal, and that you can discern universal claims about players and DMs based on your own experience.  You cannot.  I can honestly say what has happened with my games, and what others have reported about theirs.  There is no universal experience.  You cannot speak to a universal force operator that plays on rules interpretation in D&D.



doesn;t the second paragraph basically say your first one is wrong?


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 1, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> doesn;t the second paragraph basically say your first one is wrong?




No because I made no universal claims in my first paragraph, just claims about my games, and what some others have reported from theirs (not all others, just some).

The only universal claim I've made is that you can't really make universal claims about D&D


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 1, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Didn't forget it, but it doesn't seem to be as many as you think
> 
> We don't need to debate the #s.  We can look at the market and see what happened.  For people like yourself and Paraxis, you seem to be in the minority of what most gamers wanted.  Nothing wrong with your preferred style of play, but it seems obvious at this point you're not representative of the larger gamer market, which is what the D&D brand needs to target.  Being the most popular RPG and all.



please prove this... show me the numbers...





> Yeah, and to be honest, a lot of the experiences some folks have said sort of baffle me.  I mean, we're adults right?  The last time anyone at any table I ever played at got into a real argument over a rule was when I was a kid.  And I haven't played with only the same small group these 30+ years either.  I was in the military so we had a different gaming group every month, and I've played a lot at cons with pick up groups and whatnot.  It seems to be that some of these experiences are very much the exception.
> 
> I mean, even today I don't always agree with a ruling the DM makes, but as an adult, I realize that a) it's just a game, and b) he's the one DMing it, I just shrug and move on.  What's arguing the point going to accomplish?
> 
> ...



 that is how about 80-90% of mine go to... although with like 3 or 4 people giving there thoughts and opionons instead of 2 (you know whole table) the problem comes up when we disagree and try to change each others minds...


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 1, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> there are also those that agree with him... funny how you always forget that...
> 
> now we can debate till we are blue in the face witch set of players is right or more numerous, but neither of us really knows...




I do not "always forget that." That is a given. We all know that. Thus, it does not require comment.

There will be people that agree with me [at least some times]. That is also a given and, so, does not require my pointing it out.

Obviously there will be people that agree with them [whoever the "them"/whatever the thread is]. Agreement with a point I disagree with is irrelevant to how I view the point/opinion (whatever it happens to be).

To put it, perhaps, more clearly: Because people agree with a given statement/opinion is not a reason I need to change my opinion/position of it.

Are you suggesting I should need to individually address, in every post, "my comments apply to everyone who thinks/agrees with <this position, comment, opinion, preference> with *which* I disagree"? That seems like a lot of extra typing for something we all know/understand.

As for arguing til we're blue in the face, I am perfectly happy with my complexion in its current hue....though this time of year, I could certainly use a tan. So thanks anyway, but I'll pass on the argument. Hope that doesn't hurt [anyone's] feelings/"insult" anyone.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 1, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> No because I made no universal claims in my first paragraph, just claims about my games, and what some others have reported from theirs (not all others, just some).
> 
> The only universal claim I've made is that you can't really make universal claims about D&D




then how does it contradict anything I said? 

what I said was:


GMforPowergamers said:


> witch is true at every table...until it isn't. At some point you run out of what I call Trust currency, right now your game works because you tell a good story and your players tust you to run a good game (great for you) but everytime they disagree with a dission or a ruleing it eats away at that trust currency. As long as you are all more or less on the same page it works... when you deviate it wont work anymore...




so it is true at your table... as long as you are running a fun game your player buy into... and you have this trust currency.

your table will fall aprt (in my theory atleast) if you make large sweeping rulings your players disagree with. What about this do you no agree with? do you belive if they are not having fun and dislike your style and disagree with how you run games they will not tell you or show it in anyway?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> please prove this... show me the numbers...
> 
> .





Sales figures and popularity of 4e (first time a previous edition outsold a current one in the same window of time, which is essentially what PF is--a version of 3x)
Survey feedback with an overwhelming response supporting rulings over rules (as told by the DEV team)
Implementation of this style into 5e, followed by the reception and popularity since it's release, with overwhelming responses of people who have said they came back to D&D with this edition

Come to whatever conclusion you want, but it seems clear to me that your style is the minority, and can't support the D&D model for what they want it to be (the leading RPG).



> At some point you run out of what I call Trust currency...




This right here is you making an absolute statement.  That's what he is disagreeing with you about.  This statement you made is not universally true.  If I haven't run into your issues in over 30 years, I don't see it happening any time in the future.

And honestly, if you're running into these issues as often as you are, I'd re-evaluate the people you're gaming with.  Because it's just a game for people to have fun.  If a player is going to disrupt that because they're butthurt or whatever and won't let it go? they can go play somewhere else.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 1, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Sales figures and popularity of 4e (first time a previous edition outsold a current one in the same window of time, which is essentially what PF is--a version of 3x)



 we don't have sales numbers... unless you have something no one else does... so wrong FACTUALY wrong... we have a survey of some LGS owners as our best guess, and even then it is at best word of mouth and hear say...




> Survey feedback with an overwhelming response supporting rulings over rules (as told by the DEV team)
> Implementation of this style into 5e, followed by the reception and popularity since it's release, with overwhelming responses of people who have said they came back to D&D with this edition



 so your evidence is 3-5 months of 5e compaired to years of 4e... at month 5 of 4e it was going strong too.



> Come to whatever conclusion you want, but it seems clear to me that your style is the minority,



 it is clear as mud and you know it



> and can't support the D&D model for what they want it to be (the leading RPG).



 I'm not even willing to conside they ever lost that title while producing 4e...





> This right here is you making an absolute statement.



  well a theory, one that has a lot of back up and even goes on to explain why people like you and I see things different.



> That's what he is disagreeing with you about.  This statement you made is not universally true.  If I haven't run into your issues in over 30 years, I don't see it happening any time in the future.




that is like saying "Hey Me and my five friend drove pinto's for 30 years and they never blew up." and again goes to my theory that you don't have the little issue without larger ones first... 



> And honestly, if you're running into these issues as often as you are, I'd re-evaluate the people you're gaming with.



OK, some of my best friends for the last 20 years, some new friends I made 5ish or so years ago, my neice and nephew, my girlfriend, and occasionally my best friend's wife... let me reavalute... I love them all...



> Because it's just a game for people to have fun.



witch is as absolut a statement as I made... and one I hope we can all agree on.



> If a player is going to disrupt that because they're butthurt or whatever and won't let it go? they can go play somewhere else.



 right here, why do you not care that you hurt someone? Your own anology is pain... if you are causing pain you might want to step back and think about it


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 1, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> I do not "always forget that." That is a given. We all know that. Thus, it does not require comment.
> 
> There will be people that agree with me [at least some times]. That is also a given and, so, does not require my pointing it out.



but didn't you just jump in to someone saying "I think X" and correct him with "But other people think Y"?

infact that is what I responded to.







steeldragons said:


> I believe there are a minimum of 1.5 to 2.5 decades of the game and players, including those who solely ran PCs, those who sometimes played PCs and sometimes DMed, and players who solely DM'd, who would disagree with this assessment.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 1, 2015)

I want to go  back to this "re-evaluate the people you're gaming with." thing,

it is part of why I developed this theory. See I have a few players that play in multi games. (I have 2 gaming nights regularly right now and we alternate GMs on both nights)

Now here is the information I have... 

the same player, in similar situations does not always cause the same outburst or issue.
the DMs that run into the issues are ones that the player in question is having less fun.
DMs that are more ridged when they run into this issue ask players to leave rather then fix issue, and DMs that are less ridged try to make the game work for everyone...

so my theory is also based on movie critic logic, and the suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 1, 2015)

OK, I think I'm done.  IMO, I think you're being either extremely deliberately obtuse or disingenuous, especially with your reply a couple posts above.  We've plenty of things we can actually point at to support what I claimed, and you're refusing to even consider it, but at the same time, in the same post even, you're sticking to your claims about players despite nothing to point at except your own opinion, and other people directly contradicting it.

So shine on I suppose.


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 1, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> but didn't you just jump in to someone saying "I think X" and correct him with "But other people think Y"?
> 
> infact that is what I responded to.




That was not a "correction". Pointing out when to use "which" instead of "witch" is a correction.

What I was doing was disagreeing, yes. I disagree with X and point out/use Y, as a support for my disagreeing position...not that people agree with me, but that 20+ years of the game's history/structure of the game disprove [to my eyes] the X assertion.

To which your response, "but some people agree with X", is at once redundant and, as I said, an obvious given.

[EDIT: That is, I can only hope, as clear as I can make it. There will be no further back-and-forth with you. As I already said, I have no desire for an argument. /EDIT]


----------



## Pickles JG (Jan 1, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Sales figures and popularity of 4e (first time a previous edition outsold a current one in the same window of time, which is essentially what PF is--a version of 3x)




This is not very salient as pathfinder is more rules heavy than 4e, in the  cover every possibility sense.

On thinking  over issues I have had with rule disputes over the many systems and many years I have just realised that it is certain people that cause these problems rather than certain rule sets. 

The 5e style  of simple core systems that do not try to be  comprehensive at least flags that you will need to have some flexibility and that people cannot get everythimgmfromthe rules,  suprise in 5e thread be damned.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 1, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> OK, I think I'm done.  IMO, I think you're being either extremely deliberately obtuse or disingenuous



 by disagreeing with your opionon and not thinking that you can back up your 'facts'?




> We've plenty of things we can actually point at to support what I claimed,



I conside the point that you are not making things up whole cloth, I just think you are interpreting the evadance that we do have in a light I disagree with.



> and you're refusing to even consider it,



  I did consider it... I just disagree. I have evidence you have evidence no one has proof, and we are both looking at eachothers number differently... 




> but at the same time, in the same post even, you're sticking to your claims about players despite nothing to point at except your own opinion, and other people directly contradicting it.



 please even if you ignore everything else, tell me what you are talking about here...


----------



## BryonD (Jan 1, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I love that something that matters to a player (and presumable a friend, at least an acquaintance of some time) dome how is less important to you then other players (and presumable a friend, at least an acquaintance of some time) fun... how do I decide between Ross and Kurt when both I have know for almost twenty years?? I mean really, if a player says "Hey, stop the game something here is bugging me and making me have less fun" why NOT address it?



To start with an aside: it is interesting that one player disrupting me, and Ross, and Kurt, and John, and Linda, all at the same time, is ignored in your point. 

But beyond that you have to keep this question within the context of the conversation.
You may very well have missed my earlier point that a DM's first obligation is to run a game that people WANT to be part of.
So that is important to keep in kind when you start throwing around implications about being a jerk to friends. 

If there is a disconnect, then it will be addressed.  But the addressing is going to be "asked and answered" not a debate, derail of game, or otherwise creation of turmoil, as this thread has identified.  
Certainly in the case of Manticores don't live in the forest, an answer of "they do in this game" should suffice to any friend who lives up to that label.  

My current group of 15 years has not yet reached your 20 year benchmark, but I think it is close enough.  And we have a lot of fun and there is a distinct LACK of turmoil at the table.
We most certainly have the routine misunderstandings or disconnect on presumptions.  But we understand that having a single point of cutting off that dispute in a manner that facilitates persistent fun for all is vastly better than constant derailing.  And it is worth noting that there is a strong overlap between the people who complain about the problems caused by these disruptions and the people who agree with the pandering method of addressing it.  

There have been plenty of conversations away from game about thoughts or requests.  I generally am eager to accommodate.  Honestly, I find having curve balls like that in the game to be a fun part of the entire experience.  But I've also simply told people that "this idea won't work in this game".  And I've had some disappointment on rare occasion.  But the primary goal of making people WANT to be in my game is still recognized and I've never come close to losing a player over something like this.  I make no claims of a utopian cure-all.  But my method works.  I'd advise anyone trying to make this problem go away to keep that in mind.  But they are, of course, free to do whatever they want.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 1, 2015)

BryonD said:


> But beyond that you have to keep this question within the context of the conversation.
> You may very well have missed my earlier point that a DM's first obligation is to run a game that people WANT to be part of.



 this is the prime part of my theory of the social aspect of the game as well... And no matter how much else we disagree on this is an very important part we can all agree on

I don't care if I'm walking through the dessert and run into a white Dragon but someone might


----------



## GameOgre (Jan 1, 2015)

I have close to 40 years gaming and if there is one thing that 40 years has taught me that you might not be able to pick up in 5 years of playing it's this. Even bad DM's and players get older.

I guess it's human nature to try and give our personal experiences more importance but time and age only guarantee that you have been doing it longer. NOT that you have been doing it longer RIGHT(not that there is a RIGHT way). I know one guy who used the game as a ego trip back in the 70's who now uses it as a ego trip today! In 40 years of gaming he has learned......to bludgeon his friends Ego even better! 

Every human being that doesn't die gets older very few(and certainly not myself) get wiser. Even gamers!

In fact in my personal experience if you KNOW you have been doing it "THE RIGHT WAY" that is a very huge warning sign that instead you have just been sniffing you own buttocks too long because you liked the smell.

I'm sure one of the Really old gamers will come along shortly and tell me with a few more years experience I might just see things differently, they might even be right!


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 1, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Sales figures and popularity of 4e (first time a previous edition outsold a current one in the same window of time, which is essentially what PF is--a version of 3x)
> Survey feedback with an overwhelming response supporting rulings over rules (as told by the DEV team)
> Implementation of this style into 5e, followed by the reception and popularity since it's release, with overwhelming responses of people who have said they came back to D&D with this edition




Watch your inferences here. The people whom I know in real life who came back to D&D for 5E skipped 3rd edition as well as 4th, so whatever it was that turned us off, it was not 4E's approach to rules. It was something else. For me, it's a de-emphasis on build-time options like prestige classes in favor of game-time decisions, and support for a low- or no-magic game. (5E still has some things like battlemasters and feats which turn me off, but not so much that I can't live with them.) 

To put it differently: Bounded Accuracy existed in AD&D, though not by that name, and it's probably the single most important factor in making 5E palatable to me. I know how tough an AC of 16--it means the monster's hide is like chain mail. An Iron Golem with an AC of 18 is like plate armor. I have no way to conceptualize what AC 40 is, or how it is different than AC 45. Therefore, I am very happy with the fact that in 5E (as in AD&D), plate armor and a shield always gives you a "good" AC (AC 0 in AD&D, AC 20 in 5E) and it genuinely is pretty close to optimal.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 1, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> please even if you ignore everything else, tell me what you are talking about here...




I _think_ you and Sacrosanct are talking about different things. He thinks you made a universal claim that rules disputes will always eventually become a problem; you think you made a reasonable claim that you can only push DM fiat so far before you run out of trust currency (but you earn more trust currency by running a fun game) and that player feelings should therefore be taken into account. He says he's never had an issue with rule arguments, and to you this means that he's running reasonable games that don't push the limits, but he thinks that's a disproof of your assertion (in his mind) that rule disputes are inevitable.

I think this is just a miscommunication between the two of you.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 1, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> I _think_ you and Sacrosanct are talking about different things. He thinks you made a universal claim that rules disputes will always eventually become a problem; you think you made a reasonable claim that you can only push DM fiat so far before you run out of trust currency (but you earn more trust currency by running a fun game) and that player feelings should therefore be taken into account. He says he's never had an issue with rule arguments, and to you this means that he's running reasonable games that don't push the limits, but he thinks that's a disproof of your assertion (in his mind) that rule disputes are inevitable.
> 
> I think this is just a miscommunication between the two of you.




You have my end of this correct let's see if he agrees


----------



## BryonD (Jan 1, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> this is the prime part of my theory of the social aspect of the game as well... And no matter how much else we disagree on this is an very important part we can all agree on
> 
> I don't care if I'm walking through the dessert and run into a white Dragon but someone might



Nobody is challenging the idea that someone might care.  Of course someone will care and people will have differences of preference within any group.

The question at hand is what works for keeping the focus on fun.

I know what has worked for my group for a very long time.  It may not work for some other groups.  But I expect that if it can't work then the attitudes of the players can't be overcome period.  And there are players like that.
But if you are that DM that people WANT to play in your game, then they will happily let you make the calls and the issue goes away.
Whereas, consensus games can easily become milktoast experiences between ever more frequent needs to find the next consensus.  
Easy call in my mind.


----------



## Hriston (Jan 1, 2015)

After the first no, I would add to the chart, "Do you have your imagination turned on?" and "Do you have a reading comprehension level of at least 5th grade?" Otherwise you could end up with some pretty unnecessary rules changes by following this.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Nobody is challenging the idea that someone might care.  Of course someone will care and people will have differences of preference within any group.
> 
> The question at hand is what works for keeping the focus on fun.
> 
> ...




Whereas this is the complete opposite of my experience.  Consensus games become fantastic experiences because everyone at the table is expected to bring their "A" game and everyone shares responsibility for making sure that the game is a great experience for the table.  The table constantly challenges itself to become better and better.  Because everyone is dependent on everyone else, everyone has to pull their own weight at the table. 

But, again, this is totally up to the individual group.


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Whereas this is the complete opposite of my experience.  Consensus *games become fantastic experiences because everyone at the table is expected to bring their "A" game and everyone shares responsibility for making sure that the game is a great experience for the table.  The table constantly challenges itself to become better and better.  Because everyone is dependent on everyone else, everyone has to pull their own weight at the table. *



<emphasis mine>

I see nothing here [in the emphasized text] as the results of "a consensus game" that is not similarly achieved and enjoyed by games/tables which do not coddle every player whim or open themselves up to unnecessary debate over any/every little disagreement.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 2, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> then how does it contradict anything I said?
> 
> what I said was:
> 
> ...




Like I said, my players honestly don't care about the rules much.  If I make large sweeping rulings my players disagree with, they will still go along with it and not really care.  At least, not like you seem to care.  They will still have fun with it.  Because they're fun is not derived from rules or even rulings.  They can have fun with any rules or rulings.

I understand you GM for power gamers.  I have no issue with that, just understand some tables may seem like a foreign game to you.  They just don't all work the same.  You may have never played with the type of group I am referring to.  Just accept that there may be a type of table out there that wouldn't make sense to what you're used to.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> <emphasis mine>
> 
> I see nothing here [in the emphasized text] as the results of "a consensus game" that is not similarly achieved and enjoyed by games/tables which do not coddle every player whim or open themselves up to unnecessary debate over any/every little disagreement.




And thus:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> But, again, this is totally up to the individual group.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6483426#ixzz3NfOBabO5




To me, the fact that you would characterise consensus as coddling player's whims and trivialise disagreement says that I would likely not enjoy your game.  Which is fine.  There's no problem with that.  It's a different play style.  I enjoy games where the DM is open to challenge and the entire group is invested in making sure that everyone is having fun.  I realise that there are DM's out here that see things very differently.  Not a problem.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Like I said, my players honestly don't care about the rules much.  If I make large sweeping rulings my players disagree with, they will still go along with it and not really care.  At least, not like you seem to care.  They will still have fun with it.  Because they're fun is not derived from rules or even rulings.  They can have fun with any rules or rulings.
> 
> I understand you GM for power gamers.  I have no issue with that, just understand some tables may seem like a foreign game to you.  They just don't all work the same.  You may have never played with the type of group I am referring to.  Just accept that there may be a type of table out there that wouldn't make sense to what you're used to.




But, there's the issue Mistwell.  The player I talked about before DID care about the rules.  Does that make him a bad player because he's not like your players?  How would you deal with players who do care about the rules?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But, there's the issue Mistwell.  The player I talked about before DID care about the rules.  Does that make him a bad player because he's not like your players?  How would you deal with players who do care about the rules?




well from what I can see he kicks them out of his game... or at least asks them to leave because they are bad/wrong/unfun...


----------



## BryonD (Jan 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Whereas this is the complete opposite of my experience.  Consensus games become fantastic experiences because everyone at the table is expected to bring their "A" game and everyone shares responsibility for making sure that the game is a great experience for the table.  The table constantly challenges itself to become better and better.  Because everyone is dependent on everyone else, everyone has to pull their own weight at the table.
> 
> But, again, this is totally up to the individual group.



And yet you still describe this as a problem needing a solution.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 2, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> No really, it's not inevitable, and it does not have to happen, and it really does not happen in my 5e games at all. I make decisions on the fly all the time, and we don't have a dispute erupt at all over it even if I happen to be wrong, because game flow without rules debate is more important for everyone at my table than being right about their view of the rules.
> 
> The game isn't the rules.  And frankly, not everyone cares as much as you do about their expectations concerning the rules being realized.




That is a fine autobiographical fact about your table.  I'm very glad for you that your players are mostly or wholly apathetic about the refereeing component of your game.  But this is so deeply an outlier as to how anyone plays games (RPGs or otherwise) that I don't even know why you bring it up in a conversation about the greater gaming culture or the impact that refereeing subjective rules language has on a game. 

I would have much rather that you addressed the meat of my post (which you abridged).  The process for action declaration and resolution is pretty simple (and has an analogue to every aspect of life):

1)  Players and GM engage in a conversation where the sensory input that the PCs ingest is conveyed.

2)  At that point, the player can orient themselves properly (through their characters) with respect to the dimensional and dramatic components of the situation at hand.

3)  Using those observations and orientation, they will then consider the possible actions they can declare.  Doing this requires an understanding of the proxy by which the players and characters interface.  This proxy, of course, is the collective of the PC build rules, the resolution mechanics, and their best understanding of how all these things intersect to spit out the probability of various outcomes.  They then make a decision, declare an action, and resolve it.

If any part of 1-3 is made fuzzy (be it by opacity of rules language, poor GMlayer communication, or a disconnect between GM/player inference/intuition/understanding on areas where rule subsystems intersect), a player will lose confidence in their ability to intuitively (and thus quickly - your pacing...of which I also share considerable concern) execute 1-3...eg declare an action and then resolve it and find out what happens.  In essence, they're disoriented and making wobbly decisions where they can't reasonably infer the probability of outcomes within a margin-of-error they're comfortable with.  Play slows down, at the very least, at the GMC conversation stage where the player attempts to haggle more and more information out of the GM to reduce that disorientation and attendant, uncomfortable margin-of-error.

That isn't egoism.  That isn't immaturity.  That isn't being a me-first, poor sport.  I've always had great sympathy with (good faith) players when this has happened because I know that either I've done a poorer job than I would have liked or the ruleset itself is problematic.



How about a (in my opinion) very relevant, real-life analogue to the impact (on play, on the culture of fans, on participants, and on referees themselves) of refereeing games in a landscape of (intentionally) subjective rules language that requires interpretation.

NFL

* The new "hit on a defenseless player" rules language and all of the areas of that rule that intersect (targets, location on field, posture of players moment to moment, target area).  Fans hate how damaging the vagaries of these rules are onto the competitive legitimacy of a singular game and the cross-season impact.  Defensive players utterly abhor them because they demand the physically impossible.  Referees do not want this kind of impact on games to be in their subjective hands as the margin-of-error and impact on a misapplication is enormous.  Oddsmakers and gamblers hate it.  WR and TE are liking the rule less and less as target areas are becoming knees and thighs, leading more devastating knee and ankle injuries.  The only people that like these rules are (1) NFL execs who are terrified of the continuing threat of class-action lawsuits for head injuries (and are doing everything they can - including destroying the competitive integrity of the game - to protect the brand) and (2) QBs (who find themselves in the unenviable position of hating them when their team is on defense and they're screwed by a terrible, game-altering call).

NBA

* The evolving incoherence and lack of uniform application (and the negative fallout on play - including the increasing propensity for flopping and making a mockery of play) of the block/charge call.

NHL

* The new goaltender interference rules versus the old, clear, unmistakable rules-language of "any player being in the crease at the time of the goal."


There are plenty more than that, but those are three areas where there is pretty much universal disdain for the impact of these subjective rules, and the poor/inconsistent refereeing that stems from them, on the integrity of play.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 2, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> That is a fine autobiographical fact about your table.  I'm very glad for you that your players are mostly or wholly apathetic about the refereeing component of your game.  But this is so deeply an outlier as to how anyone plays games (RPGs or otherwise) that I don't even know why you bring it up in a conversation about the greater gaming culture or the impact that refereeing subjective rules language has on a game. .




I don't think it's nearly as much of an outlier you think it is.  Many of us share the same experiences.  Ironically, you're doing exactly what he was warning against--acting like your own experience is somehow the norm.  while you're not outright saying his (or mine) experiences don't happen, you are waving them away as so unlikely as to not be important or carry any weight.  You're also engaging in a pretty blatant strawman.  He's not saying his players don't care about refereeing, he's saying they don't worry so much about the rules themselves.  Those are completely different things, as it seems they care very much about the refereeing.  I.e., "I"m not so much worried about RAW, but I do care that the DM is fair and consistent."


----------



## Authweight (Jan 2, 2015)

It seems clear that we have very different experiences. Here's some stuff I hope we can agree on though:

1) If everything is going fine and nobody is bothered, then there's no need to worry about rules interpretation.

2) If one person is getting very upset and everyone else thinks it's fine, then there's probably a poor fit between that individual and the group. Either the group needs to adjust to that player or the outlier player should leave.

3) If a player is civil about bringing up an interpretation issue and takes reasonable care not to drag the game down in minutiae, they should get a fair hearing, and some attempt should be made to accommodate them, unless their request would damage the game in a major way.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 2, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> I don't think it's nearly as much of an outlier you think it is.  Many of us share the same experiences.  Ironically, you're doing exactly what he was warning against--acting like your own experience is somehow the norm.  while you're not outright saying his (or mine) experiences don't happen, you are waving them away as so unlikely as to not be important or carry any weight.  You're also engaging in a pretty blatant strawman.  He's not saying his players don't care about refereeing, he's saying they don't worry so much about the rules themselves.  Those are completely different things, as it seems they care very much about the refereeing.  I.e., "I"m not so much worried about RAW, but I do care that the DM is fair and consistent."




I have GMed so much AD&D it isn't even funny.  And I've GMed it with more players than I've run any other edition (well, well, well over the century mark).  So I have my autobiographical info just like you.  I'm more generally talking about the impact (on play and on the mentality of actors under the auspices of such a paradigm) on games and the culture surrounding games.  

And you might want to take a closer look at the post that was a direct response to me and then the follow-up below (bolded mine):



Mistwell said:


> No really, it doesn't.  I've been playing since 1977.  It's NEVER been an issue since I became an adult and started playing with adults.  And there are many people here at EW, and at other sites that talk about D&D, that verify this.  Sometimes people genuinely don't care.  *They really don't care if their view of the rules works out or not.  They don't care if their view is constantly contradicted by the DM.  They real DON'T CARE.  It's not a priority for them.  They are there to play a fun game and be social with their friends.  They trust the DM to make it a fun game, even if it doesn't play out how they expect it will based on their view of the rules.*




If you read that as  "I"m not so much worried about RAW, but I do care that the DM is fair and consistent", then our respective conceptions of plain english are entirely disconnected from another.  We have:

1 - Player:GM disagreement on rules and constant contradiction of player inference of how rules intersect by GM (and thus what rulings should come from those intersections).

2 - But they DON'T CARE.

3 - Because they trust the DM to make a fun game.

Full stop.  Nothing in that is about consistent, fair rulings (from which they can make inferences and future, intuitive action declarations of which they are comfortable with).


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 2, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> I have GMed so much AD&D it isn't even funny.  And I've GMed it with more players than I've run any other edition (well, well, well over the century mark).  So I have my autobiographical info just like you.  I'm more generally talking about the impact (on play and on the mentality of actors under the auspices of such a paradigm) on games and the culture surrounding games.




Good for you.  But of the two of us, it's not me who is saying your experiences don't matter.  That would be you.  So stop acting like your experiences are the end all, be all.  They are not.



> And you might want to take a closer look at the post that was a direct response to me and then the follow-up below (bolded mine):
> 
> 
> If you read that as  "I"m not so much worried about RAW, but I do care that the DM is fair and consistent", then our respective conceptions of plain english are entirely disconnected from another.  We have:
> ...




Saying that the players don't care about the rules is not the same thing as saying they don't care about the refereeing (DMing).  Those are two fundamentally different things.  If you can't see that, well, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't care about 90% of the rules in football.  But I do care that the referees make the game fair and fun.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But, there's the issue Mistwell.  The player I talked about before DID care about the rules.  Does that make him a bad player because he's not like your players?




No of course not.  What about my responses in this thread made you think I was referencing anything about your player, or even your game in general? I am just responding to the hasty generalizations made.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 2, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> That is a fine autobiographical fact about your table.




It disproves a claimed universal generalization.



> But this is so deeply an outlier as to how anyone plays games (RPGs or otherwise) that I don't even know why you bring it up in a conversation about the greater gaming culture or the impact that refereeing subjective rules language has on a game.




You have no good evidence to support the claim it's an outlier, others in this very thread have agreed with me on that so it's obviously not as much an outlier as you claim.  

In addition, the entire philosophy of D&D for 5e was changed towards rulings over rules, towards focusing more on casual gaming (which itself tends to care less about rules themselves) based on massive feedback they got from a huge survey and playtest experiment they ran which tended to more support my experience as being more typical than you're claiming.  

It's your duty to prove your claim is as universal as you want others to believe it to be.  If you fail to support it, then we're left with a false universal generalization.  Which is all I was responding to.  

And given it's usually you and Pemerton against most of this message board in many threads you decide to engage in lengthy debate, I am pretty sure you're well aware by now that your views tend to not be in the majority view, on many topics.  I am actually a bit surprised to see you claiming universal experience given that fact.  I'd expect a bit more humility and introspection before claiming your experiences are so universal you can dismiss the experiences of others outright as extreme outliers.  

I've cut the rest of your post because it was meaningless for this aspect of the discussion.


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> To me, the fact that you would characterise consensus as coddling player's whims and trivialise disagreement says that I would likely not enjoy your game.  Which is fine.




Well, I think we both have known that for some time now, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. hahaha. And, as you said, that's fine.



Hussar said:


> There's no problem with that.  It's a different play style.  I enjoy games where the DM is open to challenge and the entire group is invested in making sure that everyone is having fun.  I realise that there are DM's out here that see things very differently.  Not a problem.




Correct. Taken in a different context, I run "Consensus games" as well. It's just that the consensus is more commonly referred to as the "social contract" or some such, 'round these parts.

We play Dungeons & Dragons, not Democracy & Debate. Everyone at the table understands/accepts that I (or whoever is DM, as I accept it as well if/when I have had the rare chance to be a player) "set 'em up" and they [the players] "knock 'em down." Where "knocking 'em down" refers to defeating/overcoming in some way (not necessarily just fight/kill) the challenges/foes/situations that I [the DM] present.

There is a degree of suspension of disbelief we all know/accept to be at the table to begin with. Part and parcel of that suspension, is the knowledge that the DM creates and controls the goings-on of the world and the parameters thereof. We are all in agreement on that. The DM calls the shots. The players have no control over anything other than what their characters do...and that's a metric ton of control to effect the possibilities of the world/game/story. That's the game [we play].

Might a DM make a mistake? Sure. Recalling or implementing rules. Miss gaging creature/encounter difficulty. Interpersonal/communications skills. Forgetting a plot point until its too late. There's LOADS of mistakes to be made. We [DMs] are, lamentably, human.

But no one's going to derail/hold up a game over some "rules" minutia. Pacing is important. The table understands/accepts that and enjoys good pacing when it is accomplished. Retaining "immersion" is tantamount. React how your character would react/with what your character knows, is tantamount. That is all part of our "consensus." 

If a new person at the table wants to come with a Drow Sorcerer/GOO Warlock/Valor Bard, after knowing that the game world does not allow for drow PCs, has no Sorcerer class, and that warlocks are inherently tainted/corrupted toward evil (and possibly madness) as they advance where Evil PCs are also disallowed, and/or that I'm not a fan/the table doesn't use 3e-style multi-classing, then they're going to get a "No." or (more likely in the case of new players) "I don't think this is going to be the fun you think it is. What is it about this character that you're going for...and why?" then, possibly, "How 'bout you try/Have you looked at/This campaign world has XYZ..."

There is no, to borrow from a recent thread "Can you just fix/take away my Sunlight Sensitivity, then it'll work out fine." There is no "But I wanna" whining. There is no "You_ have_ to let me [feat/MC/stack stuff/use some heretofore unused race/class/supplement] X or I can't Y...and Jerry can with his wizard, so..."

It's not a debate. It's not "You're ruining my fun." That is not something that requires or is included in my table's understanding of "consensus."

If, as nearly inconceivable to me as it is, a player were to complain/pipe up that I [the DM] is "wrong" because I put a manticore in a forest and/or I "_can't_ put a manticore in a forest! Cuz..." they are getting a (figurative) "No." It doesn't matter what the MM says. It matters that the DM just told you a manticore was spiraling overhead and preparing to rain spikey death down upon you. What're you [the PC, not the player!] going to do about it? 

You want to persist? Fine. "Everyone else make Dex. checks while Bewildergast, here, wonders in amazement that a manticore is flying over a temperate region."

"NO WAIT! I dive for cover too!" would likely be the response. 

There is no need (or even thought) of debate. If there is an "out of- or meta-game" reason/answer that I can share (without giving away plot info) or a thought rationale that I have, _for the players_, I'll share it. If its something the PCs might need to discover on their own...then they have to [have their PCs] do that. Or just shrug it off as one of life's odd occurrences/coincidences/fluke of the creative-imaginative game/made-up world.

There is no "but the book says." It is understood/accepted that what the DM says goes...and yes, most of the time all intentions are to follow what the books say "rules" wise. That's how you have a framework for a playable game...unless/except for the things we agree to change, i.e. houserules. Fluff wise? No holds barred/the details of the setting are known and/or mutable. But once fluff has been introduced, I do try to be consistent. That is the game we play.

That is part of the "buy in" to sit at the table in the first place. Because there is that mutual understanding,_ that _"consensus" -and yes, it includes some inherent trust- at the table that the DM is making/presenting the world for fun and excitement and adventure. They are not, personally/individually "out to get you/screw you over". They are trying to create a coherent and fun_ challenging adventure_ experience. All of which leads to (in theory) a good time had by all present...there...to play Dungeons & Dragons.

That is understood and accepted by everyone who sits at the table. To greater or lesser degrees, sometimes, sure. Because, again, we're all human and not all cookie-cutter in our views and preferences. But we all know why we're there and have a "consensus" of what goes and what we want out of the experience.

Joe always wants to do the most DPR. He makes the strongest PC with the biggest weapon and the hardest hits. That's what he likes. Fine. "Mystical" Mary always wants to have the broadest spell repertoire and enjoys expressing a certain sprituality in her characters. That's how/why she plays her 6th power-mad/overachiever priestess of the goddess of magic in a row. Fine. Bob enjoys putting his lowest ability score in his class' Prime Ability and playing the "overcoming adversity/underdog" with elaborate backstory and heavy RP. Fine. Jim...poor, mad, Jim...I never know what he's gonna do, but it's gonna be Chaotic Neutral in a party of staunchly Lawful PCs. *sigh* Fine. 

It's not just "well, the book says" or "a player wants something" so I am under some DMly obligation to comply. That's just not the case for "my" playstyle.

And as I have probably mentioned in threads before, haven't had any [serious] complaints. Well, not in a couple of decades. Naturally, when we were all teenagers/kids and beginner/inexperienced DMs, we all have issues to overcome. But that's more years than I'd care to admit behind me now. 

Whew. There. That turned into something, din't it. Now I hope everyone on EN world reads this and has a greater/thorough understanding on my views of DMing, DM empowerment, player entitlement, the concept of "consensus" as social contract, and playing the game as a whole. So we should never, ever, have any misunderstandings or disagreements again....ever. Right?


----------



## Cyberen (Jan 2, 2015)

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] : please keep in mind 5e has been built from the ground up with this foundational "rulings" aspect. The system is really very robust wrt DM's judgement.
 To resolve an action the DM has to pick a level on the scale auto-success > advantage > normal > disadvantage > auto-failure, and maybe pick a stat and decide if proficiency applies. Note that :
* the stacking rules is meant to be the least toxic, as the disconnect between a player's expectation and the DM's call should differ by at most one step on the resolution scale.
* bounded accuracy means the actual odds of success won't change drastically, whatever the DM decides.
* the game is built to use dice and a DM screen. This device means a player can not and should not know precisely if he has to put the blame on bad luck or adversarial DMing.
These 3 features combined should ensure "rulings, not rules" doesn't strain trust too much.
I also think there are places where the design team hasn't done that great a job to demine potential conflict. I specifically call out Surprise as an obvious offender, as it is an area mostly left to DM fiat where the decisions are potentially devastating.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 2, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> No of course not.  What about my responses in this thread made you think I was referencing anything about your player, or even your game in general? I am just responding to the hasty generalizations made.




Maybe Hussar is referring to my posts, where I implied that if a player is pushing the argument that the DM is wrong because there is a manticore in a forest and they won't let it go, he or she is a bad player.  And I stand by that, because not only is it the DM's world, but nothing about having a manticore in a forest triggers the unreasonable flags.   It's not like Hussar was having rocs being encountered underwater or something.


----------



## landryan (Jan 2, 2015)

*The Manticore Solution*



Hussar said:


> Or, another time, I bombed the party with a manticore.  I love manticores.  One of my favourite critters.  A player piped up and complained that I was using a manticore in a completely wrong terrain - manticores in 2e were desert monsters and we were in a temperate forest.  Now, he was 100% right, but, I stuck to my guns.  It wound up being a rather lengthy argument at the table, so it stuck in my mind.  I often wonder if I had of just admitted that I screwed up and skipped the encounter, if it wouldn't have been a better solution.




DM: "You enter the forest, and you see... a manticore!!!"

Player 1: "That can't be right, manticore's terrain type is desert, and this is a forest! No fair!"

DM: "Oooops, you're right! The manticore, realizing he is an ecological impossibility promptly morphs into... hmmm... no lets see... something more appropriate... BINGO! An Ancient Green Dragon! Temperate Forest, right Player 1?"

Player 1: Oh. Erm, yes. That's true.

*Player 1 Character promptly slain by rest of party*


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 2, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Maybe Hussar is referring to my posts, where I implied that if a player is pushing the argument that the DM is wrong because there is a manticore in a forest and they won't let it go, he or she is a bad player.  And I stand by that, because not only is it the DM's world, but nothing about having a manticore in a forest triggers the unreasonable flags.




I also agree that the player that objects to manticores in a forest and won't let it go is a bad player, but my reasoning is slightly different than yours.  It's not merely the player found that unreasonable that bothers me.  It's their perspective on unreasonable information makes it almost impossible to run an interesting game.

The problem I have with the scenario it shows a player who clearly prefers to metagame than to game.  This is a player who has a highly developed ability to deal with problems at the metagame level, but no ability to play a character.   As such, I would prefer ask that player after the session was over to leave and find a different DM to torment, because that player is a waste, having developed such bad habits as a gamer, that it would be almost impossible and perfectly torturous as a DM to try to teach them how to play.  I've got no use for players that have never developed even basic skills despite being highly experienced.  

The following things really trouble me:

a) First, the player relied on player knowledge rather than PC knowledge and didn't even attempt to discover what her player might know but took it for granted that anything the player knew was applicable.  The player knows that the MM says that manticores are found in deserts, but the player doesn't seem bothered about acting on this knowledge.  The first question that needs to be addressed is, "What does my character know about manticores?  Is it reasonable that my character would find this unusual?"   Instead, the player shows zero nuance of this nature, happily metagaming away without the slightest embarrassment.

b) As such, the player's first recourse was to verify and question the metagame out of game rather than questioning the game in game.  There are all sort of things that a skilled player might consider upon seeing a manticore in a forest.

a) Something big must be happening in the desert to get manticores to flee from their normal habitat!
b) Since this is a forest and manticores are only found in deserts, this must be an unusual subspecies.  Be on the look out for unusual powers.  Don't take anything for granted.
c) Since this is a forest and manticores are usually found in deserts, something must have brought it here.
d) Since this is a forest and manticores are usually found in deserts, this might be a shapechanged creature.
e) Since this is a forest and manticores are usually found in deserts, this might be an illusion.
f) In this game world, manticores aren't in fact desert creatures. 
g) The DM forgot that in 2e, manticores are exclusively desert creatures, but so what?  Why should I care?

If it turned out that the DM just made an oversight and did not wish to recover by making up an explanation on the spot, then it's up to the DM to admit, "Err... I apologize, but I made an oversight and put the manticore in the wrong terrain.  I didn't intend that to be a big clue of such singular importance that it would be worth following up on.  Please just assume that while odd, it's not that important."  Even then, it would be incredibly rude to demand a retcon rather than a handwave.  I find it pretty incomprehensible that someone's enjoyment of a game depends to any large extent on manticores only showing up in the desert.  That isn't even a common fantasy trope, to say nothing of trope violation is often interesting in and of itself.  Learning that things are different than I expected them to be and the most common stereotypes don't apply is often fun.  I shudder to think what sort of player doesn't like being surprised or having any of their expectations overturned.

It's certainly not up to the player to tell the DM what ought to be happening in his world.  The existence of a manticore of great size and ferocity in a mountain pass was established in my game world by 1987.  I don't intend to kick it out my own imaginings and ideas simply because some one writes something limiting in a book.   But if I'm a player in a DM's game were manticores only occur in the desert with near religious rigor, then I'm ok with that as well.  It's his world.

c) The player evidenced zero trust in the DM.  To even question this out of game is to seek out of game clues for the explained behavior.  For all the player knows, the DM is well aware that manticores don't occur in forests and has made this a major part of the in game scenario and is expecting the players to follow up on this discrepancy in game.  By demanding out of game that the DM give an out of game explanation to the player, rather than an in game explanation to the PC (assuming they qualify for one), the player has essentially overturned the game.  They've demanded the DM admit there is a reason and therefore that the appearance of the manticore is in fact important to the plot and so should be treated as such (or conversely that it isn't and so doesn't need to be treated with importance).   But the DM is under zero obligation to reveal his secrets out of game just because one player is confused.   Since the DM is the secret keeper, it is not only incumbent upon them to keep the secrets so that all the players can enjoy discovering them in due time, but also their privilege to enjoy the moment when the secret is legitimately revealed and the honor they deserve when they create good and interesting secrets.  The player demanding an out of game explanation might as well have responded by taking their hand and flinging the pieces of a board game off the table and across the floor, and have been equally rude and aggressive.   Whatever carefully constructed plans (if any) the DM might have are in danger of being dashed irrevocably.  To stick to their guns in this situation and demand removal of the manticore (as if even in the real world animals aren't occasionally found far from their normal habitats) is so ridiculous I'd be hard pressed to deal with the problem privately and not respond to the rudeness by suggesting on the spot that if the canonical ecology of manticores is so important to them that perhaps they ought to find a DM that shares their love of canon.



> It's not like Hussar was having rocs being encountered underwater or something.




And if he was, so what?  All the above still applies.  Who brought the rocs underwater?  How are the breathing?  What does my character know about rocs?  Do some rocs have the lifestyle of penguins, or cormorants, or pelicans?  Do I have the same picture of the environment that the DM has?  Perhaps I ought to ask him to recap the situation again.  All of that ought to be considered before you tentatively and tactfully ask, "You do remember we are underwater, right?"


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 2, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> It's not like Hussar was having rocs being encountered underwater or something.




It wasn't a roc. It was a roc... _lobster_!


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 2, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> It wasn't a roc. It was a roc... _lobster_!




We need a sad trombone for that one.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 2, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> I don't think it's nearly as much of an outlier you think it is.  Many of us share the same experiences.  Ironically, you're doing exactly what he was warning against--acting like your own experience is somehow the norm.  while you're not outright saying his (or mine) experiences don't happen, you are waving them away as so unlikely as to not be important or carry any weight.  You're also engaging in a pretty blatant strawman.




isn't that the same thing being done by both sides... I have been told by 3 different posters that my style of play is provably less then theres...


----------



## Ranes (Jan 2, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> The following things really trouble me:
> 
> a) First, the player relied on player knowledge rather than PC knowledge and didn't even attempt to discover what her player might know but took it for granted that anything the player knew was applicable.  The player knows that the MM says that manticores are found in deserts, but the player doesn't seem bothered about acting on this knowledge.  The first question that needs to be addressed is, "What does my character know about manticores?  Is it reasonable that my character would find this unusual?"   Instead, the player shows zero nuance of this nature, happily metagaming away without the slightest embarrassment...
> 
> ...




I agree with all of this (and the rest) and I'd simply put it like this. If I _inadvertently_ put a manicure (manticore but I'm leaving in auto-correct's handiwork, for the lulz) in a temperate forest, I want players whose default response is: "Oh, manticores live here in the DM's world! Didn't see that coming. Right…" 

That's it. End of. After the session, if a player says," You know, about those MANICURES…" That's fine. I'll just wonder how my laptop's auto-correct got into their head.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 2, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> isn't that the same thing being done by both sides... I have been told by 3 different posters that my style of play is provably less then theres...




And it is.  There's a difference between "this is how it is", which is what you've done, and "your experience doesn't make it universally true because you don't seem to be in the majority as much as you think you are."

Now, if Mistwell or myself had said that gaming groups won't have problems with each other because we haven't, or that pretty much all players don't care about rules, then you'd have an equivalency to what you've and manbearcat have claimed. But we haven't.  In both of our cases, all we've really done is to counter your claims with "no, that's not universally true because we don't share that experience."


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 2, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> And it is.  There's a difference between "this is how it is", which is what you've done, and "your experience doesn't make it universally true because you don't seem to be in the majority as much as you think you are."
> 
> Now, if Mistwell or myself had said that gaming groups won't have problems with each other because we haven't, or that pretty much all players don't care about rules, then you'd have an equivalency to what you've and manbearcat have claimed. But we haven't.  In both of our cases, all we've really done is to counter your claims with "no, that's not universally true because we don't share that experience."




and yet my universal claim was not that at all... mine was that all players buy in to games and trust there DMs so much, some DMs have more or less trust, some players have larger or smaller thresholds. SOme people run games with people who are in enough synch with them tha it rarely if ever comes up. The problems need to be addressed in such way as to understand that each group is different... my theory (all I have put forward) is call currency of trust. 

My theory accounts for your game, my game, and the worst games I have ever seen all in one....


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 2, 2015)

Ranes said:


> I agree with all of this (and the rest) and I'd simply put it like this. If I _inadvertently_ put a manicure (manticore but I'm leaving in auto-correct's handiwork, for the lulz) in a temperate forest, I want players whose default response is: "Oh, manticores live here in the DM's world! Didn't see that coming. Right…"
> 
> That's it. End of. After the session, if a player says," You know, about those MANICURES…" That's fine. I'll just wonder how my laptop's auto-correct got into their head.




I like that method too, unless it is a major issue to that player for what ever reason... now I have a hard time imagining why maticore living there would... but that's me. I would be more then willing to hear the why from the player.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2015)

BryonD said:


> And yet you still describe this as a problem needing a solution.




Where?  Where did I say a single thing about a problem needing a solution.  I've been extremely careful only to talk about my own preferences and not say a single thing about how others play their games.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 2, 2015)

GM: You jump out of light space.  Suddenly an alert sounds.  The pilot you hired turns and says to you, "What the...? Aw, we've come out of hyperspace into a meteor shower. Some kind of asteroid collision.  It's not on any of the charts.."
Player #1: That's impossible.  Alderan is a class 1 system according the Planetary Guide.  It's been inhabited and the source of regular trade for thousands of years.  There are no uncharted asteroid fields in the Alderan system, and the system authority would ensure no large asteroids randomly collided with each other.
GM: Han repeats, "I know that, but that doesn't change the fact that the Falcon is getting hit by rocks."
Player #1: I was speaking out of character!  There is no way the Falcon could be getting hit by uncharted debris in the Alderaan system.  The system is a class one inhabited system with faster than light space flight extending back to before the founding the republic.   There are no uncharted obstacles, so we should have to face some random ill thought out hazard just to make the 'adventure' more exciting.
GM: Maybe there are circumstances you haven't considered.  Why don't you just trying role playing.
Player #2: Yeah, maybe this Han guy screwed up.  He seems cocky.  Maybe he's not as good as he thinks he is.  How do we even know this is the Alderaan system?
Player #1: No, that's impossible.  Remember, I double checked his figures in the navigational computer before we made the hyperjump, remember and got a hard success.  There is no way he could have screwed up so badly that he missed the whole system.  This is Alderaan alright, unless the DM is pulling some other screw the players trick.
Player #2: I ask this Han fellow, "What's going on?"
GM: Han confirms 'Luke's' appraisal.  He says, "The kid's right.  Our position is correct.  This is Alderaan alright, except... no, Alderaan!"
Player #1: What do you mean? Where is it?
GM: Han says sardonically, "That's what I'm trying to tell you, kid. It ain't there. It's been totally blown away."
Player #1: What? That's impossible.  How?
Player #2: I bet it's been destroyed by the Empire.
GM: Han says incredulously, "The entire starfleet couldn't destroy the whole planet. It'd take a thousand ships with more fire power than I've..."
Player #1: Exactly.  That's what I was saying.  The entire Imperial fleet together couldn't just blast a planet way.  It's impossible.  Sure, assuming they could blast through planetary level shields - which they can't - they could turn into a cherry red glowing ball of liquid with sufficient global bombardment, the Empire just doesn't have the ability to blow up a whole planet.  If they had that ability, they could have done away with the Rebellion years ago just by blowing up the sympathetic worlds.  Besides the fact that the Starship Sourcebook clearly states that blowing up planets is impossible, the whole point of this setting is that the worlds backing the rebellion are largely safe from planetary attack.  If a planet could be blown up, it would undermine the entire basis of the setting.  Bye bye campaign.
GM: While you are debating the Empire's firepower, another alarm goes off.   Han says, "We have another ship coming in."
Player #2: Maybe they know what happened.  Can I roll sensor to determine the type of craft?  *Dice Clatter*
GM: Sure.  Ok, you are able to determine it's an Imperial Tie fighter.
Player #2 (to table): It's an Imperial fighter! 
Player #1: No, no.  That's impossible.   It doesn't have a hyper drive, so it couldn't have followed us.   There are no Imperial garrisons in the Alderaan system, so it could have only come from cruiser.  And if it had been attached to a cruiser then we would have seen the cruiser on scope even before we saw the Tie Fighter.  I demand a retcon.  If we'd seen a cruiser in the system, I would have started preparing for another hyper-jump immediately upon entering the system.  Either you forgot to mention the cruiser, forgot that detecting a cruiser even at range would be easier than detecting a star fighter, or else this Tie should be here at all.
GM: Han agrees, there are no imperial bases around here.   He doesn't know where the Tie Fighter came from either.
Player #1:  Why do you keep telling me about what Han does.  I'm not role playing with Han.  I'm asking you OOC for a retcon on the asteroid field, the missing planet, and this stupid short range tie fighter.  None of this should be happening.
GM: Seriously, just play the game.  What do you want to do about the Tie Fighter?  It appears to be racing away from you in a big hurry as if trying to evade you.  You'll have to act fast if you want to catch it.
Player #1: I'm not doing anything about a Tie fighter that shouldn't be here in the first place, an asteroid field that shouldn't exist, or an impossibly blown up planet.  This campaign is just messed up.  Clearly you didn't spend enough time reading the source material.
GM: Seriously, out of character, to you the player, I've all read the same books you have multiple times.  None of your objections would be inappropriate if raised in character, as the character themselves would possibly be just as confused by all this weird stuff.   However, I'm not going to answer your objections out of character.   Meanwhile, that Tie Fighter is getting away.  You going to do something about it or not?  Han seems inclined to chase it.

And you thought 'Luke' was whiny in the script...


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2015)

Which is all fine Celebrim, if I had, in fact, placed that Manticore intentionally with all those questions you asked earlier answered.  But, as I said earlier, I didn't even know that manticores lived in deserts.  I placed the manticore there (or the roc underwater) and I was 100% WRONG.

Why does that fact keep getting ignored?  Had I had some grand plan about why manticores were appearing outside of their favoured habitat, then fine and dandy.  But, the player was 100% right.  For your story above to be the same as my example, Alderaan would still be there.  

THERE WAS NO REASON WHY THE MANTICORE WAS OUTSIDE ITS FAVORED TERRAIN.  I WAS WRONG.

There, is that clear enough for everyone?  I placed the manticore there completely out of ignorance of the favoured terrain of a manticore.  Not only that, I couldn't give a rat's petoot what the Monster Manual said because I simply do not care.  I never bothered to read the Monster Manual.  Heck, when people started to bitch about 4e putting Blue Dragons on the coast, I actually had to go back and read the older Monster Manuals because I had no idea that blue dragons live in deserts.  Didn't know and certainly didn't ever care.

But, the player DID care.  He DID know.  HE WAS RIGHT!!!

Now, I steam rolled over the player and ignored his objections and played exactly the way Steel Dragons or Mistwell or others have advocated in this thread.  And I hated it and it made for a terrible game.  So, I don't do that anymore.  I will change, fold, spindle or maul just about anything in the game to accommodate the players.  I expect my players to challenge me all the time and I welcome it.  I WANT them to be so invested in the game that they would bring knowledge like this to the table.  FANTASTIC.  

Again, this is 100% my own table.  It is not something I expect at anyone else's table.  But, at my table, if you know something, speak up and we'll talk about it.  Far better that than the alternative, IMO.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Which is all fine Celebrim, if I had, in fact, placed that Manticore intentionally with all those questions you asked earlier answered.  But, as I said earlier, I didn't even know that manticores lived in deserts.  I placed the manticore there (or the roc underwater) and I was 100% WRONG.
> 
> Why does that fact keep getting ignored?  Had I had some grand plan about why manticores were appearing outside of their favoured habitat, then fine and dandy.  But, the player was 100% right.  For your story above to be the same as my example, Alderaan would still be there.
> 
> ...





My games run somewhere between mist well and yours...

I like twists and mysteries... and sometimes they are well planed (well in my mind) and sometimes spur of the moment. I love players questioning me... "Wait, why would a white dragon be in the dessert?" if it was my mistake it might be "I ment blue sorry"

I make changes on purpose all the time and have no issue explaining that... but everyone makes mistakes and I expect my players to call me on it...

((((Dragon example, for years all dragons I ran had cone breath weapons... blue dragons did cone of lighting, black cone of acid.... it started as a mistake, until a PC called me on it... the blue dragon is a line. I went back read the rules and didn't have to fight... the Player was right...)))


----------



## BryonD (Jan 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Where?  Where did I say a single thing about a problem needing a solution.  I've been extremely careful only to talk about my own preferences and not say a single thing about how others play their games.



You specifically mentioned losing a player over a ring dispute and a long debate over the manticore issue.
I'll plead guilty to folding that into the larger context of the conversation.  But you have taken a side that fits with the preference of people who complain about this problem and you have provided two examples of that problem negatively impacting your game.

By the nature of my solution, I do not have two examples of the problem to show you.

As mentioned already, I have seen the potential for this problem.  Any group will have misunderstandings or differences in expectation.  But I don't ever have extended debates over it that derail play and I've never lost a player.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Which is all fine Celebrim, if I had, in fact, placed that Manticore intentionally with all those questions you asked earlier answered.  But, as I said earlier, I didn't even know that manticores lived in deserts.  I placed the manticore there (or the roc underwater) and I was 100% WRONG.



Good DMing 101 would still say:  Take the mistake and make something AWESOME out of it.
It would also say: Don't let a player drag down the game over a silly mistake.


It seems to be going over your head that we get it.  We understand that in this specific case it was a mistake.  It doesn't matter.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 2, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Good DMing 101 would still say:  Take the mistake and make something AWESOME out of it.
> It would also say: Don't let a player drag down the game over a silly mistake.




It should. And its companion volume, Good Playing 101 would have the corollaries: 'Don't assume a mistake' and 'Give the DM a chance to turn a mistake into Something Awesome'.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2015)

BryonD said:


> You specifically mentioned losing a player over a ring dispute and a long debate over the manticore issue.
> I'll plead guilty to folding that into the larger context of the conversation.  But you have taken a side that fits with the preference of people who complain about this problem and you have provided two examples of that problem negatively impacting your game.
> 
> By the nature of my solution, I do not have two examples of the problem to show you.
> ...




And fantastic for you.  You are a better DM than me.  Happy now?



BryonD said:


> Good DMing 101 would still say:  Take the mistake and make something AWESOME out of it.
> It would also say: Don't let a player drag down the game over a silly mistake.
> 
> 
> It seems to be going over your head that we get it.  We understand that in this specific case it was a mistake.  It doesn't matter.




I realize it doesn't matter to you.  For you, you play a game where the DM's view is law.  I would loathe your game.  I wouldn't play at your table.  Not because it's bad, but because it's bad for me.

However, I'm not the one who keeps trying to convince others that my way is the best way.  You are.  You have repeatedly tried to convince me that your way is better - "consensus games lead to milquetoast games" I believe was the exact comment.  "I've never lost a player" is another.  Sorry, BryonD, but, if I made the mistake of sitting at your table, I'd leave after one or two sessions.  Again, not because you run a bad game but because I would be a terrible fit for your table.  

Fortunately, I have a fantastic group currently and this is simply an issue that doesn't come up.  Not that we don't debate rules stuff, we do.  But, because the entire group is engaged in trying to make the game fun for everyone, no one is left holding the bag when things go sideways.  Everyone is pro-active.  Which, from the descriptions of you and Steel Dragons have given, you would not appreciate.  SD talks about being firm about not changing his setting to accommodate player concepts.  Again, totally fine.  I believe that you and he both have a pretty firm idea of the experience you want to present your players with and don't want a lot of changes interfering with that experience.  

It's not to my taste.  I'm far closer to GM4PG in that if I find I'm mistaken, I don't try to cover it up and pretend that I meant to do it all along.  I simply admit to fallibility and work with the group to find a way to smooth over the rough edges.  I expect my players to come to the table ready to write and rewrite large swaths of any campaign I bring to the table.  I don't expect my campaign setting to survive first contact with the players.  I expect to get out the magic typewriter ten minutes after character generation begins and start rewriting ideas from the ground up.

And, as a player, i expect the same thing from my DM's.  I do not want to passively consume, or simply react to whatever the DM has in mind.  Again, not that there is anything wrong with that.  That's perfectly fine for groups that like that.  But, again, not to my taste.  If I come to the table with a concept, with my current group, I know that the DM will meet me more than half way with whatever concept I bring.  And everyone else too.  Thus, we have a 5e sorcerer in our Dragonlance game, and a minotaur bard.  Despite the fact that neither bards nor sorcerers fit with Dragonlance (at least, certainly not 5e versions of those classes).  Granted, my human fighter wasn't exactly a stretch to fit into the game, but, I'm going to ask if I can bring in 4e style retraining rules and convert my fighter to a paladin over the next few levels.  Again, Dragonlance doesn't even HAVE paladins.

Yet, I'm fairly confident that there will be no problems.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 2, 2015)

Hussar said:


> And fantastic for you.  You are a better DM than me.  Happy now?



You asked a question and I answered it.



> I realize it doesn't matter to you.  For you, you play a game where the DM's view is law.  I would loathe your game.  I wouldn't play at your table.  Not because it's bad, but because it's bad for me.
> 
> However, I'm not the one who keeps trying to convince others that my way is the best way.  You are.  You have repeatedly tried to convince me that your way is better - "consensus games lead to milquetoast games" I believe was the exact comment.  "I've never lost a player" is another.  Sorry, BryonD, but, if I made the mistake of sitting at your table, I'd leave after one or two sessions.  Again, not because you run a bad game but because I would be a terrible fit for your table.



I doubt it.  But ok.



> Fortunately, I have a fantastic group currently and this is simply an issue that doesn't come up.  Not that we don't debate rules stuff, we do.  But, because the entire group is engaged in trying to make the game fun for everyone, no one is left holding the bag when things go sideways.  Everyone is pro-active.  Which, from the descriptions of you and Steel Dragons have given, you would not appreciate.  SD talks about being firm about not changing his setting to accommodate player concepts.  Again, totally fine.  I believe that you and he both have a pretty firm idea of the experience you want to present your players with and don't want a lot of changes interfering with that experience.



I'm constantly shocked by how far off the mark you interpret things.
My player's are MASSIVELY pro-active.  (some more than others, of course).  I did specifically cover this.
But you seem to be selectively reading to ignore that.  


> It's not to my taste.  I'm far closer to GM4PG in that if I find I'm mistaken, I don't try to cover it up and pretend that I meant to do it all along.  I simply admit to fallibility and work with the group to find a way to smooth over the rough edges.



Again, just WOW.
Who said anything about "covering it up?"
That is a really sad perspective.



> I expect my players to come to the table ready to write and rewrite large swaths of any campaign I bring to the table.  I don't expect my campaign setting to survive first contact with the players.  I expect to get out the magic typewriter ten minutes after character generation begins and start rewriting ideas from the ground up.
> 
> And, as a player, i expect the same thing from my DM's.  I do not want to passively consume, or simply react to whatever the DM has in mind.  Again, not that there is anything wrong with that.  That's perfectly fine for groups that like that.  But, again, not to my taste.  If I come to the table with a concept, with my current group, I know that the DM will meet me more than half way with whatever concept I bring.  And everyone else too.  Thus, we have a 5e sorcerer in our Dragonlance game, and a minotaur bard.  Despite the fact that neither bards nor sorcerers fit with Dragonlance (at least, certainly not 5e versions of those classes).  Granted, my human fighter wasn't exactly a stretch to fit into the game, but, I'm going to ask if I can bring in 4e style retraining rules and convert my fighter to a paladin over the next few levels.  Again, Dragonlance doesn't even HAVE paladins.
> 
> Yet, I'm fairly confident that there will be no problems.



All I can say it is obvious to me that you truly have no idea what you are missing out on.

So be it.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Which is all fine Celebrim, if I had, in fact, placed that Manticore intentionally with all those questions you asked earlier answered.  But, as I said earlier, I didn't even know that manticores lived in deserts.  I placed the manticore there (or the roc underwater) and I was 100% WRONG...Why does that fact keep getting ignored?




First, I'm not even sure that is possible for a DM to be wrong about this.  Like the treasure type, the number appearing, the % in lair, the alignment, and even the HD of the monster, all of those things in the entry represent only the most common examples and are no more than guidelines for DMs intended to help them craft their campaign but which are not to be expected by either the designers or the players to be completely binding.   It is after all only 'favored terrain'.   If most manticores live in the desert, it doesn't imply they all do.

Secondly, you are missing the point.  The biggest problem with the player behavior is that they actually never considered whether or not they had any way to evaluate whether or not the DM was wrong, but considered it their prerogative to question it anyway.   In this case, it happened that you hadn't considered the favored terrain before placing the monster, but they had no way of knowing that.  The biggest problem was that a player with actual skill as a player would probably have never been able to discover you'd made a mistake, but would instead have been left with a minor mystery - "Why is there a manticore in the forest?"  You as the GM would have only been able to pick up on the player confusion through character activity, and only been able to infer that the player thought that manticore's were unusual in the forest by the sort of propositions that the player was making on behalf of the character.  



> Had I had some grand plan about why manticores were appearing outside of their favoured habitat, then fine and dandy.  But, the player was 100% right.  For your story above to be the same as my example, Alderaan would still be there.




What my example is intended to show is the player failing to engage the setting, the character, or actually to even play.   This is a player that literally knows everything about RPGs but is repeatedly demonstrating that the don't know how to play an RPG.  They have a lot of experience manipulating RPG metagames, although even then, not artfully or respectfully but crudely and rudely, but never really show any desire to actually play the RPG.   For this purpose, it really doesn't matter if the GM has it all thought out, or he's just making this up as he goes by the seat of his pants.   While I greatly prefer the sort of game where the GM uses forethought and preparation to construct a game, that is a preference and its not objectively bad to run a game with a different paradigm - not the least of which because all game styles require a certain amount of improvisation.   

If a player is fishing to determine whether the DM is improving or using prepared ideas, that itself is poor play on the part of the player.  (And it's poor play on the part of the GM if you can as a player actually reliably detect the difference.   Good improv feels and seems a solid as prepared text, because otherwise it's very hard to avoid the game being disrupted by metagaming.   This is particularly important when mysteries are to be solved.   For example, you don't want the gardener to be revealed as having no information of importance and no relation to a crime because it's clear that the gardener is an unnamed PC you forgot to make notes on.)   In other words, good players aren't trying to trip the GM up in the metagame because they want to experience the joy of the game itself and have learned to value and enjoy the game itself.   The 'Luke' player in my example, just can't.  He can't let go of the metagame.  It's probably for that hypothetical player, the whole of the game.   And as a DM, with a player that only enjoys the metagame, you are deprived of one the greatest joys of GMing - watching your players play.  Not only that, but in all my experience, a person that defaults to metagame play also defaults to manipulating you as a person in order to solve problems, rather than defaulting to manipulating the shared imaginary space.   And I have to say, dealing with a person that is all the time trying to bully me, brow beat me, rules lawyer me, cheat the dice, read me, get me to explain IC things OOC, wheedle me, conjole me, and so forth is just plain tiring.




> There, is that clear enough for everyone?  I placed the manticore there completely out of ignorance of the favoured terrain of a manticore.  Not only that, I couldn't give a rat's petoot what the Monster Manual said because I simply do not care.  I never bothered to read the Monster Manual.  Heck, when people started to bitch about 4e putting Blue Dragons on the coast, I actually had to go back and read the older Monster Manuals because I had no idea that blue dragons live in deserts.  Didn't know and certainly didn't ever care.
> 
> But, the player DID care.  He DID know.  HE WAS RIGHT!!!




No, he was wrong.  If you the DM don't care what the Monster Manual says about manticore habitat, it's simply not operable.  Manticores live wherever you want them to live.  That's the actual rules.  Favored terrain isn't a binding contract.  It isn't steam rolling a player to say he found a manticore in a forest.  It would be steam rolling a player to tell him he hated manticores and therefore had to fight the manticore, or anything else to do with his player.   But an attempt to tell a DM that Manticores aren't found in forests is steam rolling a DM, and a DM resisting that is not rolling over his players but just avoiding being rolled over.

Again, the problem here isn't players speaking up.  I welcome players speaking up.   The problem is in this case, the player has no way to evaluate that this is an oversight and even if they suspect it might be an oversight, a skilled player's first instincts are going to be to determine if it makes sense for some unknown reason.  A monster located outside its favored terrain isn't 'wrong' and certainly not '100% wrong'.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

Just to clarify, when I talk about 'good play' and 'poor play', I don't want it to sound like I in fact have this all down and perfect.  Both as a GM and a player I make mistakes and fail to play the game up to the best levels I'm aware of.    The judgments I'm making regarding what is good play and what is poor play involve lessons learned from mistakes I've made, as well as observations made about how others play and what worked to make the game enjoyable.   Sometimes, indeed quite often, the lessons on what to avoid and the lessons on what to strive to achieve came from the very same player or GM.   One of the greatest lessons on preparation and improvisation came from playing as a player in a session where the DM was successfully seamlessly mixing both, and the joy and wonder attained by me as a player to find what I thought was pure color invented to handle an unusual proposition by me was actually well prepared clues to the main thought.   Staying ahead of the players is the ideal.  It is of course not always possible.  But I know from experience as a player and by what my players have said (and how they've shouted and cheered), that when the game is at the point that from the player's perspective it's all real and solid and durable and coming to life - even if you know its half seat of your pants - that at that time the GM is doing well.

Likewise, much of my experience with players playing entirely at a metagame level comes not from dealing with headache players as a GM, but being in the same group with headache players as a player and forced to sit through long, painful, and some times embarrassing arguments with the GM, or players that repeatedly steam roll GMs so that you wonder why the GM just doesn't pass the hat to the player and let him run the game.  It's not fun for anyone, and certainly not fun compared to the joys you can have when everyone is actually playing together.   I know that in part because sometimes it is the same player who is a problem in session after session, who is capable of the most sublime and enabling play in other sessions when they aren't busy browbeating the GM.

Hussar wants to make a contrast between speaking up and challenging the GM and passively consuming the GM's game.   For me, the biggest tragedy of drawing that contrast isn't just that it's wrong and unnecessary, but that it's entirely got the problem reversed.   Actually playing the game is the opposite of passive consumption of the game, but the most engaged you can possibly be in the game.  Challenging the GM about whether manticores ought to appear in a forest is absolute and complete failure to be engaged in the game.  You didn't just miss the bull's eye.   You missed the whole barn.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> First, I'm not even sure that is possible for a DM to be wrong about this.



any person can be wrong... including the DM (IN A COOP GAME LIKE OURS)



> If most manticores live in the desert, it doesn't imply they all do.



  no but the DM made a mistake and did not know that....



> Secondly, you are missing the point.  The biggest problem with the player behavior is that they actually never considered whether or not they had any way to evaluate whether or not the DM was wrong, but considered it their prerogative to question it anyway.




my friends are free to question me when ever they like...



> The biggest problem was that a player with actual skill as a player would probably have never been able to discover you'd made a mistake, but would instead have been left with a minor mystery - "Why is there a manticore in the forest?"  You as the GM would have only been able to pick up on the player confusion through character activity, and only been able to infer that the player thought that manticore's were unusual in the forest by the sort of propositions that the player was making on behalf of the character.




whoa.... in a thread where I keep being told I am being to know it alley and telling people how to game where do you come off commenting on any player skill with no info?  







> a player with actual skill as a player






> What my example is intended to show is the player failing to engage the setting,



no he only failed to do so the way your group does it... by my standard it was fine...



> This is a player that literally knows everything about RPGs but is repeatedly demonstrating that the don't know how to play an RPG.




read that again... and realize you are talking about a fellow gamer you have never met nor did you even see what happened, and to make things worse the only side you have for learning info admits HE not the player made a mistake....


> They have a lot of experience manipulating RPG metagames, although even then, not artfully or respectfully but crudely and rudely, but never really show any desire to actually play the RPG.



where are you getting this from??!?!?!!?


> If a player is fishing to determine whether the DM is improving or using prepared ideas, that itself is poor play on the part of the player.






> And it's poor play on the part of the GM if you can as a player actually reliably detect the difference.



you just openly insulted me and my players, and a dozen other people I know... 

FULL STOP...

WHO GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH JUDGMENTS???



> Good improv feels and seems a solid as prepared text, because otherwise it's very hard to avoid the game being disrupted by metagaming.



and some times that distracs and sometimes it rocks...

if in the middle of my game I stall for a moment and say something silly like "When you finish or need more help come find me I have a job for you"
and one of my players jokes "Oh, is it on my mini map as a mission now?" we can all joke for a moment then keep going...



> This is particularly important when mysteries are to be solved.   For example, you don't want the gardener to be revealed as having no information of importance and no relation to a crime because it's clear that the gardener is an unnamed PC you forgot to make notes on.)



   sometimes I just openly say things like that... and my PC love my games for it. 

during mystery....

PC1 "Hey, I bet the gardner saw something, lets go question him..."
Me "To be honest I didn't think of a gardner at all, so you go question him, he knows nothing and then..."
PC1 "OK, then lets try..."

I don't make my players waste time on every false lead they invent... sometimes it's ok or fun, and sometimes it's just easier to say "Oops"



> In other words, good players aren't trying to trip the GM up in the metagame because they want to experience the joy of the game itself and have learned to value and enjoy the game itself.   The 'Luke' player in my example, just can't.




so maybe the GM could talk to the luke player like a grown adult and friend and ask "Why don't you get where I'm going?" or just come out and say "Trust me this is leading somewhere..."



> He can't let go of the metagame.  It's probably for that hypothetical player, the whole of the game.



well I can't address your hypothetical player I can give you many good examples that are similar if you want to talk about real people... I can even tell you what made me snap at a dark sun game once and literally (no really literally) bang my head on the table.

[sblock]we started in a caravan pulled by horses with wagons he described as ones they gypsys in ravonloft use... three of them and ten men going two weeks through the desert. One of the first encounters we had was with kobolds(it might have been the 3rd or 4th but it was early), and the very next encounter was with a gnome illusionist... when I asked why he was so open about his magic (I was a defiler and hideing it at the time) he said he didn't know why he would hide it. The final straw was that night when we set down to camp and I said my rations were low... the DM said "Yea I don't track that stuff you always have just enough water and food no matter what..."  thud my head hit the table as another player asked him if he had ever read anything on darksun...[/sblock]



> And as a DM, with a player that only enjoys the metagame, you are deprived of one the greatest joys of GMing - watching your players play.



except I have never met anyone like this player you describe, and as a DM who runs for players that not only am I ok with questioning me, but I actively incourage new players to do so, I think maybe you have built a strawman... 



> Not only that, but in all my experience, a person that defaults to metagame play also defaults to manipulating you as a person in order to solve problems, rather than defaulting to manipulating the shared imaginary space.   And I have to say, dealing with a person that is all the time trying to bully me, brow beat me, rules lawyer me, cheat the dice, read me, get me to explain IC things OOC, wheedle me, conjole me, and so forth is just plain tiring.



and again you have read into our examples things not there... no one said anyone did half that, the Player asked a damn question...





> No, he was wrong.  If you the DM don't care what the Monster Manual says about manticore habitat, it's simply not operable.  Manticores live wherever you want them to live.  That's the actual rules.  Favored terrain isn't a binding contract.  It isn't steam rolling a player to say he found a manticore in a forest.  It would be steam rolling a player to tell him he hated manticores and therefore had to fight the manticore, or anything else to do with his player.   But an attempt to tell a DM that Manticores aren't found in forests is steam rolling a DM, and a DM resisting that is not rolling over his players but just avoiding being rolled over.



 the steam rolling was not acknowledging a fellow rpg fan's feelings and interests and instead just push past it...


> Again, the problem here isn't players speaking up.  I welcome players speaking up.   The problem is in this case, the player has no way to evaluate that this is an oversight and even if they suspect it might be an oversight, a skilled player's first instincts are going to be to determine if it makes sense for some unknown reason.  A monster located outside its favored terrain isn't 'wrong' and certainly not '100% wrong'.



  but you have no idea what motivated the player to bring it up, all you know is the DM blames himself for his reaction... so how can you know if it was a good bring up or a bad one??


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> Hussar wants to make a contrast between speaking up and challenging the GM and passively consuming the GM's game.   For me, the biggest tragedy of drawing that contrast isn't just that it's wrong and unnecessary, but that it's entirely got the problem reversed.   Actually playing the game is the opposite of passive consumption of the game, but the most engaged you can possibly be in the game.  Challenging the GM about whether manticores ought to appear in a forest is absolute and complete failure to be engaged in the game.  You didn't just miss the bull's eye.   You missed the whole barn.




maybe you don't get it...

have you ever been in a game with open dialog out of game where the DM not only listens to player input but actively encourages it? Have you ever been in a game where when the player speaks up and says "But X says Y not what you said." the DM says "Thanks, I forgot that, your right." and keeps going? 

I have been, and those games are great too


----------



## BryonD (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> FULL STOP...
> 
> WHO GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH JUDGMENTS???



Based on my years of experience and frequent compliments from numerous players past, I hereby give Celebrim the right to make this judgement regarding how to make the overall game experience better.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> maybe you don't get it...
> 
> have you ever been in a game with open dialog out of game where the DM not only listens to player input but actively encourages it? Have you ever been in a game where when the player speaks up and says "But X says Y not what you said." the DM says "Thanks, I forgot that, your right." and keeps going?
> 
> I have been, and those games are great too



So...  the manticore stayed in the forest then.

cool


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

BryonD said:


> So...  the manticore stayed in the forest then.
> 
> cool




well that wasn't my story, but I could go either way with it...


edit: if a player really cared enough about any monster that he really wanted to use the default fluff I would not mind taking a minute or two to recast my fight...


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 3, 2015)

all I know is if I as the DM put a manticore in the forest because I thought it was cool, and a player engaged in, and I quote, "lengthy argument" to prove how I was wrong on something as minor as that, using metaknowledge to boot, that's not having an open discussion.  That's them being an 

AFAIC, it shouldn't have gone any further than this:

"I thought manticores only lived in deserts?"
"no, they don't, and that would be player knowledge anyway."
"OK"

in fact, I would go so far as to say such behavior goes against the spirit of the game.  In fact, I know so because that was explicitly addressed in the 1e DMG


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> any person can be wrong... including the DM (IN A COOP GAME LIKE OURS)




Yes, certainly, but in this case the action was one which I don't think it is possible for a GM to be wrong about.  We're not even dealing of a case of a red dragon in a room with no exits big enough to let the red dragon out, which is unartful when it happens by accident, but is certainly never wrong.   A manticore not in a desert by accident isn't even bad DMing.



> no but the DM made a mistake and did not know that....




So?  Not knowing what the favored terrain of a monster happens to be does not make placing that monster outside of that favored terrain wrong.



> my friends are free to question me when ever they like...




Sure.  But I don't see your point.  Sometimes questioning is good.  Sometimes it is not.   This particular case seems pretty clearly in the not category.  To illustrate my point so people could tell the difference between the two, I wrote a little script intended to be humorous, showing how - even if you have the right to question a GM, and even if your information is correct - you can still be wrong.



> whoa.... in a thread where I keep being told I am being to know it alley and telling people how to game where do you come off commenting on any player skill with no info?




Well, I don't recall saying anything to you personally, but yes, I think I can evaluate skill in a RPer just as I can evaluate skill in a singer or a painter.  As for no info, I certainly wouldn't be commenting on the situation if someone hadn't described it.



> no he only failed to do so the way your group does it... by my standard it was fine...




No comment then.



> read that again... and realize you are talking about a fellow gamer you have never met nor did you even see what happened, and to make things worse the only side you have for learning info admits HE not the player made a mistake....




Read that again, and realize you are talking about me talking about the fictional player of 'Luke' in my example intend to illustrate how questioning the GM could be poor play.  That's the example where I have enough information to draw the conclusions I made regarding the player's behavior. 



> where are you getting this from??!?!?!!?




From the example I wrote.



> you just openly insulted me and my players, and a dozen other people I know...
> 
> FULL STOP...




So, you're telling me that as players you are all the time trying to wheedle out of a GM whether he made something up on the spot or whether he had planned it ahead of time, and that conversely as the GM you never see any reason to hide this information?   And your insulted because I see that as poor play, full stop?  There isn't much I can do about that.



> WHO GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH JUDGMENTS???




You are of the mistaken impression that someone has to grant me the right.

After blowing your top though with all your big capital letters, you just get a little bit weird.



> if in the middle of my game I stall for a moment and say something silly like "When you finish or need more help come find me I have a job for you"
> and one of my players jokes "Oh, is it on my mini map as a mission now?" we can all joke for a moment then keep going...
> 
> sometimes I just openly say things like that... and my PC love my games for it.
> ...




To begin with, a lot these suggestions you are making you'll find me utilizing in my posts or my example script as a way to try to deal with situations that are going wrong and put them back on the right track.   What you are missing is that you shouldn't have to tell your grown up adult friend, "Trust me this is leading somewhere."   Your grown up adult friend if he's really adult friend shouldn't be such a whiny baby that needs his hand held and explicit reassurance all the time.  I mean it's great and all that you have the patience to keep patting his hand every time he doesn't know where this is going, but you know, maybe it would be great if you demanded as much maturity from the players as you are insisting is there from the DM.   Unless you think the example Luke is exhibiting good form and manners, in which case, again, I have no response I can make to that.



> I can even tell you what made me snap at a dark sun game once and literally (no really literally) bang my head on the table.




Yeah, speaking of maturity from the players... what exact conclusions do you want me to draw from that?  I'm sorry your bad experiences with DMs make you 'snap' and force you to do things that my nine year olds would get a scolding for doing.  I hope you have better experiences in the future.



> except I have never met anyone like this player you describe




Ok...



> the steam rolling was not acknowledging a fellow rpg fan's feelings and interests and instead just push past it...




He has feelings about manticores showing up in the desert that can't be smoothed over by any of the dozens of plausible explanations for why he's observed a manticore outside the desert, and further those feelings compel him to bluntly challenge DM's placement of the monster???  Seriously?   It doesn't matter what compelled the player to bring it up.  I don't know how much more obvious it can be that responding to what the DM describes by challenging his right to describe it and demanding he retract it is not functional or attractive play by the player, nor can I imagine a more trivial example to illustrate the point than the one Hussar provided me with of a player demanding that manticore's not appear in forests because their favored terrain is desert.  The powers of my imagination couldn't have come up with such a straw man example.  If I'd imagined it, I would have rejected it as too absurd to believe.  There is another thread about whether RPGs are watchable.   Well, if this happened during a big formal podcast with an audience in the room, I'd hang my head in shame to be involved with.   As a member of the audience, my feelings would provoke a desire for me to leave the room in embarrassment for the people on the stage.  It's worst sort of example of rules lawyerish play, worthy of appearing in a comedy movie.

Sorry you find that opinion insulting, but I suspect I'm not going to prove to be all that unique in that regard to this judgment.   Please if you are invited to perform a role-playing game for a large audience, for your sake, don't hold in your mind that this sort of rules lawyering and challenging the DM is an example of skillful play by a player at a table.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> well that wasn't my story, but I could go either way with it...
> 
> 
> edit: if a player really cared enough about any monster that he really wanted to use the default fluff I would not mind taking a minute or two to recast my fight...



So the rest of the players sit around for one or two minutes so that they can play something you threw together in one or two minutes instead of what you had ready

or

the rest of the players sit around for however long it actually takes



Seriously, I realize it wasn't your story, but you are taking great offense to replies that strongly lean on that specific example.
You have moved the goal posts to something that suggests "no my AC is 17"  "Oh. it did miss then, my bad"  ...keep going.... from fundamental changes to the narrative.  It is a complete forfeit on the existing conversation.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 3, 2015)

BryonD said:


> *Good DMing 101 would still say:  Take the mistake and make something AWESOME out of it.*
> It would also say: Don't let a player drag down the game over a silly mistake.
> 
> 
> It seems to be going over your head that we get it.  We understand that in this specific case it was a mistake.  It doesn't matter.






BryonD said:


> /snip
> Again, just WOW.
> Who said anything about "covering it up?"
> That is a really sad perspective.
> ...




Umm, you said to cover it up.  The bolded bit in the quote is saying you should take a mistake and instead of simply admitting a mistake, you should "make something AWESOME out of it."

But, whether or not I'm missing out on something is just another example of you trying to tell me that I'm doing it wrong.  Again, I've been very careful to not talk about anyone else's table and ONLY talk about what I want.  That you apparently can't simply accept that I have a great time doing it differently is your problem, not mine.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Umm, you said to cover it up.  The bolded bit in the quote is saying you should take a mistake and instead of simply admitting a mistake, you should "make something AWESOME out of it."
> 
> But, whether or not I'm missing out on something is just another example of you trying to tell me that I'm doing it wrong.



Yep you are missing something

You are missing something very important.



> Again, I've been very careful to not talk about anyone else's table and ONLY talk about what I want.  That you apparently can't simply accept that I have a great time doing it differently is your problem, not mine.



I'm sorry, why are you in the conversation then?
As I have already pointed out you have provided TWO examples (in this thread alone) of negative experiences.  So it is not reasonable to frame yourself as an authority on avoiding them.

There is a question at hand regarding how to not have those experiences.  
So if you are not an authority on avoiding them and you are not interested in methods that do, why are you participating in a conversation on avoiding them?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> AFAIC, it shouldn't have gone any further than this:
> 
> "I thought manticores only lived in deserts?"
> "no, they don't, and that would be player knowledge anyway."
> ...




in my game it would go more like this:

"I thought manticores only lived in deserts?"
 "I don't know, does it matter?"
 "Yes, because..." (I can't imagine the reason but assume he had one...)
 "Well if you feel so strongly, ok, its an X instead" 
where X= another creature of similar power


----------



## Hussar (Jan 3, 2015)

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] - I am participating because I think there are other gamers, like me, who prefer consensus style games and I'm providing an example of how consensus games work.  You, instead, are trying to tell me that consensus games actually don't work (they are milquetoast) and that the "proper" way to play is your style.  

 [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]



			
				Challenging the GM about whether manticores ought to appear in a forest is absolute and complete failure to be engaged in the game. You didn't just miss the bull's eye. You missed the whole barn.

Read more: [url said:
			
		

> http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?401098-Waibel-s-Rule-of-Interpretation-(aka-quot-How-to-Interpret-the-Rules-quot-)/page12#ixzz3NiWElRtB[/url]




Aren't you the one who spent a considerable amount of time detailing slaad?  I believe you are.  Are you also not the one who spent considerable time criticising WOTC for their 4e changes to Salad?  Yup, I'm pretty sure you were the one in that conversation.

So, I would say that if I dropped Slaad in my game and did them in a completely different way, completely ignoring all prior canon regarding slaad, maybe my slaad are from the Abyss, you would have no problems whatsoever?  You'd never so much as question me about it?

Like I said earlier, considering the HUGE reaction about WOTC's changes to D&D canon, I'd say that there are considerable numbers of gamers out there for whom game canon is very important.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> in my game it would go more like this:
> 
> "I thought manticores only lived in deserts?"
> "I don't know, does it matter?"
> ...




At the time, I played the way Sancrosanct advises and just steamrolled the player and ignored his complaints.  Now, I would be far closer to your approach.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] - I am participating because I think there are other gamers, like me, who prefer consensus style games and I'm providing an example of how consensus games work.  You, instead, are trying to tell me that consensus games actually don't work (they are milquetoast) and that the "proper" way to play is your style.



You seem to be confusing a conversation about best practices for the general community with a commentary on your personal game.
I have no way of knowing if you game is the greatest narrative epic ever or simply a series of unrelated combats with the monster in Room 19.

If you say that you are now having an awesome time doing whatever it is you are doing, then great.
Play what you like.

As to my comments on what makes a best practice for the community at large, they still stand.

You and I have a long history and the history includes numerous complaints from you about Bad DMs and bad players.  When you come into this thread with two more examples, I don't just see two more examples, I see status quo within a long-worn trail.  So even if your two examples don't reinforce that point, you have established yourself as a corner case with regard to the community I'm offer advice toward.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> "I thought manticores only lived in deserts?"
> "no, they don't, and that would be player knowledge anyway."
> "OK"
> 
> in fact, I would go so far as to say such behavior goes against the spirit of the game.  In fact, I know so because that was explicitly addressed in the 1e DMG




If this actually happened to me, I'd hope I could give the question "I thought manticores only lived in deserts?" the sort of answer it deserves.

Such as:

"This one won an all expenses paid vacation package on Wheel of Fortune."
"Yes, they do, but this one has a four hour commute and you are its wandering encounter."
"Only on Tuesdays."
"It's a recon manticore."


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> So, I would say that if I dropped Slaad in my game and did them in a completely different way, completely ignoring all prior canon regarding slaad, maybe my slaad are from the Abyss, you would have no problems whatsoever?  You'd never so much as question me about it?




Absolutely.  It would be ridiculous for me to imagine some other DM not only had came to the same conclusions about Slaad as I had, but was required to adhere to my personal tastes.  It might be that I would think to myself, privately, that I did Slaad more artfully (better) than he did, but I'd never tell him that directly.  His gameworld is his gameworld.  As player, I have no right to impose upon it.   There is no way for him to be 'wrong' about how to use Slaad in his own game world.



> Like I said earlier, considering the HUGE reaction about WOTC's changes to D&D canon, I'd say that there are considerable numbers of gamers out there for whom game canon is very important.




This is very different situation.  WotC is not my DM.  WotC is my professional game publisher.   When I sit at a DM's table, I do so at the Dm's pleasure - he is the host, and I'm to be a good guest in his 'house'.  I'm implicitly saying, "I want to enjoy in and participate in your special creation.  I'm just here to play my character.  Show me your world.   I will be honored to become a part of it."  When I buy a game supplement, I do so at my pleasure, and I feel quite entitled to say, "I want your creation to suit my needs, or I'm not going to buy it."   Sure, if I just don't enjoy a particular DM's work, I'm not going to keep coming back.   But I'm not going to bang my head on the table and say, "You stupid DM.  This isn't what I want.", anymore than I'd sneer at what a cook served me when they invited me into their home.  "I don't like asparagus.  Take it away!", is something my children would be reprimanded for.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> Yes, certainly, but in this case the action was one which I don't think it is possible for a GM to be wrong about.  We're not even dealing of a case of a red dragon in a room with no exits big enough to let the red dragon out, which is unartful when it happens by accident, but is certainly never wrong.   A manticore not in a desert by accident isn't even bad DMing.



 no one brought up bad DMIng but you... it was a mistake one that would not bother me, but did bother someone... 




> So?  Not knowing what the favored terrain of a monster happens to be does not make placing that monster outside of that favored terrain wrong.



 again we were not there, the player had a reason, I would love to know what it is...




> Sure.  But I don't see your point.  Sometimes questioning is good.  Sometimes it is not.   This particular case seems pretty clearly in the not category.



   we disagree I see no problem with the question...



> To illustrate my point so people could tell the difference between the two, I wrote a little script intended to be humorous, showing how - even if you have the right to question a GM, and even if your information is correct - you can still be wrong.



 and in doing so set up what I belive is called a snowman...




> Well, I don't recall saying anything to you personally, but yes, I think I can evaluate skill in a RPer just as I can evaluate skill in a singer or a painter.  As for no info, I certainly wouldn't be commenting on the situation if someone hadn't described it.



 except can you evaluate a painter without seeing his work but by hearing a critic of his work saying "I said I didn't like it back then, but in truth it wasn't so bad I would give it a better review today."





> So, you're telling me that as players you are all the time trying to wheedle out of a GM whether he made something up on the spot or whether he had planned it ahead of time, and that conversely as the GM you never see any reason to hide this information?



only a sith deals in assaults...
  no of course there are reasons to sometimes hide it, and I have enough "Trust currency" that I normally can... but I earn that trust by not "Covering up" every misstep...




> And your insulted because I see that as poor play, full stop?  There isn't much I can do about that.



I feel insulted because you came to a public place and basicly said "The way you do things are wrong..." when you know full well how pissed you would be if someone told you your way was wrong...




> You are of the mistaken impression that someone has to grant me the right.
> 
> After blowing your top though with all your big capital letters, you just get a little bit weird.



 how is it weird that I am calling you on your BS?




> To begin with, a lot these suggestions you are making you'll find me utilizing in my posts or my example script as a way to try to deal with situations that are going wrong and put them back on the right track.



   and how often do you find players that wont work with you when you say them? no hypothetical players real ones?




> What you are missing is that you shouldn't have to tell your grown up adult friend, "Trust me this is leading somewhere."




why, it is a simple explanation... If I took my girlfriend to chucky cheese on our big date night (she has 3 kids we are there enough) I would not think it weird that I had to explain why I was doing something that seemed odd and that I was doing so with a plan not by some horrible mistake.



> Your grown up adult friend if he's really adult friend shouldn't be such a whiny baby that needs his hand held and explicit reassurance all the time.



I think very few of my friends are whiny baby... why must you insult instead of just talk?



> I mean it's great and all that you have the patience to keep patting his hand every time he doesn't know where this is going, but you know, maybe it would be great if you demanded as much maturity from the players as you are insisting is there from the DM.   Unless you think the example Luke is exhibiting good form and manners, in which case, again, I have no response I can make to that.




I think your luke example was a strawman and not in anyway reflecting my view point or my style of game or my theory I stated...



> Yeah, speaking of maturity from the players... what exact conclusions do you want me to draw from that?



 well it was something that really happened about 10ish years ago... and it should show that the game would have been better had I spoke up at the beginning... but since you didn't acknowledge what happened that lead to it I bet you just want to again be insulteing again



> I'm sorry your bad experiences with DMs make you 'snap' and force you to do things that my nine year olds would get a scolding for doing.  I hope you have better experiences in the future.



I do believe that you are again trying to insult by comparing my funny story to that of your child... instead of reporting repated insults I will ask you to explain how this can be taken as not an insult...





> He has feelings about manticores showing up in the desert that can't be smoothed over by any of the dozens of plausible explanations for why he's observed a manticore outside the desert, and further those feelings compel him to bluntly challenge DM's placement of the monster???  Seriously?




I do belive that is all the evidence we have...



> It doesn't matter what compelled the player to bring it up



. again being dismissive of others... I don't know why it was his sticking point, but it was...




> I don't know how much more obvious it can be that responding to what the DM describes by challenging his right to describe it and demanding he retract it is not functional or attractive play by the player, nor can I imagine a more trivial example to illustrate the point than the one Hussar provided me with of a player demanding that manticore's not appear in forests because their favored terrain is desert.  The powers of my imagination couldn't have come up with such a straw man example.



your luke example was far worse...




> If I'd imagined it, I would have rejected it as too absurd to believe.  There is another thread about whether RPGs are watchable.   Well, if this happened during a big formal podcast with an audience in the room, I'd hang my head in shame to be involved with.   As a member of the audience, my feelings would provoke a desire for me to leave the room in embarrassment for the people on the stage.  It's worst sort of example of rules lawyerish play, worthy of appearing in a comedy movie.



 unless the DM handled it well... or you know there was a reason given, or you know anything...



> Sorry you find that opinion insulting, but I suspect I'm not going to prove to be all that unique in that regard to this judgment.



 you are... about 20 years of gameing... running games at gencon and origins and concon and dragoncon and helping new DMs at encounters, and LFR... I have never meet anyone in person willing to be as verbaly abusive as you are over the game that was not looking for a fight... infact you are far worse then any example given here...




> Please if you are invited to perform a role-playing game for a large audience, for your sake, don't hold in your mind that this sort of rules lawyering and challenging the DM is an example of skillful play by a player at a table.



  I have no doubt since I am better at speaking and improve then typing or writing, I would do much better with a game then a message board


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

BryonD said:


> You and I have a long history and the history includes numerous complaints from you about Bad DMs and bad players.  When you come into this thread with two more examples, I don't just see two more examples, I see status quo within a long-worn trail.  So even if your two examples don't reinforce that point, you have established yourself as a corner case with regard to the community I'm offer advice toward.




In fairness to Hussar - who holds the 'honor' of being my least favorite poster on the boards that I also respect - Hussar has evolved a system for dealing with his long history of bad play that seems to work for him and which as far as I can tell he's absolutely consistent about.  That standard is that "The DM is always wrong.", which is I guess sort of the counterpart to "The customer is always right."   And he seems to be striving to be the DM he would want to have as a player, which is one of the reasons I can still respect him.

But I agree that even though this seems to work for him, he doesn't know what he's missing.   And further I'd say that almost all the arguments he and I have come from his assumption that I'm holding the exact opposite opinion, that the DM is always right and has no need to listen to anyone.   I've given up trying to convince him that there are other alternatives.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

BryonD said:


> So the rest of the players sit around for one or two minutes so that they can play something you threw together in one or two minutes instead of what you had ready
> 
> or
> 
> the rest of the players sit around for however long it actually takes



the other players can take that time to talk about agents of shield, or there girlfriends, or order our pizza... I mean it's not like those things wont come up at SOME point?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> At the time, I played the way Sancrosanct advises and just steamrolled the player and ignored his complaints.  Now, I would be far closer to your approach.




complaints?  The way you told it, the player used metagame knowledge to try to bully you with ruleslawyering to make the game world how he or she wanted, rather than what you as the DM wanted, presumably because they can't handle anything outside very strict RAW   you didn't describe open dialog, but a lengthy heated discussion and for what?  Because the MM that he or she memorized said manticores don't live in a forest?

players like that shouldn't be catered to because it gives them an even bigger sense of entitlement


----------



## Ranes (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ...and in doing so set up what I belive is called a snowman...




Don't worry. If Celebrim puts a snowman in Alderaan, it's probably commuting to Hoth.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

BryonD said:


> You seem to be confusing a conversation about best practices for the general community with a commentary on your personal game.



 how is tat any different then what you are doing?



> If you say that you are now having an awesome time doing whatever it is you are doing, then great.
> Play what you like.
> 
> As to my comments on what makes a best practice for the community at large, they still stand.



 how do you know that our practices are not better for the community at large... heck it doesn't even have to be a majority to be worth it... if 25% of gamers would enjoy our style that would still make it worth bringing up... heck even 10%... but what if it was 45% or if you were wrong and we were the majority?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

Ranes said:


> Don't worry. If Celebrim puts a snowman in Alderaan, it's probably commuting to Hoth.




I meant strwman, but my niece is staying over and playing as I type...



Sacrosanct said:


> complaints?  The way you told it, the player used metagame knowledge to try to bully you with ruleslawyering to make the game world how he or she wanted, rather than what you as the DM wanted, presumably because they can't handle anything outside very strict RAW   you didn't describe open dialog, but a lengthy heated discussion and for what?  Because the MM that he or she memorized said manticores don't live in a forest?
> 
> players like that shouldn't be catered to because it gives them an even bigger sense of entitlement




I did not read any of what you did... all I read was a player questioned why it was there and stated they are not normally there, the DM instead of engaging in dialog doubled down and started a fight, one that went way past where it should, and even regrets it in hindsight... 

the missing part is the player motive, witch you have read into in a negative light


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 3, 2015)

I saw an example of this on YouTube. I won't go into details in case the DM posts here, but basically he got a ruling completely wrong, and the way he ruled nerfed a player somewhat. He declared "Sorry guys that's just the way I read the rule!". 

Totally ruined my enjoyment of the series at that point. Made it seem more like dictators and dragons, not dungeons and dragons. I'd *never* declare anything like that without input from the table.

I preferred it when the DM was considered a referee, not a dictator.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I meant strawman...




I know. I just couldn't resist. And I should have; I'm the poster who brought up manicures.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> I saw an example of this on YouTube. I won't go into details in case the DM posts here, but basically he got a ruling completely wrong, and the way he ruled nerfed a player somewhat. He declared "Sorry guys that's just the way I read the rule!".
> 
> Totally ruined my enjoyment of the series at that point. Made it seem more like dictators and dragons, not dungeons and dragons. I'd *never* declare anything like that without input from the table.
> 
> I preferred it when the DM was considered a referee, not a dictator.




Well I do not know exactly whitch one you saw, but I agree. I often get the feeling there is a not to small minority of DMs who are on power trips, and some of them hide it well until you are in there game and they try to "put there foot down".


----------



## Ranes (Jan 3, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> I saw an example of this on YouTube. I won't go into details in case the DM posts here, but basically he got a ruling completely wrong, and the way he ruled nerfed a player somewhat. He declared "Sorry guys that's just the way I read the rule!".
> 
> Totally ruined my enjoyment of the series at that point. Made it seem more like dictators and dragons, not dungeons and dragons. I'd *never* declare anything like that without input from the table.
> 
> I preferred it when the DM was considered a referee, not a dictator.




Fair enough. And I'll stick my neck out and say that a DM who can't stand to be corrected on a rule is a poor DM. But in the case of the manticore, it's not a case of the DM being wrong or nerfing the player. Elves don't usually live in water, until you pick up a copy of Stormwrack or decide that, in your campaign, they do. That's not making an incorrect ruling. Nor does it disenfranchise anyone. Even if a DM who puts a manticore in a forest has forgotten that the MM says they usually live in deserts and that his players might reasonably expect to encounter them there, it's not being dictatorial to say that the party nevertheless encounters one in a different habitat.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> no one brought up bad DMIng but you... it was a mistake one that would not bother me, but did bother someone... again we were not there, the player had a reason, I would love to know what it is...




It wasn't a mistake.  By his own admission, Hussar preferred that manticore's not be restricted to deserts.  Moreover, by the rules, even though manticore's in second edition had the 'favored terrain' desert, monsters don't have to be restricted to their favored terrains.  It is a mistake to suggest that monsters can only appear in their favored terrains and DMs have no right to place monsters wherever they wish.  Regarding Hussar's opinion that he was wrong because he wasn't aware of the 2e favored terrain, in that Hussar is mistaken.

As for your position that I shouldn't make assumptions, you yourself have just made a most unwarranted assumption and one that strikes me as terribly unlikely - that the player who called this out to Hussar had a reason.  I think it highly improbable that he had any reason at all.   On the basis of my 40 years of experience with nerds, I suspect that there is no other reason than the player remembered the fact, and decided therefore 'he was right', and would not let go of it.  He had no reason for caring, but gosh darn it, that's what the book said so he was 'right'.  On the basis of my experience with people, and on the fact that even you admit you can't imagine any possible reason to care, I don't think any other explanation is remotely likely.   And if there is some other explanation, it would be even more ludicrous.  



> we disagree I see no problem with the question...




I'm not going to go in circles.  I already wrote a detailed explanation as to why the question was wrong.  I don't intend to repeat that whole post.  Feel free to peruse it.  But the question itself is a minor foible compared to the fact that apparently the encounter between the player and Hussar was so traumatic that Hussar remembers it as plowing over a player.  So on the assumption of unwarranted assumptions, I don't think we can actually affirm that there was a question.   I suspect it was more of a declaration or an accusation to be remembered in this light from this distance.  



> except can you evaluate a painter without seeing his work but by hearing a critic of his work saying "I said I didn't like it back then, but in truth it wasn't so bad I would give it a better review today."




We know enough to know a player challenged a DM regarding the favored terrain placement of a monster.  This is enough.



> no of course there are reasons to sometimes hide it, and I have enough "Trust currency" that I normally can...




And in conceding that, I feel you've conceded almost the entirety of my argument.  It's hardly worth reiterating the point if you agree that there are valid reasons.  It seems I'm mostly arguing with you then because you feel insulted, even if your actual disagreement with me is pretty small.



> but I earn that trust by not "Covering up" every misstep...




I don't care particularly how you earn your trust.  Point is, not being challenged over the placement of a monster is a level of trust even a 6th grade DM randomly stocking his dungeon should be able to expect. 



> I feel insulted because you came to a public place and basicly said "The way you do things are wrong..." when you know full well how pissed you would be if someone told you your way was wrong...




I know full well?  To be fully frank, and I've said this before at EnWorld in other contexts, so I'm not just saying it now - I feel I have no right to be pissed.  Period.  I not only feel I have no right to be angry when someone tells me I'm in the wrong, but would feel I was further in the wrong to become angry about that.   I feel anger is morally evil, especially and perhaps always in defense of ones person.   I feel ashamed when I get angry about such things.  I have confessed to the boards that there are still some triggers that do get me angry - misquoting me in particular, actions I feel are unjust by authority figures, things I feel are deceptive - but have said repeatedly that you cannot get me angry by contradiction or any sort of insult.   Call me a SOB, call a jerk, call me a dipstick - public place or not, internet or to my face.  I will not be angry over that.   I'll probably laugh.  In a few cases, I might even agree with you.  I don't take any pride in the fact that I'm not yet fully in control of myself regarding people misconstruing me and misquoting me apparently willfully, but I am trying.   And as regard to people just disagreeing with me, that happens all the time.  I should be a terribly unhappy person if I raged about it to any degree at all.

So I know no such thing 'full well'.



> how is it weird that I am calling you on your BS?




It's not weird that you'd disagree with me.  It's weird that you'd say you were disagreeing with me while making all sorts of suggestions which any one reading my posts would know I fully agree with.  I can only put it down to the fact that you were blowing your top at time and impressing on me how angry you were and how seriously I should take that.



> and how often do you find players that wont work with you when you say them? no hypothetical players real ones?




Lately, pretty rarely.  I can handle most players and by and large most of my players have been pretty reasonable since reaching adulthood.   However, this neglects my actual point, that though I can deal with problem players and bad play, I don't feel I should have to.



> I think your luke example was a strawman and not in anyway reflecting my view point or my style of game or my theory I stated...




Well of course it was a strawman.  It went beyond starwman.  It's bloody well satire.  But it's really not that far from some table arguments I've seen regarding canon in the FR, the placement of tombs, or the HD distribution of goblins in a tribe.

As for your feelings that you've been insulted, if I were to recall times when I 'snapped' and banged my head on the table and called out DMs, it wouldn't be with any intention of receiving approval and sympathy for such actions.   That I withhold such approval and indeed find the actions to be less than ideal, and that you nonetheless wish to feel insulted about, I cannot do anything about.  I don't ask that you not take my words as insulting.  I instead ask how you intend such a description of yourself to be anything but self-deprecating or how you imagined such a story would justify your opinion?  I would think that the story is funny because you can laugh now at your own folly, but did you intend for me to see the DM in the story as deserving of your abuse?



> your luke example was far worse...




No, it wasn't, though since as you've pointed out we don't have any full information, I wonder how you know it was worse.  But leaving that aside, if it seems far worse it is only because we in the audience know the DM has a good explanation.   In point of fact, the complaint about the Manticore is far more trivial than that of any of the objections my hypothetical 'Luke' made.  In a different context, without a well thought out explanation, considering the established tropes of the setting, each of the issues that Luke's player raises are valid.   The big problem I was trying to demonstrate was the instincts of the Luke player.   And yes I've seen those instincts many times before.



> I have never meet anyone in person willing to be as verbaly abusive as you are over the game that was not looking for a fight... infact you are far worse then any example given here...




My original posts simply displayed my dismay at the poor level of play implied by the incident, and tried to explain why.  I don't see how that is verbally abusive.   You are the one who decided that the shoe fit.  My retort to your post was more colorful I admit, since you wished to tell me how grown ups were supposed to behave while providing as examples things which look more like temper tantrums to me.  Big font anyone?  As for looking for a fight.... well, you are the one suggesting how angry you are and how angry you've been in the past and well angry.   Physical violence hadn't accorded to me until you brought it up.  I suppose I'd get hit a couple times by you if this was in person, eh?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 3, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> When I sit at a DM's table, I do so at the Dm's pleasure - he is the host, and I'm to be a good guest in his 'house'.





Jester Canuck said:


> If you trust the DM this isn't an issue, because you have faith in their ability to make sense if thing.
> Problems arise when you don't trust the DM to play fair or lack faith in their ability to make sense of things.
> 
> In the first case, rules that allow the trusted DM to tell stories they want without being shackled by the rules leads to a better experience. When the DM is having fun it's infectious. In the latter case, bad DMs can be held in check by rules, but they'll find a way (accidentally or on purpose) to impact the fun.





Hussar said:


> I'm not sure it's even a trust issue.



I'm 100% sure it's not a trust issue. Nor is it an issue of "good manners", as Celebrim assets.

Not everyone plays RPGs so that the GM can tell them a good story. Not everyone regards the game as belonging solely, or principally, to the GM. For some, story, backstory, campaign world etc is secondary to game play. For others, _they_ want to contribute in a significant way to the telling of the story.

When the focus of the game is on game play, then there needs to be some way of mediating possible competing moves. When the focus of the game is on story contributions, then there need to be some way of mediating possible competing contributions. This is one thing that rules can do. For them to do this, they have to have some content that is independent of the GM's conception of them, given that for them to do this they have to bind the GM as well as the players.

Both Hussar's examples (plate armour, and manticores) concern background elements. I think the scope for conflict comes up most often in relation to action resolution. For instance, can a powerful epic-tier fighter leap 50' from a flying carpet onto a flying slaad lord? This question came up in my most recent 4e session. We didn't answer it by considering what makes sense to me (the GM) or to the player of the fighter. We resolved it using the jumping rules.



Mistwell said:


> my players honestly don't care about the rules much.





Sacrosanct said:


> I don't think it's nearly as much of an outlier you think it is.



So the advice for GMs who have players who don't care much about the rules is "Don't sweat the rules." Do we need a flowchart for that?

There are plenty of RPGers who do care about the rules, even when they are not GMing. Not because they are bad players (whatever exactly that means) but because they are there to _play a game_ or they are there to _impact the story, even when the GM didn't expect/want the story to go that way_. For these players, the rules are the system for mediating different desires/expectations, and competing moves, at the table.

Among serious players of sporting games, or board games, not just the referee cares about the rules. And there can be such a thing as good or bad rules adjudications. RPGs can be like this too.



Sacrosanct said:


> That's really nitpicking though.  I don't think either of you are really wrong.  The important thing is the overall point.  That being, "If a rule at first doesn't seem to make sense, evaluate it in the context of other similar rules and the intent of the design.  If it still doesn't make sense, do what you want with it and don't let it stop your gaming."



I agree with [MENTION=6693417]Authweight[/MENTION]. This is not very helpful advice.

It doesn't give any advice on how to decide if something "makes sense" (eg to whom? using what criteria? etc - consider the billion arguments over the past 6 years on Come and Get It as "martial mind control" vs CaGI as a tool for modelling martial skill within the relatively abstract D&D resolution framework).

And it doesn't give advice on how to "do what you want". Of course everyone wants a great game. But standards for "great game" differ. And the connection between GM techniques, rules and outcomes is not always obvious.



Sacrosanct said:


> And yet, as kids in the early 80s, we didn't know what the hell we were doing and we had a blast.  Perhaps we should just let people have fun without trying to quantify how "right" they are or aren't.



Maybe the game you played as a kid in the 80s was ultra-awesome, but my best guess is that I, today, would find that a game not worth playing in.

I know that is true of my own early campaigns. I enjoyed a lot of stuff as a kid that wouldn't appeal to me now. Tastes change. In particular, most adults have more sophisticated tastes than most kids, and so a game has to offer a little bit more (and, perhaps, a little bit different) to be worth playing.



Mistwell said:


> No player should ever be arguing you're using a monster in the "wrong" terrain.  This is a good example of "no arguing at the table, leave it to after the session" type thing. I mean come on now, players shouldn't ever be bringing up that sort of information.



And here we have a prime example of "badwrongfun" - Hussar points to an actual play experience that shows that what makes sense isn't always cut-and-dried, and we get told that it was only a problem because the player was bad.

I don't know anything more about the player than what Hussar has told me. But what if the player was playing a ranger with a favoured enemy (it sounds like it was a 2nd ed game) and had deliberately chosen the forest journey rather than the desert journey because s/he knew that his/her PC's favoured enemy is (per the Monster Manual) common in forest? There can be other cases, too, where the players choose a strategy based on terrain (eg "The only dangerous flier we would expect in a forest is a Green Dragon, and we have our scroll of poison gas protection") and then suddenly the GM has a manticore show up!

Players make all sorts of assumptions about game and world backstory. When the GM violates those assumptions, conflict at the table can result. In my view, telling the player s/he is a dick isn't the best technique for resolving that conflict.



Ranes said:


> in the case of the manticore, it's not a case of the DM being wrong or nerfing the player.



Without context I don't see how we can tell. What plans had the player made? What sort of character was the player playing? What investment did the player have, as part of his/her game experience, in following received D&D lore?

There are ways in which a player could contest the manticore encounter which suggest bad faith or a lack of sporting behaviour (eg the player suddenly realises the party isn't equipped to deal with flying ranged attackers, and so tries to negate the encounter via a metagame strategy). There are ways in which the player contesting the manticore encounter is _all about_ good faith and investment in the game - I've sketched some of them above.



Sacrosanct said:


> because metagaming with out of character knowledge is generally considered bad form at best?
> 
> heck, if I know I'm gaming with someone who wants to memorize everything in the book and apply it when their character would never have such knowledge, I will change things up on purpose.
> 
> no one likes a rules lawyer who sucks the fun out of the game.  "Products of your imagination" for a reason



Look, more prescriptions of how other people should play!

"Products of the Imagination". Whose? The guy who imagines manticores as desert dwellers? If not, why not?

As for metagaming, who knows what class and level and background this character had. For all you know it was a 10th level druid or ranger!



BryonD said:


> Because he wasn't the one running the game and has no way of knowing that what he memorized has any bearing on the campaign that is currently happening.



Why does the player have no way of knowing this? Do 10th level druids know nothing of the natural world that they live in?

Part of playing an RPG, for me at least, is internalising an awareness of the shared fiction. In D&D, orcs are (generally) baddies, or at least (like Gygaxian half-orcs), "rude, crude, crass and generally obnoxious". Dragons are colour-coded by terrain and breath weapon. And, for this player at least, manticores live in deserts.

If a GM does what Weis and Hickman did in one of the Dragonlance books, and has the guards attack my PC with their hauberks (I assume they meant "halberds"), I am going to give a quizical look - and moreso when my PC starts suffering slashing rather than bludgeoning damage!If the GM is departing from received lore, I prefer this to come out through means other than throw-away decisions about random encounters. If the GM tells me we see a group of orcish soldiers up ahead, and I (and the rest of the players) plan how we can ambush them rather than take them down face-to-face, and we succeed, I will be pretty unhappy if the GM then tells us that we all lose a level for violating our alignments, or has us arrested and imprisoned at the next town for breaching the peace, etc etc. For me that would count as bad GMing.

Who am I to judge that, for someone else, it is not the manners and morals of orcs but the favoured terrain of the manticore?



emdw45 said:


> Obviously it was important enough to the guy that he memorized what terrains manticores live in. If one of my players was obsessed enough to learn that kind of detail, why wouldn't I want to respect his feelings



100% this!



Manbearcat said:


> In order for the game to work at all, player expectation and GM expectation of what comes out of these rules intersections *must *be fairly congruent with extreme regularity.  When this doesn't happen <snippage> It becomes akin to a real person physically moving through our world suddenly having their proprioception and/or spatial awareness upended.  Expect a loss of confidence and faith in their senses, their mind's orientation toward all things, and their subsequent movements based on the combination of the two.



This is why I find that the "strong GMing" approach is terrific for a game like Cthulhu, where part of the play experience generally involves undergoing (vicariously) your PC's loss of sanity, but not so good for heroic action-style games, where part of the play experience generally involves experiencing (vicariously) the ability of the PC to stamp his/her will upon the world, in the model of Conan, Aragorn, Superman, Indiana Jones, etc.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 3, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> b) As such, the player's first recourse was to verify and question the metagame out of game rather than questioning the game in game.  There are all sort of things that a skilled player might consider upon seeing a manticore in a forest.
> 
> a) Something big must be happening in the desert to get manticores to flee from their normal habitat!
> b) Since this is a forest and manticores are only found in deserts, this must be an unusual subspecies.  Be on the look out for unusual powers.  Don't take anything for granted.
> ...




Options a-e are all very interesting, but mutually exclusive with the "never question the DM" style being suggested by some posts in this thread. Only _after_ the DM has acknowledged that, "true, manticores aren't usually found in deserts, isn't that interesting?"--only then does it make sense to infer anything unusual about this situation. And of course, if your PC doesn't know enough about manticores to know this (fails his Intelligence/Nature check), you are then morally obligated to act as if there is nothing unusual about its presence--no disbelieving the potential illusion based on metagame knowledge.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 3, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> it's usually you and Pemerton against most of this message board in many threads you decide to engage in lengthy debate, I am pretty sure you're well aware by now that your views tend to not be in the majority view, on many topics.



Of course, the only posters in this thread who don't share your views and experiences to do with the roles of the GM and the rules in an RPG are [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and me. Everyone else in the thread is in vigorous agreement with you!


----------



## Hussar (Jan 3, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> I saw an example of this on YouTube. I won't go into details in case the DM posts here, but basically he got a ruling completely wrong, and the way he ruled nerfed a player somewhat. He declared "Sorry guys that's just the way I read the rule!".
> 
> Totally ruined my enjoyment of the series at that point. Made it seem more like dictators and dragons, not dungeons and dragons. I'd *never* declare anything like that without input from the table.
> 
> I preferred it when the DM was considered a referee, not a dictator.




I remember a similar example with one of the WOTC 4e actual play podcasts.  One of the early ones where Chris Perkins (that's his name right?) ruled something or other about drow elven darkfire.  Something to that effect anyway.  In any case, he was actually wrong about the ruling, as I recall, but, in the interests of moving the game forward, went with his own ruling. 

And, to be fair, I have and probably will do, the same thing from time to time.  Particularly in the early days of a game when we're all still learning the game.  Context really does matter.  It is sometimes better to be confidently wrong than tentatively right.  

But, for my preference, in the normal course of play, I'd rather stop the game and find the right answer.  That way, it doesn't come up later.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> It wasn't a mistake.



by his words he regrets the mistakes made...





> As for your position that I shouldn't make assumptions, you yourself have just made a most unwarranted assumption and one that strikes me as terribly unlikely - that the player who called this out to Hussar had a reason.  I think it highly improbable that he had any reason at all.   On the basis of my 40 years of experience with nerds, I suspect that there is no other reason than the player remembered the fact, and decided therefore 'he was right', and would not let go of it.  He had no reason for caring, but gosh darn it, that's what the book said so he was 'right'.  On the basis of my experience with people, and on the fact that even you admit you can't imagine any possible reason to care, I don't think any other explanation is remotely likely.   And if there is some other explanation, it would be even more ludicrous.




you honestly believe that when someone makes an argument about something they are MORE likely to NOT have a reason then to have one?






> We know enough to know a player challenged a DM regarding the favored terrain placement of a monster.  This is enough.



 ok, but we don't know what he said, how he said it, or why he said it... you assume he was rude said things he should not have and he did so for no reason...





> And in conceding that, I feel you've conceded almost the entirety of my argument.  It's hardly worth reiterating the point if you agree that there are valid reasons.  It seems I'm mostly arguing with you then because you feel insulted, even if your actual disagreement with me is pretty small.




my whole point in this thread was that there are reasons why players and DMs collapse into problems, and that a final little detail can be a symptom of a larger lack of communication. 




> I don't care particularly how you earn your trust.  Point is, not being challenged over the placement of a monster is a level of trust even a 6th grade DM randomly stocking his dungeon should be able to expect.



 then why do you think the DM in question thinks he was in the wrong?




> I know full well?




unless you have been raised somewhere very different then the world we live in you should understand telling people they are wrong, and they are like children, and they are argueing about nothing, and that there way of having fun is not fun at all or they are bad at things they are being good at... will make them mad. You are pushing buttons and I don't know why...

so I will ask one more time... How should I take being compaired to a 9 year old you would scould?




> To be fully frank, and I've said this before at EnWorld in other contexts, so I'm not just saying it now - I feel I have no right to be pissed.  Period.  I not only feel I have no right to be angry when someone tells me I'm in the wrong, but would feel I was further in the wrong to become angry about that.




we now find something else we disagree on. I feel Anger is a natural response and can be used to good cause...



> I feel anger is morally evil, especially and perhaps always in defense of ones person.




so if someone tries to punch me, and that angers me, that makes me evil? I really don't understand you at all...



> I feel ashamed when I get angry about such things.  I have confessed to the boards that there are still some triggers that do get me angry - misquoting me in particular, actions I feel are unjust by authority figures, things I feel are deceptive - but have said repeatedly that you cannot get me angry by contradiction or any sort of insult.   Call me a SOB, call a jerk, call me a dipstick - public place or not, internet or to my face.




to get me to do any of that even over the internet would require me to be very mad.





> So I know no such thing 'full well'.



so what response do you belive is common to being compare unfavorable to a 9 year old?




> It's not weird that you'd disagree with me.  It's weird that you'd say you were disagreeing with me while making all sorts of suggestions which any one reading my posts would know I fully agree with.  I can only put it down to the fact that you were blowing your top at time and impressing on me how angry you were and how seriously I should take that.



 my anger was justified and used to impress how you are impacting people, it is a thing you could take as a learning experience and be nicer... but since you now belive me evil you will not...




> Lately, pretty rarely.  I can handle most players and by and large most of my players have been pretty reasonable since reaching adulthood.   However, this neglects my actual point, that though I can deal with problem players and bad play, I don't feel I should have to.




so I can deal with players, and I do so in a different way... why do you think you can declair witch way is right?



> Well of course it was a strawman.  It went beyond starwman.  It's bloody well satire.  But it's really not that far from some table arguments I've seen regarding canon in the FR, the placement of tombs, or the HD distribution of goblins in a tribe.




see here is the thing... FR canon brings bad part out of people I know... so it is an excellent example. I don't run or play FR, and I do so for a reason. Players who are great and cooperative for years at a time will be an issue in an FR campaign... it is there pressure point, 




> As for your feelings that you've been insulted, if I were to recall times when I 'snapped' and banged my head on the table and called out DMs, it wouldn't be with any intention of receiving approval and sympathy for such actions.




my example was a non theratical time that I as a player had a reason to interrupt game... it was not for sympathy or approval it was an explanation of a non strawman...



> That I withhold such approval and indeed find the actions to be less than ideal, and that you nonetheless wish to feel insulted about, I cannot do anything about.



you could have used non insulting words... it isn't that you disagree, it's that you insult.




> I don't ask that you not take my words as insulting.  I instead ask how you intend such a description of yourself to be anything but self-deprecating or how you imagined such a story would justify your opinion?  I would think that the story is funny because you can laugh now at your own folly, but did you intend for me to see the DM in the story as deserving of your abuse?




the only folly in my story was not speaking up earlier... that I tried to just keep going and 'explore in game' as you say...



> No, it wasn't, though since as you've pointed out we don't have any full information, I wonder how you know it was worse.



the information we have is less worse.... maybe it was much worse, maybe not, but no info we have would indicate that.






> My original posts simply displayed my dismay at the poor level of play implied by the incident, and tried to explain why.  I don't see how that is verbally abusive.




you have told me my way of running games is wrong...
you have compaired me to a 9 year old in a bad light
you used the word evil to describe something I did




> My retort to your post was more colorful I admit, since you wished to tell me how grown ups were supposed to behave while providing as examples things which look more like temper tantrums to me.



 hitting my head on the table is a tantrum?



> Big font anyone?



 yes the same way I would emphasise those words in real life... those are important words that need emphasise...



> As for looking for a fight.... well, you are the one suggesting how angry you are and how angry you've been in the past and well angry.   Physical violence hadn't accorded to me until you brought it up.  I suppose I'd get hit a couple times by you if this was in person, eh?



 I have never in my memory punched, hit, slapped or grab someone who did not first aggressively touch me or a friend... but again you want to control some narrative where I did something wrong when you came in and insulted


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> I remember a similar example with one of the WOTC 4e actual play podcasts.  One of the early ones where Chris Perkins (that's his name right?) ruled something or other about drow elven darkfire.  Something to that effect anyway.  In any case, he was actually wrong about the ruling, as I recall, but, in the interests of moving the game forward, went with his own ruling.
> 
> And, to be fair, I have and probably will do, the same thing from time to time.  Particularly in the early days of a game when we're all still learning the game.  Context really does matter.  It is sometimes better to be confidently wrong than tentatively right.
> 
> But, for my preference, in the normal course of play, I'd rather stop the game and find the right answer.  That way, it doesn't come up later.




Chris Perkins is running games for entertainment purposes (ie, the viewers, not just the gamers), so he has to keep things moving along. The games we run at our tables are different though, and given the nature of so many ambiguous rules in 5e, a little "What do you guys think?" goes a long way. 
When I first started running my games I'd get my players input on ambiguous rulings to ensure that everyone thought the ruling was fair, or perhaps notice or know something that I do not. After all providing a consistent world which does not break the suspension of disbelief is extremely important, vs said DM in my example unanimously declaring a ruling that has nothing to do with the story, without any table input/consultation.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 3, 2015)

I'm not going to quote walls of text and try to split it I to a dozen spliced multi-quotes.  But I will say that if you're arguing in the defense of pedantic rules lawyering about things that aren't even rules, and fleeing under the "don't accuse me badwrongfun!" when people start calling you out on it, you're not on a very good side of the argument.  There's a very real reason why rules lawyers have the reputation they do, and why the people who designed the game felt it necessary to devote page space to explicitly say, "don't let rules lawyers ruin your game", ironically in the rules themselves.

"products of your imagination" means for everyone who plays.  If the DM thinks it's a cool idea to have a monster in a forest and a player pulled what was pulled on Hussar as he described it?  Completely missed that point


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm not going to quote walls of text and try to split it I to a dozen spliced multi-quotes.  But I will say that if you're arguing in the defense of pedantic rules lawyering about things that aren't even rules, and fleeing under the "don't accuse me badwrongfun!" when people start calling you out on it, you're not on a very good side of the argument.  There's a very real reason why rules lawyers have the reputation they do, and why the people who designed the game felt it necessary to devote page space to explicitly say, "don't let rules lawyers ruin your game", ironically in the rules themselves.
> 
> "products of your imagination" means for everyone who plays.  If the DM thinks it's a cool idea to have a monster in a forest and a player pulled what was pulled on Hussar as he described it?  Completely missed that point





ok... so where is the rules lawyering if it is just stating his opionon? and why is it wrong for everyone at the table to have fun?



to everyone fighting I wonder, if you had a game with friends running smoothly, until an encounter happened, and you could make a change of a monster without affecting your game any way other then letting that player have it his way, what is the harm?


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I'm 100% sure it's not a trust issue. Nor is it an issue of "good manners", as Celebrim assets.




I agree only in as much as I don't think it is only an issue of trust and good manners.

However, the basic problem we always have in this sort of thread is, simply that I see your following declaration as false contrast:



> Not everyone plays RPGs so that the GM can tell them a good story. Not everyone regards the game as belonging solely, or principally, to the GM. For some, story, backstory, campaign world etc is secondary to game play. For others, _they_ want to contribute in a significant way to the telling of the story.




Nothing prevents a player from both wanting a GM to tell them a good story, and expecting to be able to contribute in a significant way to the telling of the story.  In fact, I've never been in a game where I the PC couldn't contribute to the telling of the story in significant ways.  I've heard horror stories about how it happens, but I've never seen it.   I have regularly seen tables where the DM can't entertain the players.

And regardless, my observations here I hold would remain true whether we were playing with a group that preferred a more adventure path style where the players rode rails from point to point (but still participated in the telling of the story) or a more sand box approach with proactive players determining the story, even to the point of having brain storming sessions OOC to get ideas for future stories.   Style here doesn't change the observations regarding what is poor play and poor DMing.   We could get side tracked into detailed discussions of how to pull off those different styles well, and none of it would justify a player failing to interact with in game information as in game information, and then questioning the DM over monster placement based on metagame knowledge of favored terrain suggestions in some rule book.



> When the focus of the game is on story contributions, then there need to be some way of mediating possible competing contributions.




And even where that true, this isn't it.  



> Players make all sorts of assumptions about game and world backstory. When the GM violates those assumptions, conflict at the table can result. In my view, telling the player s/he is a dick isn't the best technique for resolving that conflict.




No, but that doesn't mean that the player is being any less of a dick.  If said player really had a 10th level Ranger or whatever, the first move is to establish that the character knows that the manticore's appearance is unusual by whatever means the system allows, probably by beginning with something like, "Do I know what the usual habitat of manticores is?"   And if the DM then says, "Normally they show up in deserts... oh crap, forgot about that." or "Normally they show up in deserts.  It's a bit unusual to be seeing one in the forest.", or, "They aren't specialists.  They can appear in any terrain.", then you have a basis for further play.  If the DM decides he made a mistake and ask for advice in how to fix it, great.  If not, well great.  If you don't like it, take it up with him after the session.   It's not worth provoking a table argument.  Heck, it's not worth testing to see if the DM made a 'mistake' - though again, I pretty much feel that there isn't a way to make a mistake in this.  It's not a hard rule that monsters listed with favored terrain deserts only show up there.  "After close observation, this one has a collar on its neck!  Maybe it escaped from a menagerie!", is another line of play.  And for that matter, deciding that would be an interesting explanation on the spot is not 'covering up'.   I frequently try to tie random encounters to the story in some fashion.  So what that the details were invented 5 seconds ago instead of 5 days ago?  Is there some rule against a DM improvising?

You go on and on with a bunch of things I agree about.  I hate 'gotcha' play by a DM.  I've got tons of post about how Nitro Ferguson would be a good DM if he wasn't always trying to surprise his players.   If its reasonable the PC know about the monsters habits, by all means tell the player everything about the monster.  But this isn't the same as 'gotcha' play.   This is a DM that wanted a Manticore in the forest and was made to feel guilty about it because some player quoted utterly irrelevant text from a rulebook and tried to treat that as a hard and fast rule that bound the DM to a contract, when the DM in question hadn't even read the contract.  



> For me that would count as bad GMing.




For me too.  But you sure are spinning now to compare the two.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok... so where is the rules lawyering if it is just stating his opionon? and why is it wrong for everyone at the table to have fun?
> 
> 
> 
> to everyone fighting I wonder, if you had a game with friends running smoothly, until an encounter happened, and you could make a change of a monster without affecting your game any way other then letting that player have it his way, what is the harm?




ok, look.  You need to go back and read Hussar's post, because I think you keep coming up with these assumptions that make no sense if you actually read it.  He said he got into a lengthy argument over it.  That's not a player just expressing an opinion.  By his own words it was a lengthy argument that manticores shouldn't be in a forest.. It's not even over a rule.  If you keep ignoring this very important part, I will begin to question your motives in sticking with this line of discussion


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> ok, look.  You need to go back and read Hussar's post, because I think you keep coming up with these assumptions that make no sense if you actually read it.  He said he got into a lengthy argument over it.  That's not a player just expressing an opinion.  By his own words it was a lengthy argument that manticores shouldn't be in a forest.. It's not even over a rule.  If you keep ignoring this very important part, I will begin to question your motives in sticking with this line of discussion



I acknowlade the lengthy argument, but not what was said or who was at fault... do you have any reason to not continue to belive Hussar when he says he handled it badly... not the player the DM?


----------



## Authweight (Jan 3, 2015)

Hey, I just wanted to point out that it's not really fair to jump back and accuse the other side of calling your playstyle "baswrongfun" but then tell them they're missing out on something and are playing the game poorly. Either there is a right way to play the game and we fight over what it is or we accept each other's diversity. You don't get to protect yourself but still go after others.  We can either decide to accept each other's experiences at face value, or ignore their stated experiences and substitute our own experiences instead.

This entire thread was started by a flow chart to me seems to serve no purpose other than to dismiss the experiences and concerns of a large section of the community. Then when those who take issue with the approach spelled out in the flowchart responded, making it clear they were annoyed at the dismissive attitude, they were told they're doing it wrong and are missing out on the point of d&d. 

This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> my whole point in this thread was that there are reasons why players and DMs collapse into problems, and that a final little detail can be a symptom of a larger lack of communication.




Ok, we can agree on that point.   



> then why do you think the DM in question thinks he was in the wrong?




Because it is Hussar.



> unless you have been raised somewhere very different then the world we live in you should understand telling people they are wrong, and they are like children, and they are argueing about nothing, and that there way of having fun is not fun at all or they are bad at things they are being good at... will make them mad. You are pushing buttons and I don't know why...
> 
> so I will ask one more time... How should I take being compaired to a 9 year old you would scould?




You should take it like someone who decides to learn to control their temper.



> we now find something else we disagree on. I feel Anger is a natural response and can be used to good cause...




That's pretty obvious.



> so if someone tries to punch me, and that angers me, that makes me evil? I really don't understand you at all...




No, I'm afraid you don't.



> my anger was justified




No it wasn't.



> and used to impress how you are impacting people




I know why you decided to make a display of anger.  I know what anger is for socially.  I even said as much.  Point is that if you admit you have a use for it, then you decided to be angry.  You decided you had cause and where justified, and boy was I going to hear it from you.



> it is a thing you could take as a learning experience and be nicer... but since you now belive me evil you will not...




I could always learn to be nicer.   But as for thinking you evil, I certainly don't.   Making mistakes doesn't make one evil.   And a fleeting anger is hardly cause for damning anyone.  But that doesn't justify your anger or make the anger less wrong.   However, this is all a bit of a side track.   I don't need to convince you to relinquish anger or convince you that you have no right to be angry.   The point I intend to make which is relevant to what was brought up in the thread is that a player who is playing skillfully, has first recourse to playing the game, and only resorts to metagame when that avenue is unfruitful.  You yourself admitted that there are times that the DM is entitled to hide information from metagame queries, and that you expect your players to trust you enough to allow you to do so.   Having admitted that point, the rest of your anger isn't really about disagreement, but the fact that feeling belittled because I claimed that metagaming was poor play, you imagined I directing harsh criticism at you and so by gosh you are going to put on a big threat display about how angry you are.  And the fact that I'm actually describing this to you probably feel patronizing to you and makes you even more angry.   And I wish you'd choose to not be angry, but I can't choose for you.



> so I can deal with players, and I do so in a different way... why do you think you can declair witch way is right?




Because again playing the game is superior in all sorts of ways to metagaming.  And I've already listed lots of reasons regarding the lowered likelihood of arguments, the greater show of trust, the lowered likelihood of imparting knowledge that would better remain for an in game reveal, the greater degree of engagement it shows, the reduced chance of ulterior motive influencing your actions, the greater pleasure it affords, and the greater entertainment value in observing the play, and so on and so forth.   And that judgment I have more of a right to than any one ever has to being angry because they think they've been insulted.



> you could have used non insulting words... it isn't that you disagree, it's that you insult.




One thing that is very difficult for me is appearing to be sympathetic, especially when I'm not.  In particular, I have a tendency to say things that coming from other people are intended to hurt and belittle, but which coming from me are intended to help.  And I have a little idea what to do about that.  Because from my perspective, people are just weird about how they don't like to know what other people are thinking and they'd prefer to be lied to or have information withheld from them or their own potential failings not called out.  "You're not saying it nice" is not only perfectly true, but of course I can see you think that.  So why not say it?



> you have told me my way of running games is wrong...




I don't think I've gone so far as that any more than I have said you are evil.  But I have said that metagaming a DM is playing less well than it could be and many similar things of the sort.



> you have compaired me to a 9 year old in a bad light




You have displayed yourself in a bad light; the comparison is unflattering but apt.



> you used the word evil to describe something I did




And I've also used the word evil to describe things I did and do.   Getting angry in defense of your person is wrong.   We've all done it.



> hitting my head on the table is a tantrum?




And again, this is harsh, but I don't think most people have to be told the answer to that.  I don't know any less harsh way to answer that question.  The problem is you think it is a rhetorical question and you don't really want to hear my answer, so I can't answer it gently.



> yes the same way I would emphasise those words in real life... those are important words that need emphasise...




Anger is no way to go around telling people how you are feeling.   If anger has a purpose, it's not to emphasize how important you think something is.  It is to gear the body for valorous action in the defense of someone else, and even then the anger is a bit superfluous most of the time I think.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

Authweight said:


> Hey, I just wanted to point out that it's not really fair to jump back and accuse the other side of calling your playstyle "baswrongfun" but then tell them they're missing out on something and are playing the game poorly. Either there is a right way to play the game and we fight over what it is or we accept each other's diversity. You don't get to protect yourself but still go after others.  We can either decide to accept each other's experiences at face value, or ignore their stated experiences and substitute our own experiences instead.
> 
> This entire thread was started by a flow chart to me seems to serve no purpose other than to dismiss the experiences and concerns of a large section of the community. Then when those who take issue with the approach spelled out in the flowchart responded, making it clear they were annoyed at the dismissive attitude, they were told they're doing it wrong and are missing out on the point of d&d.
> 
> This is why we can't have nice things.




I also find it weird that [MENTION=80342]morris[/MENTION] would promote this in a place where we normally think is a judgment free zone...


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I acknowlade the lengthy argument, but not what was said or who was at fault... do you have any reason to not continue to belive Hussar when he says he handled it badly... not the player the DM?




Yes, 10+ years of talking with Hussar and reading his opinions.

He may well have handled it badly.  That doesn't however imply that he was wrong to have placed a manticore in the forest, or that because he handled it badly that the player was less wrong for making him handle the situation in the first place.

Hussar has been burned a lot.  He's also a very demanding player.  He's settled for himself on the idea that the solution to all these emotional table conflicts he's told us about over the years - and there are a bunch of them - is simply to accept that the DM is always wrong and to always work with the player.   And as far as it goes, it's probably a big improvement from what he was doing or how he as a player had been handled at times.

But the fact that he feels guilty for placing a manticore in a forest, and declares that the player was "100% right".  That's just Hussar being Hussar.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 3, 2015)

Authweight said:


> Hey, I just wanted to point out that it's not really fair to jump back and accuse the other side of calling your playstyle "baswrongfun" but then tell them they're missing out on something and are playing the game poorly. Either there is a right way to play the game and we fight over what it is or we accept each other's diversity. You don't get to protect yourself but still go after others.  We can either decide to accept each other's experiences at face value, or ignore their stated experiences and substitute our own experiences instead.
> 
> This entire thread was started by a flow chart to me seems to serve no purpose other than to dismiss the experiences and concerns of a large section of the community. Then when those who take issue with the approach spelled out in the flowchart responded, making it clear they were annoyed at the dismissive attitude, they were told they're doing it wrong and are missing out on the point of d&d.
> 
> This is why we can't have nice things.





Why won't anyone think of the rules lawyers!


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I also find it weird that [MENTION=80342]morris[/MENTION] would promote this in a place where we normally think is a judgment free zone...




despite accusations implying otherwise, the intent of my post and flowchart was really nothing more than, "don't let yourself get hung up on rules if it prevents you from playing the game and having fun."


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> Yes, 10+ years of talking with Hussar and reading his opinions.
> 
> He may well have handled it badly.  That doesn't however imply that he was wrong to have placed a manticore in the forest, or that because he handled it badly that the player was less wrong for making him handle the situation in the first place.
> 
> ...




I wonder if [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] agrees with that assessment? 

for my own part I assume the DM is as likely to be wrong as anyone else at the table, but has enough control of the game to gloss over minor issue... but players are no different then DMs really, I mean DMs are just a player taking a different role in the game


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 3, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Why won't anyone think of the rules lawyers!




It has nothing to do with rules lawyering. This goes to show you really don't get it.

It's simple. It's not YOUR game just because you are DM, it's everyone at the tables game.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> despite accusations implying otherwise, the intent of my post and flowchart was really nothing more than, "don't let yourself get hung up on rules if it prevents you from playing the game and having fun."




the only accusation made was that it is dismissive of issue some people have found, and a style of players that like RAW...

for the record before we get even more off track, I don't personally believe in RAW but it is no less a playstyle just because it isn;t mine.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> It's not YOUR game just because you are DM, it's everyone at the tables game.




can I sig that?


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I wonder if [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] agrees with that assessment?




No, of course he doesn't.  So? 



> for my own part I assume the DM is as likely to be wrong as anyone else at the table




If anything the DM is more likely to be wrong than anyone else at the table.   After all, the DM is doing far more than anyone else at the table and has far more things to be wrong about.  And he has by far the harder job.  Probably 90% of the mistakes at a table are made by the DM.

So?  You aren't actually contradicting me here, which is why I can happily agree with you and even take it further than you.   We aren't dealing with the question of whether or not a DM can be wrong.  Of course they can.   This isn't the either 'the DM is always right' or else 'the DM is always wrong' you seem to be casting as when you bring this up as if you thought it would contradict my opinion.  



> but players are no different then DMs really, I mean DMs are just a player taking a different role in the game




Absolutely, I completely agree.  And as a player taking a different role in the game they are entitled to at least the deference you'd give a player.  More in my opinion, and for the same reasons that DMs are more often the ones in the wrong.

None of that defends our argumentative rules lawyer in the slightest.  Quite the contrary.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 3, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> It has nothing to do with rules lawyering. This goes to show you really don't get it.
> 
> It's simple. It's not YOUR game just because you are DM, it's everyone at the tables game.





it has everything to do with rules lawyering, or having you been paying attention?  It's about a player starting a "lengthy argument" because the DM thought it would be cool to have a manticore in a forest and the player pointing to the book to prove him wrong.

and newsflash, it *is* the DM's game because he or she is the one running it.  It also says that in the rulebooks directly from Gary himself


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 3, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> It has nothing to do with rules lawyering. This goes to show you really don't get it.
> 
> It's simple. It's not YOUR game just because you are DM, it's everyone at the tables game.




Playing devil's advocate for a second: it _could_ be your game because you're the DM. I mean, if you are the kind of DM who takes the initiative to recruit players, and has the game at your house, and has a whole campaign written out that you want to run players through, and recruits new players when old ones leave, that makes you a lot more invested in the game than one of your typical players is. From such a DM I would be a little bit more tolerant of the dictatorial style, because hey, clearly they care more than anyone else at the table.

However, I prefer games that are more collegial than dictatorial. Apparently Bryon and Celebrim feel differently.


----------



## Authweight (Jan 3, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Why won't anyone think of the rules lawyers!




This is the sort of dismissive attitude I'm talking about. Better to call everyone who disagrees with you a name, like a rules-lawyer or a whiner or a power gamer or a munchkin. As long as you don't need to consider they have their own desires that are worth considering.


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 3, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> Playing devil's advocate for a second: it _could_ be your game because you're the DM. I mean, if you are the kind of DM who takes the initiative to recruit players, and has the game at your house, and has a whole campaign written out that you want to run players through, and recruits new players when old ones leave, that makes you a lot more invested in the game than one of your typical players is. From such a DM I would be a little bit more tolerant of the dictatorial style, because hey, clearly they care more than anyone else at the table.
> 
> However, I prefer games that are more collegial than dictatorial. Apparently Bryon and Celebrim feel differently.




Yes, but not every game is like that, hence the OPs post is more specific to a _type_ of game, rather than _all_ games. I play in a game where the DM defers rules decisions to us for example, because his rules knowledge is weak. 

His back hand comment about rules lawyering makes me think he doesn't understand this concept.


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 3, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> it has everything to do with rules lawyering, or having you been paying attention?  It's about a player starting a "lengthy argument" because the DM thought it would be cool to have a manticore in a forest and the player pointing to the book to prove him wrong.
> 
> and newsflash, it *is* the DM's game because he or she is the one running it.  *It also says that in the rulebooks directly from Gary himself*




Now now, are you rules lawyering there?

I personally dont care if Gygax writes to jump off a cliff. Everyone makes the same time commitments to turn up and play on game day, it's just as much the players game as the DM, in many cases.

You can either be a dictator or referee, whatever floats your boat.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 3, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> despite accusations implying otherwise, the intent of my post and flowchart was really nothing more than, "don't let yourself get hung up on rules if it prevents you from playing the game and having fun."



Isn't the flip-side of that "If the rules are important to your play experience, then it's worth the effort to work out rules, and rulings, that work for you and your group?"


----------



## Authweight (Jan 3, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> and newsflash, it *is* the DM's game because he or she is the one running it.  It also says that in the rulebooks directly from Gary himself




[sarcasm]
DMIng advice from the very earliest rpg book ever written is 100% infallible, so it's a good thing you brought this up. Otherwise we would be lost. 

In unrelated news, why do they keep posting speed limit signs of 65 and 70 mph? My Model T Ford only gets up to around 45 tops. Surely there is no finer vehicle able to go faster than it?
[/sarcasm]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. 

In plainer, more civil terms, you can play however you want, and despite my sarcasm earlier, I really don't think that Gygax's style is inferior to any other. But we have done a lot more thinking on it since then, and a lot of people run things in ways that would make old Gygax's head spin, and that's not a bad thing at all.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> However, I prefer games that are more collegial than dictatorial. Apparently Bryon and Celebrim feel differently.




More false contrasts.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 3, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> *Yes, but not every game is like that, hence the OPs post is more specific to a type of game, rather than all games.* I play in a game where the DM defers rules decisions to us for example, because his rules knowledge is weak.
> 
> His back hand comment about rules lawyering makes me think he doesn't understand this concept.




Absolutely correct.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 3, 2015)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Not everyone plays RPGs so that the GM can tell them a good story. Not everyone regards the game as belonging solely, or principally, to the GM. For some, story, backstory, campaign world etc is secondary to game play. For others, they want to contribute in a significant way to the telling of the story.
> 
> When the focus of the game is on game play, then there needs to be some way of mediating possible competing moves. When the focus of the game is on story contributions, then there need to be some way of mediating possible competing contributions. This is one thing that rules can do. For them to do this, they have to have some content that is independent of the GM's conception of them, given that for them to do this they have to bind the GM as well as the players.
> 
> Both Hussar's examples (plate armour, and manticores) concern background elements. I think the scope for conflict comes up most often in relation to action resolution. For instance, can a powerful epic-tier fighter leap 50' from a flying carpet onto a flying slaad lord? This question came up in my most recent 4e session. We didn't answer it by considering what makes sense to me (the GM) or to the player of the fighter. We resolved it using the jumping rules.



Meh. 

I can take or leave gameplay. 
Gameplay is essential for board games, because that's all they have. Video games is 50/50. I can overlook ass gameplay for a good story or other aspects (graphics, writing, story, nostalgia). Sudoko arguably has "good gameplay" being simple and easy to learn with a range of complexity. But it's not fantastically engaging, being almost a mobile time waster game.

Tabletop roleplaying games... I can play terrible TT-RPGs if the DM is solid. If they're telling a good story, it doesn't matter how they're mangling the game with house rules (to a limit). Or my friends are playing (as so much of it is social, an excuse to hang).
Gameplay is barely even necessary. You can have whole sessions with no gameplay or with side mechanics. Often, gameplay becomes the crutch for when the story is lacking or the DM is having an off day ("Can't think of a *real* story, better just have a dungeon crawl.") 
Relying on the gameplay to prop up an RPG is relying on something generic, that can be found anywhere. Relying on the DM is something you can *only* do with a TT-RPG. It's the unique thing about TT-RPGs. DMs should be empowered and brought to the forefront because they make the game different. When the DM is replaceable but rules, the game stops being a TT-RPG.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 3, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> More false contrasts.




You've made it more than clear that you abhor collegial games and everyone who plays them. Going by your "Luke" example earlier, you think that objecting to an illogical game element is tantamount to loudly demanding a retcon. Apparently you can't conceptualize a strong objection that isn't strident. If I'm mis-stating your attitude please feel free to set the record straight by giving an example of a collegial discussion that you _wouldn't_ consider problematic.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> You've made it more than clear that you abhor collegial games and everyone who plays them.




So far as I know I've said nothing at all against collegial games.  I don't often play them, and in fact have rarely seen one played, but I know Greenleaf is in one with a rotating GM set in a fantasy pastiche of (IIRC) 3rd Century AD earth.  I see no reason to abhor Greenleaf his rotating DMs, though he often has funny stories about the difficulty in making that work.

You actually have zero evidence that I dislike collegial games at all.  Instead, you are falsely trying to insinuate that the alternative to my suggestions is somehow more collegial, when in fact what you are trying to justify is not better described as give and take or mutual decisions or group planning or passing the token or trading narrative resources or distributed rights to declare the outcome of a proposition any other collegial technique.  What you are labeling 'collegial' is naked rules lawyering, table arguments, metagaming, and inappropriate assumption of authority in a middle of a narrative.  The argumentative player pointing out that manticores don't generally appear in forests wasn't trying to share the game at all.  He was making a false argument from authority by appealing to a guideline in a rule book.   There is nothing collegial and respectful about that, which is easily seen if we imagine the situation reverse, with the player empowered to choose the monster and the DM calling him down and saying not in this terrain.   Note the naked hypocrisy here, where Hussar asserts his rights to impose Paladins on Krynn and not expect that to be a problem, but the DM putting a Manticore in the forest as he has every right to do ought to be trumped by a player.   That isn't collegial.  That's not mutual equal and shared respect. 

In D&D, the general expectation is that the DM is the designated 'secret keeper' and that for the enjoyment of everyone he hides information from the player - a map of a dungeon or the location of the treasure.   The player in turn is one of the designated protagonists in an ensemble cast that is exploring and discovering the secrets.   Now of course we could play with making the DM less essential a secret keeper, opening rooms and deciding what the group thought would be more interesting as a group, and if you want to do that then more power to you but if you want to do that first its better that everyone agrees ahead of time that that is how you will be playing.   And secondly, I think that it would be a rare group that would enjoy that more than the thrill of the unknown, and the tension involved overcoming obstacles placed in front of you and all the traditional joys of traditional RPG gaming.  And when you talk about collegial gaming I really doubt you mean real collegial gaming of the sort Greenleaf does with rotating DMs and various means of sharing the story in that way while still keeping secrets.   You probably just mean something as minor as an openness to discussing rules problems, which is so trivial and irrelevant to this discussion that by throwing out 'collegial' as meaning that you'd be basically revealing along with the rest of your false contrasts that you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. 



> Going by your "Luke" example earlier, you think that objecting to an illogical game element is tantamount to loudly demanding a retcon.




First, without getting into a line by line explanation of the Luke example, do we agree that regardless of the style of game "Luke" is doing wrong?



> Apparently you can't conceptualize a strong objection that isn't strident.




No, apparently when I'm showing an example of how to do it wrong, it's actually wrong.



> If I'm mis-stating your attitude please feel free to set the record straight by giving an example of a collegial discussion that you _wouldn't_ consider problematic.




Several kinds of 'collegial discussions' occur at my table.  They can include things like:

PC: I know we've been doing this story line with the conflicted relationship between my character and his parents, but in real life my dad just died and I was wondering if we could put that story on hold for a while because I think it's going to be a bit too intense for me right now.
Me: Of course.  If you want to drop it completely or change some details, let me know.
PC: I don't think I want to drop it, but if you can not bring it up for a few sessions until I've had some time, that would be great.
Me: Anything you say.

Me: Ok, so on a scale of 1 to 10, how badly am I allowed to mess with you?
PC: 10
Me: 10?  Are you sure, you'd go for a 10?  Because anything above about an 8 is going to risk madness checks from malign paradigm shifts, and in the past I had a player have his character commit suicide because he couldn't deal with the situation.
PC: No seriously, bring it on.  I like messed up.
Me: Ok, just remember you asked for it.

Me: So, where do you see yourself going with this character?
PC: I don't really know.  I just thought the mechanics were cool.
Me: <Long explanation regarding the role of characters of his sort in the setting>
PC: Wait a minute, so I was probably around when <Other PC's great-grand parent> was around right?  So actually, I might have been the one who saved him from the massacre?
Me: Yes, that makes sense.  In fact, thinking about it, almost no one else would have been positioned to do so.
PC: So can I tie my destiny to whatever you are doing with <Other PC>.
Me: I'd have to ask <other player>, but that would fit.

Player: <hands me long 8 page backstory in which he invents all sorts of details about his past life, relations, and so forth, basically imposing NPCs into existence in the world and implying various hitherto unconsidered nefarious plots>
Me: Ok, I'll approve all of this, but there are a few details regarding your description of elven culture that I'd like to have you rework to fit better with existing canon in my homebrew.  Let me mail you the player's guide to elven culture.   However, briefly, one thing you should know about elves is that it is impossible to enslave them.  If you imprison one against their will, they waste away and die as quickly as if you or I would die if we went without water....
Player: Sure, as long as I can keep the basic idea here.
Me: I don't think there will be a problem with that.

Player: I thought you could attempt the Circle maneuver without drawing an attack of opportunity?
Me: Ahh... yeah, you're right.  You'd think that I could remember my own rules since I wrote them.

We don't have rotating hat as a DM.  I generally don't allow player's to impose things on a setting after backgrounds are approved and play begins.  Players don't have final say on the rules or adjudication, and we have no process for vetoing my rulings (nor have we needed one).   So I suppose in that sense it's not a 'collegial' game.   It's a pretty traditional game where the DM controls the setting and the player's control the PC's, and neither seeks to assert control over the other save where allowed for by the rules.   However, it's rare even in the situation that the PC is mind-controlled that I have to tell them any thing more than the general constraints that they are under.  Usually I can leave them to RP their possessed/dominated/charmed character on their own.   As far as what you mean by 'collegial' game though, where everyone is playing together and cooperating to create the story, then it is seriously collegial.   PC's have more or less invented deities for the game setting, secret societies within the game setting, whole story lines, and so forth taking the game in directions I'd never anticipated both by their characters and through play.   I have the final say over the details of the setting, not the least of which because if I didn't there would be nothing to explore and uncover, but if that is dictatorial then I suggest you rob the word of any meaning.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 3, 2015)

Thanks for the examples. Suppose that your "Circle maneuver" example related to an rule that came from the book instead of house rules. Would that change how you felt about the player objecting to the ruling? Because that is the only identifiable difference I see between your example and Hussar's plate mail vs. chain mail example, and it is also very close to the manticore example (with the additional difference in that case of a "lengthy discussion" although we don't have any indication who was doing most of the talking in that lengthy discussion, or what the content of the discussion was). Why do you feel that Hussar's examples are more like your Luke + Death Star scenario ("unacceptable") than they are like your Circle Maneuver example ("acceptable")?

Is it simply about tone? Would it get your hackles up if the player said, "No, Circle Maneuvers don't draw an attack of opportunity"? By flatly contradicting you, he is challenging your authority as DM by treating you as a peer who can be argued with?




> First, without getting into a line by line explanation of the Luke example, do we agree that regardless of the style of game "Luke" is doing wrong?




Yes. That's why your using it to characterize everyone else in this thread feels like a straw man.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 3, 2015)

pemerton said:


> So the advice for GMs who have players who don't care much about the rules is "Don't sweat the rules." Do we need a flowchart for that?




The flow chart was tongue in cheek. We never needed the flow chart obviously.  That you take it so seriously you think someone was asserting we need it is...odd?



> There are plenty of RPGers who do care about the rules, even when they are not GMing. Not because they are bad players (whatever exactly that means) but because they are there to _play a game_ or they are there to _impact the story, even when the GM didn't expect/want the story to go that way_. For these players, the rules are the system for mediating different desires/expectations, and competing moves, at the table.




Not a word of this disagrees with what I said.  I never called them bad players.  I never claimed any sort of universal anything - indeed I said the opposite.  Of course there are people who play the game differently than I do - I said that, and they're right here in this thread.  All I said is there is no universal way to play, so people shouldn't be claiming there is one.



> And here we have a prime example of "badwrongfun"




How is it a declaration of badwrongfun that I say they should discuss that topic after the play session rather than during it? They were in an encounter with the creature.  Deal with that, discuss terrain appearances after the game session with the DM.  It's not a claim about badwrongfun, unless your idea of fun is arguing about rules like that in the middle of a game session.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 3, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Of course, the only posters in this thread who don't share your views and experiences to do with the roles of the GM and the rules in an RPG are [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and me. Everyone else in the thread is in vigorous agreement with you!




Not my claim, and I never claimed to be a majority view, much less a universal one.  Which is the claim I am responding to - someone claiming a universal view, despite people in this very thread saying they don't share that view at all.  And then your buddy chimed in with claims of extreme outliers with zero evidence to back that up.  And you have his back, as usual...but with no evidence either other than snark to contribute.  Tell me Pemerton, do you think you have a peg on universal views of D&D? And do you further agree with your buddy that anyone who dissents from his view must be an extreme outlier because...reasons?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Jan 3, 2015)

This thread is a train wreck.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> Thanks for the examples.




That's it?  Thanks for my examples?  Seriously?  Not, "ok, I guess I was wrong to cast this debate as 'dictatorial' versus 'collegial'"?  No apology for trying to poison the well?  Or if not a concession, then no attempt to explain how I've still got it all wrong and you were using definitions of the words different than I suggested?  No pulling out quotes showing how clear I really made it how much I abhor people who play a 'collegial' game?  Or other hand, no admission how games are played at the table can't be neatly lumped into two opposing categories, and that indeed your whole argument really was a false contrast?   Or failing that, no rebuttle to show how wrong I got it?

Just thanks for the examples?  Why should you thank me at all?



> Suppose that your "Circle maneuver" example related to an example that came from the book instead of house rules. Would that change how you felt about the player objecting to the ruling?




Not really.  Rules is rules.  I have provided house rules precisely so that there would be clarity regarding what rules we are playing with.  If I find fault with my own rules through the experience of play, then I try to change them only between play unless everyone agrees at the time they are really not working at all (which has never happened, I'm far pickier regarding the rules we play by than any player).  



> Because that is the only identifiable difference I see between your example and Hussar's plate mail vs. chain mail example...




Just the one, huh?  Are you sure you are looking hard?  Because I feel I've a bit of valid complaint that I'm not being read charitably, if the only thing you can pick out is that one is a house rule and the other isn't.

a) One involved a rule.  The other a guideline.
b) One involved setting information.  The other involved process resolution.
c) One involve a metagame question about a metagame event - an attack of opportunity.  The other involves a metagame question about an in game event - the appearance of a manticore.
d) One involved information that a character could pursue in game - the habits of a monster - using in game knowledge.   The other involved information that the character can't pursue in game, because it involves something which doesn't exist in game (an abstraction of the in game events during a combat).   
e) One involves a request for clarification of the rules.  The other involves a request to overturn a feature of the setting.
f) One involves a request which cannot possibly reveal in game information (though it could conceivably reveal metagame information, if for example there was a known feat or class power that caused circle maneuver to draw an AoO, it couldn't reasonably damage the plot).  The other on the other hand almost certainly reveals in game information by out of game means.
g) One by description provoked a long argument.  The other didn't.
h) One involves usurpation of the authority the table has agreed to yield to the DM.  The other doesn't.
i) One involves an actual mistake by the DM.  The other, since the rules don't demand that a monster only be found in a favored environment, was not but involved a mere player preference versus a DM preference.  Recall, by Hussar's own admission, he preferred that manticores occur in all environments and expected that (as with 1e) they would.
j) One involves a reminder of rules agreed upon to all in play and which part of the player rules of the rule set.   The other involves an appeal to rules that are not only the sole purvey of the DM by both convention and written statement of the rules, but that the DM had not even read much less agreed to abide by.



> Why do you feel that Hussar's examples are more like your Luke + Death Star scenario ("unacceptable") than they are like your Circle Maneuver example ("acceptable")?




Consider my list of differences again.  The Luke example is entirely questioning not of rules but of setting, and involves demands by the player that the player's expectations regarding the setting be imposed on the GM.   This is entirely of a different character than asking for a rules clarification.  In the Luke example, rules questions never came up.

For example, the GM has no recourse for actually explaining to Luke why things are happening except by blowing a big reveal.  What makes this particularly bad play is that the player, if he would engage the setting actually knows enough about the setting to draw conclusions in play that would be really dramatic and fun for everyone one if he'd just trust the GM and go with it and accept that there must be an explanation.  Whether or not such an explanation exists or is immediately to be found (as we in on it know that it will be), not only does the GM deserve the benefit of the doubt, but the game would be more enjoyable for everyone if the player would simply play at trying to find an explanation in character.   The Star Wars example occurred to me precisely because this is the situation with the manticore example.   A really cool or even simply sufficient explanation could easily exist.  The GM - as at the least a fellow player at the table - deserves the benefit of the doubt.  And even if this was an oversight, going at this from the in game perspective is more graceful, reduces embarrassment, argument, anger, resentment and all the other potential nastiness that in all likelihood actually occurred at the table and well just happens to be fun and likely to stimulate GM involvement and creativity in response.   In truth, the amount of trust the GM in the Star Wars example needs relative to the amount any GM actually deserves is trivial.   At times something weird may happen in game that a player might not discover the legitimate reason for real life years, if ever.   All the Star Wars GM is asking for is 5 minutes of patience.

The armor example is also a matter of setting.  It doesn't matter why the GM doesn't want heavy armor in his game setting.  He doesn't need to justify that decision and get interrogated over it.  It's enough that he's running the setting and he likes the feel of a more primitive feeling setting.   Table arguments about what is actually realistic go no where.   Concerning plate armor, I could argue either side of the historicity of that one and depending on what you meant by 'right' and 'realistic', I'd be right and realistic.   Point is, unless we all agreed ahead of time that we'd share the setting equally, DM's generally have a right to set the parameters of the setting without getting third degree about it.   



> Yes. That's why your using it to characterize everyone else in this thread feels like a straw man.




It didn't occur to you that if you concede that the player of Luke in the hypothetical is playing wrong, then you've conceded the main point of my argument that everyone is getting so upset and angry about - that it is possible to play the game less well than other ways?   And if it is possible to play the game less well, less skillfully, and less artfully, and we can actually agree to that, then we presumably have gotten past what seems to be the big hang up in this thread, namely, whether I'm being an arrogant jerk to suggest that you can play an RPG well.   And further, that if you can play an RPG well, and it's not merely a question of 'style', then perhaps we can get past all these false arguments regarding how I just have a dictatorial style and others have a collegial style?

And that's setting up a strawman is it?

Oh never mind.  I don't know why I bother.   I'm dictatorial, right?   You're collegial!  Why don't we just keep it at that.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 3, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> That's it?  Thanks for my examples?  Seriously?  Not, "ok, I guess I was wrong to cast this debate as 'dictatorial' versus 'collegial'"?  No apology for trying to poison the well?  *Or if not a concession, then no attempt to explain how I've still got it all wrong and you were using definitions of the words different than I suggested?*  No pulling out quotes showing how clear I really made it how much I abhor people who play a 'collegial' game?  Or other hand, no admission how games are played at the table can't be neatly lumped into two opposing categories, and that indeed your whole argument really was a false contrast?   Or failing that, no rebuttle to show how wrong I got it?




Wait, so you're *objecting* to my hearing you out and asking questions before explaining how you've got it all wrong? You seriously want me to dismiss you without a hearing? You want me to just assume that I know exactly what you think the word "collegial" means, and tell you why you're wrong because you're using it wrong? What kind of life do you live, man? I try to listen to people before talking at them. I don't always succeed, but I try. This is the first time I remember anyone ever objecting to that.



> For example, the GM has no recourse for actually explaining to Luke why things are happening except by blowing a big reveal.





False. "You're right, a whole fleet of star destroyers couldn't destroy a planet." Or if you still consider that "setting" information about the capabilities of star destroyers, "Roll an Intelligence check. [On success] You're right, it would take a massive amount of firepower to destroy a planet, more than you think a whole fleet of star destroyers would have. Isn't that interesting?"

It is false that the GM has no recourse at the metagame (i.e. rule) level.




> a) One involved a rule. The other a guideline.
> b) One involved setting information. The other involved process resolution.
> c) One involve a metagame question about a metagame event - an attack of opportunity. The other involves a metagame question about an in game event - the appearance of a manticore.
> d) One involved information that a character could pursue in game - the habits of a monster - using in game knowledge. The other involved information that the character can't pursue in game, because it involves something which doesn't exist in game (an abstraction of the in game events during a combat).
> ...





So, are you demanding that I go through this list of yours to argue with you about which items are significant and which are irrelevant trifles? YMMV, but: (a) is false. (b) is not an interesting difference. (c) is just a restatement of (b). (d) is false--the resolution of the manticore/terrain question can be pursued in-character by attempting to disbelieve illusions or pursue the puzzle of its appearance, provided that the character has knowledge of manticore ecologies. (e) is false or at least unsound--you're inferring facts which haven't been provided. We don't know from the story whether the player wanted a retcon to remove the manticore or simply an acknowledgment by the DM that Manticores _shouldn't_ be here (and maybe renaming it a Forest Manticore or something). (f) doesn't matter, since player knowledge and PC knowledge are separate things. Revealing in-game knowledge to the player isn't the same thing as revealing it to the PC. In 5E this would be an Intelligence (Nature) check. (g) was already covered by me. (h) was suspected by me but it's good to see you acknowledge that my guess was correct. This is the essence of what I see as the difference between a collegial approach and your approach, which you prefer to be called something other than "dictatorial" because of the stigma. In the collegial approach (collegial: "relating to a friendly relationship between colleagues (= people who work together)") all the players are social peers, including the DM, so there are no social implications to "challenging" his "authority". (i) is false. It was a mistake. But this is really just (b) restated yet again. (j) is false, because they were playing AD&D2. Moreover, it is just a restatement of (a).

Maybe I should demand an apology from you now for your implication that I "couldn't think" of any of differences, when the only two valid differences (g and h) were in fact identified by me. But that would be petty and stupid of me, right? Because winning social status contests by browbeating Internet strangers into agreeing with you never works in the first place, and would be a waste of time even if it did work. So no, I won't apologize to you for characterizing your position as ("apparently") dictatorial or "poisoning the well," but I'm glad that you've at least managed to state your position clearly now, and hopefully the opposing position is clear now as well and you can stop using straw men. Whether you actually do stop will say more about you than about me.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 3, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Meh.
> 
> I can take or leave gameplay.
> 
> ...



I don't understand your move from autobiography ("I can take or leave gameplay" to generalisation.

Perhaps you don't care about gameplay. But gameplay was important to early D&D - look at a module like Ghost Towers of Inverness, or Tomb of Horrors, or Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan and there is virtually nothing but gameplay.

Perhaps you can't conceive of gameplay in an RPG outside the context of a dungeon crawl. But gameplay is pretty important for my group, and dungeon crawls are mostly irrelevant. In my last 4e session, the PCs were trying to capture Ygorl and imprison him in the Crystal of the Ebon Flame. This was an episode of gameplay. Within the rules of the game they came up with a solution to a problem - namely, immobilise Ygorl and thereby slow him down to his teleport speed - and then set about implementing it with the resources at their disposal. They didn't want to know whether or not I thought that it "made sense" that they could capture Ygorl. And I wasn't going to just "say yes", because catching and imprisoning Ygorl makes a significant difference to the unfolding campaign story.

In the session before that, we were playing the Penumbra d20 module Maiden Voyage (using Burning Wheel as the system). Just to give one example - at one point one of the PCs was trying to Intimidate an NPC under his protection into confessing certain information. The check failed, and so - insofar as the player wanted his PC to continue talking with the NPC - the conversation continued between them as equals, rather than as one cowed by the other. Which then had ramifications for the subsequent choices made by that player, and are likely to have ongoing ramifications when we pick the game up again.

The player didn't just want me to make up something that makes sense. And _I_ don't want to just make up something that makes sense. For us, part of what makes it RPGing rather than round-robin storytelling is that at certain crunch points the mechanics will be used to find out what happens, and hence to shape what comes next. Mechanics can be better or worse suited to this task; and when they handle it poorly, it's no good just to say to tell the GM to come up with something that makes sense. That's just reiterating the need to solve a problem; it's not pointing towards an actual solution.



Mistwell said:


> do you think you have a peg on universal views of D&D?



I think you are wrong to imply, as you did (you virtually stated it), that   [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and I are an extreme minority relative to the rest of the posters on these boards. There is not even any need to name names, as many people who take a similar view to the two of us about the role of rules, and/or the GM, are posting in this very thread.

As for universal views of D&D - I think a "tongue in cheek" flowchart which is summarised, in post 164, as "won't anyone think of the rules lawyers", is an attempt to label all those who don't play in a GM-driven, 2nd ed AD&D style in pejorative terms. I am not the one pushing the "universal view" -   [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] is, by attacking those who take a different attitude towards the role of rules, and the GM, in the game.

And I am not the only poster in this thread to have made this point.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 3, 2015)

JamesonCourage said:


> This thread is a train wreck.



I can see why you would say that!, but I think it's too early to tell. There are at least a couple of relatively new voices participating, and I think they have some interesting things to say.

One exampleI have in mind is this: in my posts I've referred to the role of rules and/or the GM, but have been treating attitudes towards the two of them as roughly going together (as I feel they tend to in my own case).

But I think, based on an early post in this thread, that [MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION] sees the "collegiate" approach to the role of the GM as consistent  with "rulings not rules" in action resolution. I'm hoping to hear more about that - either directly, or indirectly coming out in the discussion of the various examples and hypotheticals - because it seems relevant to both the games I'm GMing at the moment: the "page 42" aspects of my 4e game, and the tight connection between action resolution and fictional positioning in Burning Wheel.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 3, 2015)

pemerton said:


> But I think, based on an early post in this thread, that @_*emdw45*_ sees the "collegiate" approach to the role of the GM as consistent  with "rulings not rules" in action resolution. I'm hoping to hear more about that - either directly, or indirectly coming out in the discussion of the various examples and hypotheticals - because it seems relevant to both the games I'm GMing at the moment: the "page 42" aspects of my 4e game, and the tight connection between action resolution and fictional positioning in Burning Wheel.




Hmmm. Okay, here's where I'm coming from:

* I'm basically a simulationist at heart. A lot of the joy of D&D for me personally comes from exploring various subsystems of D&D and how they interact. As a player, I don't really care about win/lose, but I care a _lot_ about internal consistency.

* When I'm DMing, I have a pretty fast and loose style. I don't map out the whole campaign world in advance, and sometimes I'll design adventures by flipping through the MM or kobold.com and finding monsters I want to use, and then back-fill an ecology from there. (That is, I want the end result to be consistent, but I don't mind being surprised during world-building. "Oh! I guess the twig blights must be working with the mind flayers. Lord Waldemar the Rakshasa is probably opposed to them both.") Because I don't have a predetermined end in mind, and because I enjoy playing with the rule sets, I don't mind at all when players contribute to the rules by trying to design their own weapons ("You want a hammer polearm? Okay, glaive stats but with bludgeoning." "Shouldn't I be able to slash with the back end?" "Good point. Sure, why not?") nor do I mind at all if players want to push back on a ruling ("It says elves get eight hours benefit from four hours of trance, so I should be fully rested." "Well, technically it's not supposed to work that way, but that sounds reasonable to me, so okay, we'll go with it."). I have absolutely no fear of losing control of my narrative, because I don't have a very sophisticated narrative in the first place, just a sandbox with guide rails. (Last week I told my guys, when they started trying to chase down a tenuous clue to the murder mystery, "I won't guarantee that this clue really even has anything to do with the murders. It may be a red herring. The only thing I promise you is that if you do chase this clue down, you will find something interesting.")

* When I'm playing a PC, my DM is a guy who is basically narrativist at heart. Like many people, he's played many editions of (A)D&D and is relatively new to 5E, and is therefore still learning the rules. He likes to concentrate on the storyline and let us worry about the rules. (And by "us" I mostly mean "me" since I have the best memory for them.) An example rules adjudication a few weeks ago went something like this: 

One PC casts Silence on an enemy spellcaster.
DM is like, "Oh no, he can't do anything now."
I point out that Silence, unlike Darkness, has no language saying that it follows you around in 5E. [Some other players are a little upset at this point that I'm "helping the enemy" but that's dumb.]
DM takes a minute to read both descriptions, and then rules that yeah, the enemy spellcaster can just move out of the affected area. Play resumes.

There have been other times where things didn't go so smoothly, but usually if there is friction it is due to either 1.) players being upset that their plan (e.g. using the Daylight spell to blast vampires) is derailed due to another player "influencing" the DM; 2.) DM getting irked at rules reminders that interfere with narrative pacing (being reminded that there's a materials component cost for Arcane Lock when he's busy thinking about the illithids on the other side, and how the PCs are reacting to them). But he actively appreciates having someone else keep an eye on the rules for him, and I in turn keep discussions brief, and if the rules affect a problem player I sometimes just sit on my notes until after the session.

I think these are both examples of what I've called "collegial" play, cooperative play among peers, in spite of the fact that they are pretty much opposites in terms of how the mechanics of the different games work. Nobody is thin-skinned about having their "authority" challenged, but at the same time, all the players are courteous to the DM about how challenges are conducted. And, I think my games probably fall closer to the "rules" end of the spectrum because I am good at creating rules and enjoy doing so, whereas my DM's games are closer to the "rulings" end of the spectrum--so collegiality is compatible with rules and rulings both.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 3, 2015)

Heh, for years in 3e, we had a rules guru at our table.  A player who had a pretty near encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules.  The entire table deferred to her on rules questions, including the DM.  It was fantastic.

/edit to add

I'm largely backing out of this thread because apparently there are several posters here who are incapable of separating the post from the poster.  Apparently a fairly minor mea culpa from me has turned out to yet again people claiming that I think that DM's are always wrong and that I hate DM's.  It's unfortunate that this view has gotten so entrenched and it's probably my fault.  On the plus side, it's nice to see the new faces in here be able to clearly see through that and see the point I'm trying to make without getting bogged down in whatever other think I'm trying to say instead of actually reading what I've said.

IOW, it's nice to know that I am actually making my point fairly clearly since those who lack the baggage of prior discussions can see my point clearly.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 3, 2015)

If the thread is being reduced to collegial versus 'never question the DM', its wheels have come off.



emdw45 said:


> An example rules adjudication a few weeks ago went something like this:
> 
> One PC casts Silence on an enemy spellcaster.
> DM is like, "Oh no, he can't do anything now."
> ...




Good stuff. When I'm DMing, I have absolutely no problem with players who correct me on the rules. On the contrary, I appreciate it. It strengthens my understanding of the rules. When I'm a player, I like DMs who feel the same way, unsurprisingly (and I'm not trying to catch out  the DM or prove my superior knowledge here; I bring something up if I think it will cause more of a problem down the road - for DM and players alike - unless I do). And things like courtesy and timing always play their part. My guiding principle is rulings are for the table, debate is for after the game. By your reasoning, that makes me a collegial DM, to an extent at least.

A creature showing up outside its preferred or typical habitat is not a rule gone awry. It does not, in my opinion obviously, open the door to a game-stopping debate on the fairness of it turning up elsewhere. My opinion on this does not make me fall into the hyperbolic 'never question the DM' camp as some people who disagree with my opinion (and who are welcome to do so) believe.



			
				permerton said:
			
		

> Without context I don't see how we can tell.




I was assuming all other things being equal but…



			
				permerton said:
			
		

> What plans had the player made?




Irrelevant unless the DM has deliberately misled the player(s).



			
				permerton said:
			
		

> What sort of character was the player playing?




See above.



			
				permerton said:
			
		

> What investment did the player have, as part of his/her game experience, in following received D&D lore?




You're talking about metagaming. Celebrim already addressed this.



			
				permerton said:
			
		

> There are ways in which a player could contest the manticore encounter which suggest bad faith or a lack of sporting behaviour (eg the player suddenly realises the party isn't equipped to deal with flying ranged attackers, and so tries to negate the encounter via a metagame strategy). There are ways in which the player contesting the manticore encounter is all about good faith and investment in the game - I've sketched some of them above.




Not very well. A player suddenly realises his party isn't equipped to deal with flying attackers and that makes the DM's use of the manticore 'unsporting' or in 'bad faith'? Sorry, but unless the DM has previously announced that there will be no flying attackers, this is simply the player's inadequacy and not the DM's fault. Any airborne creature would cause the party as much of a problem. The fact that in this case it's a manticore is completely irrelevant.

A DM might take pity on the party, and have the manticore strafe them once before moving on to an even easier meal ticket, just to remind the players that they need to give more thought to preparing for an excursion into a wilderness in which things fly. But even a DM who does that is doing so because he realises the party has poorly prepared, not because he should never have had a manticore fly in on account of their preferred habitat being a desert.

Your prior examples are equally poor. The ranger wants to hit the forest trail, because that's where his favoured enemy lives. Well, so what?  Does nothing else live in or venture into the forest? "The only dangerous flier we might encounter is a green dragon and we have protections against poisonous gas?" So nothing else could possibly be in there; you're absolutely certain. Any appearance of another monster is the DM acting in 'bad faith'?

None of your examples justify a player derailing the game over something clearly within the DM's purview. Unless the DM has actively misled the players beforehand, and by your own admission, we don't know if that's the case, so let's start by reasonably assuming he didn't, the player's behaviour was unwarranted.

This from a reasonable and somewhat collegial DM.


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 3, 2015)

JamesonCourage said:


> This thread is a train wreck.




It's funny because it's true. hahaha.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 3, 2015)

[MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION] - thanks for the reply!



emdw45 said:


> I don't map out the whole campaign world in advance, and sometimes I'll design adventures by flipping through the MM or kobold.com and finding monsters I want to use, and then back-fill an ecology from there. (That is, I want the end result to be consistent, but I don't mind being surprised during world-building. "Oh! I guess the twig blights must be working with the mind flayers. Lord Waldemar the Rakshasa is probably opposed to them both.") Because I don't have a predetermined end in mind, and because I enjoy playing with the rule sets, I don't mind at all when players contribute to the rules by trying to design their own weapons ("You want a hammer polearm? Okay, glaive stats but with bludgeoning." "Shouldn't I be able to slash with the back end?" "Good point. Sure, why not?") nor do I mind at all if players want to push back on a ruling



All this fits me pretty well - especially what you say about backstory/world creation and the players' role in that. Sometimes I might be a little bit more strict than you on the "push back on a ruling" - it's hard to compare styles across just a series of posts, but I might lean a bit more towards balance and a bit less towards simulation.

Thanks again for the reply.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 3, 2015)

Ranes said:


> A player suddenly realises his party isn't equipped to deal with flying attackers and that makes the DM's use of the manticore 'unsporting' or in 'bad faith'?



You've misread me. I used those words as a possible characterisation of the player, not the referee.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 3, 2015)

Then please accept my apologies.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 3, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> An example rules adjudication a few weeks ago went something like this:
> 
> <snip example>





Ranes said:


> When I'm DMing, I have absolutely no problem with players who correct me on the rules. On the contrary, I appreciate it. It strengthens my understanding of the rules. When I'm a player, I like DMs who feel the same way



When I think about this in relation to my own group, I can identify one player who is more inclined to point to corrections that run his/the players' way, and another who is more inclined to point to corrections that run against them.

The latter player's PC has a feat that grants a bonus to skills used for _rituals_. As published, I think that what was meant was "rituals" in the technical 4e sense. The player interprets it as applying also to uses of the skills for "rituals" in the fictional sense - ie complex manipulations of magic - including page 42/skill challenge scenarios that go beyond the technical scope of the ritual mechanics (eg using Arcana to shut down a portal to stop the demons coming through). I accept the player's interpretation, and furthermore almost always just let him decide when the bonus applies and when it doesn't.

How do others handle takebacks/corrections based on forgetfulness/oversight? We have a phrase - "bad Magic player" - to describe someone who has an option/combo "in hand" and fails to deploy it. When the players miss something like this, after their turn is over I will sometimes comment that so-and-so is "a bad Magic player" - in the spirit of friendly mockery! As GM, when I have missed something like this for my monsters/NPCs, I will occasionally retroactively deploy it, if it doesn't disturb the in-fiction situation too much but just - for instance - adds to the damage taken by the PCs. The same player who likes to correct rules/rulings in the players' favour will sometimes suggest to me "Haven't you been a bad Magic player?" but I claim GM's prerogative!

Do other's have experience with/approaches to this?


----------



## Eric V (Jan 3, 2015)

In a sense, with a very tight rules system (say, 4e), there is no need for "collegiate" or "Never question the DM" debates...the rules are there, and that's it.  "This is how stealth works. Period."  

Moving to a "rulings, not rules" system to let DMs do what they want has some advantages, for sure, but I guess I don't understand how the DM _couldn't_ do what they wanted under a tight rules system...they just need to know the rules and plan accordingly.  Said planning might include coming up with a new ritual, developing a new monster, but if there are strong mechanics for that, no biggie.

A tight rules system forces players to learn the rules (my number 1 pet peeve as a DM) and reduces table conflict.  If a question comes up, as colleagues, someone can look it up (easy as pie if there is a web resource) and go from there.

Having said that, I do believe that even in a "collegiate" system, the DM is first among equals.  If consensus cannot be reached quickly, DM has to make the call, and that's part of social contract.  

But the DM can be wrong...and reading here, it seems like some DMs invoke infallibility more than the last 25 Popes combined.


----------



## Eric V (Jan 3, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Do other's have experience with/approaches to this?




In our high level 4e game we recently shut down, in part, because it was too easy to be a "bad Magic player."

Basically, if someone hasn't started moved their token yet or hit a button (we play online with Maptool), we apply the forgotten modifier/whatever, but otherwise, it can be too much trouble to go back and change things...unless it's pivotal to the plot.  Then, since it records the chat and all results, we can go back, but that is a sucky scenario.

On my own end, if I forgot a resistance the monster had or something, I just quietly add hp back to it and no one is the wiser.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 3, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> Now now, are you rules lawyering there?
> 
> I personally dont care if Gygax writes to jump off a cliff. Everyone makes the same time commitments to turn up and play on game day, it's just as much the players game as the DM, in many cases.
> 
> You can either be a dictator or referee, whatever floats your boat.




That's not rules lawyering because it's not a rule I mentioned.  It's simply a guideline.  I also mentioned how ironic it was earlier that these die hard rules lawyers seem to ignore those parts of the book as well but treat something like where a manticore lives as unwavering doctrine.  

The reason I mentioned it is thus:

We can get a really good idea about how the game was meant to be played, and what the spirit of the game is, when we have the creator(s) of the game specifically tell us what those things are.  So when someone prefers to play the game counter to those things, and someone happens to call that out, it's pretty disingenuous to flee under a "don't accuse me of badwrong fun!" because it's not something that really falls under subjectivity any more, does it?  I mean we have it in black and white; it's not my personal preference or opinion.  It's objective.  It's like someone saying, "Don't accuse me of playing monopoly wrong if whenever someone has to pay rent, we split it evenly among all the rest of the players."  If you like playing that way, fine.  But it's not in alignment with the spirit of the game.



Authweight said:


> [sarcasm]
> DMIng advice from the very earliest rpg book ever written is 100% infallible, so it's a good thing you brought this up. Otherwise we would be lost.
> 
> In unrelated news, why do they keep posting speed limit signs of 65 and 70 mph? My Model T Ford only gets up to around 45 tops. Surely there is no finer vehicle able to go faster than it?
> ...





The point of all that was to show that we can objectively tell what the spirit of the game is, and how it was meant to be played.  If you can't believe the people who actually created the game, who can you believe?  You?  Me?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 3, 2015)

pemerton said:


> As for universal views of D&D - I think a "tongue in cheek" flowchart which is summarised, in post 164, as "won't anyone think of the rules lawyers", is an attempt to label all those who don't play in a GM-driven, 2nd ed AD&D style in pejorative terms.
> .




No it wasn't.  That's you projecting.  The rules lawyer thing didn't even come up until _after_ Hussar's example of a player getting into a "lengthy argument" to bully Hussar into removing a manticore from a forest because the rulebook said they don't live there, and people defending that player's behavior.  I.e., ruleslawyering at it's worst because it wasn't even a real rule.  _That's_ when the rules lawyer thing started.  My OP is exactly what I said it was.  And truth be told, it was sparked based off the discussion re: stealth in the other thread.  It was meant for those rules that do have ambiguity, and I'll repeat what I've said twice already now: if a rule seems unclear to you, look to see if you can make better sense of it by looking at other rules and the context/intent of the entire game, and if it's still unclear, go with what works for you because *no single rule is important enough that you should stop playing the game in gridlocked debate*.

Is that clear enough for you?  To make accusations about me and my intent based on topics that happened later, especially since I've already cleared it up at least twice, is pretty darn disingenuous of you.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 3, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> Wait, so you're *objecting* to my hearing you out and asking questions before explaining how you've got it all wrong?




You have so much wrong I don't know where to begin, starting with the claim that you are hearing me.   But, I was objecting to silence and the concealing of thought because I knew you weren't hearing me.   And "Thank you" is meaningless and conveyed no information.   It's no better than Biblo's breezy "Good morning".   I know you'll dismiss me without hearing or listening, so it's not a question of what I want.   What I want is your words, whether dismissive or not.  



> False. "You're right, a whole fleet of star destroyers couldn't destroy a planet." Or if you still consider that "setting" information about the capabilities of star destroyers, "Roll an Intelligence check. [On success] You're right, it would take a massive amount of firepower to destroy a planet, more than you think a whole fleet of star destroyers would have. Isn't that interesting?"
> 
> It is false that the GM has no recourse at the metagame (i.e. rule) level.




To begin with, the GM in the satire I wrote conveyed the very information you cite here in game.  So once again you are suggesting something I already agree with and at the same time failing to understand the point.  There was no question in anyone's mind whether a whole fleet of star destroyers could destroy a planet.  But, you would have the GM drop hints and nudges in the right direction until the Luke player was on the right track and had this affirmed out of character by the GM - the sort of behavior that just encourages more dysfunctional whining.  So you've actually shown exactly why I think the approach wouldn't work.



> but: (a) is false.




Rather than refuting the all rest of your statements one by one, let's just stop here and settle this question using actual facts and reasoned argument.  You claim that it is false that favored terrain rules are a guideline.  You do so providing no evidence at all.   You claim this providing no reasoning at all.   You claim this despite the clear suggestion of the words themselves.   Fine.

I happen to have the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual, copyright 1993, open in front of me.   I 'm turned to the first page of the text with the heading "How To Use This Book", and on that page is a section header for "CLIMATE/TERRAIN", and it reads, "CLIMATE/TERRAIN defines where the creature is _most often_ found."   Most often is here a limiting qualifier that provides for exceptions to the normal, making these lines in the monster entries mere suggestions or guidelines.   They are particularly weak even as suggestions, because since they convey no information about process resolution and instead only setting information, they are by normal conventions things you'd expect DM's to fiddle with even if the text didn't specifically empower them to do so without even considering it a house rule.  (How could it be a house rule that Manticores also appear in forest, when the literal plain reading of the rules as written allows them to?)   So I think it safe to say on the basis of actual evidence that the "CLIMATE/TERRAIN" entry is most definitely a guideline.

But what is even more interesting is that if we turn to page 246 of this same text, we find the 2nd edition entry for Manticore, and the first line of that entry after the name reads: "CLIMATE/TERRAIN: Any".   Feel free to verify that.  Further more, if we examine the ecology section of the entry it reads: "Ecology: Manticores are wide-ranging carnivores that have successfully survived in every region inhabited by humans, whether in the wilderness or underground."   This does nothing to overturn Hussar's recollection that somewhere Manticores are listed as primarily desert creatures, but does pretty much destroy the rest of your ... I don't even know what to call it.  It's not an argument.  It's not a rebuttal.  You'd actually have to have used facts for that instead of something like 'You're wrong'.   But among other things, examine that fact in the light of your rejection of my point 'j'.  First, it's not just a restatement of 'a', which can be shown in many ways but the easiest way would be to point out that 'j' could potentially remain true even if we'd resolved that 'a' was false.  If both were rules, it still wouldn't follow that the group had agreed to use this particular rule.  Your rebuttal that because they were playing AD&D2 the rule was implied to be in force falls not just because it isn't a rule, but because every rule from every supplement from AD&D2 is not necessarily in play just because they are playing AD&D2.   The Monstrous Manual itself was clearly not in play, or this particular bit of rules lawyering - stupid as it was - could have never held, since the description of the Manticore in the 2e Monstrous Manual makes it clear that Manticores can appear in any terrain even if it were true that the CLIMATE/TERRAIN entry was a hard and binding rule and not merely as the text says a suggestion.  



> hopefully the opposing position is clear now as well and you can stop using straw men. Whether you actually do stop will say more about you than about me.




I'm using straw men?  Even if it were true that I'd erected straw men arguments, which I deny, I at least have done you the dignity of trying to build an argument and substantiate it.  If my argument is made of straw, yours is no more than hot air.  Your declaration that my argument is made of straw is no more substantial than your declaration that "(a) is false".  Saying it is so doesn't make it so.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 3, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I think you are wrong to imply, as you did (you virtually stated it), that   [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and I are an extreme minority relative to the rest of the posters on these boards. There is not even any need to name names, as many people who take a similar view to the two of us about the role of rules, and/or the GM, are posting in this very thread.




My point in mentioning how you guys are sometimes in the minority is that you should appreciate better than most that there is no universal view of D&D.  You took it as a pejorative, but it wasn't meant that way if you look at the context where I said that.  



> As for universal views of D&D - I think a "tongue in cheek" flowchart which is summarised, in post 164, as "won't anyone think of the rules lawyers", is an attempt to label all those who don't play in a GM-driven, 2nd ed AD&D style in pejorative terms. I am not the one pushing the "universal view" -   [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] is, by attacking those who take a different attitude towards the role of rules, and the GM, in the game.
> 
> And I am not the only poster in this thread to have made this point.




NONE of what you just said is a reply to my point, and it's a total strawman.  I was not justifying the joke flow chart in any way, and even a casual reading of what I wrote would tell you that.  

A different comment, from a different poster, was made saying that they knew of a universal view of how to play D&D - that some DM decision-making MUST ALWAYS drive away players no matter what.  I responded it was not true for my game, and explained why, and that it was not true for some others in this thread who had said so.  IN response to that, your buddy ManBearCat started with the snark (uncalled for - no snark had been directed at him) and then said then my view was the extreme outlier which justified his total dismissal of my experiences and views - with zero evidence to support that claim.

And then you jumped to his defense, also with no evidence, misunderstanding why I had mentioned my surprise at that reaction given you and he had experience knowing how there are no universal ways to play D&D as you had both been on the minority end of discussions before and that didn't make your views actual extreme outliers.

SO I am asking you a second time - do you actually agree that any dissent from that view I was responding to makes me an extreme outlier, despite zero evidence of such? Because if your threshold for being extreme outlier and dismissed as such is now that low, that's cool.  Just understand it's a tactic that will be turned on you countless times hereafter.  Ball is in your court, just don't pretend you have no idea what game we're playing right now and try and change the subject to something else.  I've got my teeth on this topic pretty strongly at this point.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 3, 2015)

How did my player "bully" me Sancrisanct?  I never characterized it that way. Nor did I make a single comment on the quality of the player. 

Every single time you or others bring this up though you automatically interpret the sittin the most negative light possible. Why is that?


----------



## Eric V (Jan 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> How did my player "bully" me Sancrisanct?  I never characterized it that way. Nor did I make a single comment on the quality of the player.
> 
> Every single time you or others bring this up though you automatically interpret the sittin the most negative light possible. Why is that?




I was wondering the same.  To automatically, intuitively interpret what happened as "bullying" betrays a very specific (and IMO) unhealthy point of view.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> How did my player "bully" me Sancrisanct?  I never characterized it that way. Nor did I make a single comment on the quality of the player.
> 
> Every single time you or others bring this up though you automatically interpret the sittin the most negative light possible. Why is that?





Because when someone says, "I had this really cool idea of having a manticore in the forest, and this player disagreed and got into a lenghty heated argument over it because he said in the book, Manticores are in the desert only.", that comes across as them trying to bully you with rules lawyering.  Because that's what rule lawyering is.  And even if it weren't, it's incredibly  behavior.  Who gets into a heated argument with the DM over that?  Someone with issues, that's who.  You weren't unreasonably nerfing his PC.  You weren't even wrong.  And that player got into a long argument with you anyway because _manticores can't be in a forest_?  SMH.  The fact that you felt like you had to give up on an idea you thought was cool because of that behavior is just sad, even if you don't see it.  And this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened with your posted experiences.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Or, another time, I bombed the party with a manticore.  I love manticores.  One of my favourite critters.  A player piped up and complained that I was using a manticore in a completely wrong terrain - manticores in 2e were desert monsters and we were in a temperate forest.  Now, he was 100% right, but, I stuck to my guns.  It wound up being a rather lengthy argument at the table, so it stuck in my mind.  I often wonder if I had of just admitted that I screwed up and skipped the encounter, if it wouldn't have been a better solution.
> .





This Hussar.  This right here is why I say they were bullying.  Because this is how you describe it.  I strongly suggest that those who have said, "I didn't see any negative behavior on the player" or "I don't know why you assume the player was bad" reread this post.

You wanted to have a manticore in a forest
Your player disagreed and tried rule lawyering you
It was a lengthy argument that was memorable
You think you should have give in to the player's demands (even though the player was wrong, not you, as has been explained by others above).

That seems pretty clear to me that your player was a jerk.  Metagaming, arguing over something that wasn't all that important just to get his way, and trying to remove cool ideas because of his mistaken assumptions?  Seems pretty clear to me.



Eric V said:


> I was wondering the same.  To automatically, intuitively interpret what happened as "bullying" betrays a very specific (and IMO) unhealthy point of view.




You can keep the passive aggressive attacks to yourself.  Because you'd be totally wrong in your assumptions about me or my "points of view".  it's clear that this player was in the wrong.  Both quite literally in his assumptions, and in his behavior by arguing the DM at length over it.

Folks like yourself might like to call people like me "unhealthy" or "dictatorial" DMs just because we don't give in to every player's every whims, but the fact that folks with similar DM styles as myself (like Jester) always have a line of people wanting to be in our games, and the overwhelming response from fans in the surveys leads me to believe that we're doing a pretty damn good job DMing in that style and that's what people want.

The next time you guys wonder why it's so damn hard to find DMs in organized play, cons, or other functions (FLGS owners and WoTC literally have to bribe us), it's because most people don't want to DM if they have people like what Hussar described sucking the fun out of every session.

I said it before and I'll say it again.  There is a very real reason why rules lawyers have always been held with contempt.  Think on that.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 3, 2015)

Ranes said:


> Good stuff. When I'm DMing, I have absolutely no problem with players who correct me on the rules. On the contrary, I appreciate it. It strengthens my understanding of the rules. When I'm a player, I like DMs who feel the same way, unsurprisingly (and I'm not trying to catch out  the DM or prove my superior knowledge here; I bring something up if I think it will cause more of a problem down the road - for DM and players alike - unless I do). And things like courtesy and timing always play their part. My guiding principle is rulings are for the table, debate is for after the game. By your reasoning, that makes me a collegial DM, to an extent at least.
> 
> A creature showing up outside its preferred or typical habitat is not a rule gone awry. It does not, in my opinion obviously, open the door to a game-stopping debate on the fairness of it turning up elsewhere. My opinion on this does not make me fall into the hyperbolic 'never question the DM' camp as some people who disagree with my opinion (and who are welcome to do so) believe.




You know what? Your approach to rules is reasonable. I disagree with your epistemological approach on the manticore (I don't think we know enough to conclude anything about the scenario) but ultimately, that is just one event that happened many years ago, at which nobody here was present except Hussar. I can live with that kind of disagreement.

Peace,
Max


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 3, 2015)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION] - thanks for the reply!
> 
> All this fits me pretty well - especially what you say about backstory/world creation and the players' role in that. Sometimes I might be a little bit more strict than you on the "push back on a ruling" - it's *hard to compare styles across just a series of posts, but I might lean a bit more towards balance and a bit less towards simulation.*
> 
> Thanks again for the reply.




It is indeed hard to compare styles across just a series of posts. Also, I was trying to illustrate a point which involved me saying "Yes" to a player so I picked Elvish sleep, but I could just as easily gone the other way on that house rule and said "No". (In this specific case I was already on the fence about Elvish sleep, since I can't see any other reason for that racial ability to exist, especially given that humans already only sleep for 6 hours during a long rest.)

But yeah, if you know you're not a simulationist, you probably really _are_ more concerned with balance than I am. I let a barbarian domesticate a captured wolf over a period of several weeks, not because I thought through the balance implications of a 2nd level barbarian having an extra attack with proning and a handful of extra HP, but because the goblins who had the wolf previously had obviously domesticated it and so it made sense that the barbarian could too.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 3, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Or, another time, I bombed the party with a manticore.  I love manticores.  One of my favourite critters.  A player piped up and complained that I was using a manticore in a completely wrong terrain - manticores in 2e were desert monsters and we were in a temperate forest.  Now, he was 100% right, but, I stuck to my guns.  It wound up being a rather lengthy argument at the table, so it stuck in my mind.  I often wonder if I had of just admitted that I screwed up and skipped the encounter, if it wouldn't have been a better solution.
> 
> And again, DM's good and bad are sometimes wrong.  It happens.  AFAIC, a good DM knows when to step back and relax.




so what I take from this:

DM put a monster in the game
then the player


> A player piped up and complained that I was using a manticore in a completely wrong terrain - manticores in 2e were desert monsters and we were in a temperate forest.



piped up sounds like it is just ok... I mean it doesn't say he exploded or he was mad, it doesn't say it's rude... so piped up in my mind is something like this:
"Hey, that's weird... do you remember those things are from desserts not in the woods right?"



> Now, he was 100% right, but, I stuck to my guns.



so this sounds like the argument is coming not from the player but the DM



> It wound up being a rather lengthy argument at the table, so it stuck in my mind.  I often wonder if I had of just admitted that I screwed up and skipped the encounter, if it wouldn't have been a better solution.



and here is a possible solution...


----------



## Eric V (Jan 3, 2015)

"Folks like yourself might like to call people like me "unhealthy" or  "dictatorial" DMs *just because we don't give in to every player's every  whims*," 
That's not why I think that.
​


----------



## pemerton (Jan 3, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Folks like yourself might like to call people like me "unhealthy" or "dictatorial" DMs just because we don't give in to every player's every whims, but the fact that folks with similar DM styles as myself (like Jester) always have a line of people wanting to be in our games, and the overwhelming response from fans in the surveys leads me to believe that we're doing a pretty damn good job DMing in that style and that's what people want.



Are you meaning to imply that people who take a different attitude towards the role of the GM, and/or the place of the rules, have trouble finding players for their games? Or aren't giving "people" what they want?

If not, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Some people like the GM-first, GM-driven playstyle. That's not in dispute in this thread. But I don't see how it makes any difference to those who prefer different approaches.

As a player, I've had two significant "I quit" moments. One was very early in my university days. A group of us had met at the university RPG club and started a new campaign under a GM who turned out, after a session or two, to be very much "GM first". The scenario was some fairly simple thing involving kobolds infiltrating a city via its sewage system.

Through a combination of good luck and good play, we managed to capture a kobold alive so that we could interrogate it, learn about the kobolds' plans and disposition of forces, and move from a reactive to proactive mode (both in the fiction, and in the player of the game at the table). The GM totally blocked this by playing the kobold as unable to communicate any better than a 5 year old, unable to read a map, unable to describe the nature of its leadership and allies, etc. At the end of the session the GM indicated he would be absent the next week. I arranged with the other players that I would start a Rolemaster campaign, and the next week we did. The (ex-)GM was invited to join when he returned to the club meeting a fortnight later, but declined. As best I recall he found new players who didn't mind his style.

About 7 years later, I was in the second year of a 2nd ed AD&D campaign. The GM was so-so, but there was a large group of players (6 or 7) who mostly didn't know one another very well outside the context of the game. So there was quite a bit of game-focused and in-character banter and back-and-forth, which made the game fun. And over the course of the campaign we had built up, among ourselves, quite a degree of investment in and outlook around the core themes and NPCs of the campaign (there were gods, a prophecy, evil overlords etc).

After around 8 or 9 levels the GM - apparently so that he could retake control of the campaign story from his players - time-shifted us 100 years into the campaign's future. All the lore we had developed and come to know was made irrelevant. Our PCs had not connections to any NPCs, political factions etc. We were back at the pure mercy of the GM for gameplay, backstory, PC motivations etc. I left the game, and I don't think it lasted much longer after that.

I mention these anecdotes to show that there is no necessary connection between a tightly GM-driven game and player retention.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 3, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> if you know you're not a simulationist, you probably really _are_ more concerned with balance than I am. I let a barbarian domesticate a captured wolf over a period of several weeks, not because I thought through the balance implications of a 2nd level barbarian having an extra attack with proning and a handful of extra HP, but because the goblins who had the wolf previously had obviously domesticated it and so it made sense that the barbarian could too.



Fairly recently in my game the invoker/wizard (+30-something Nature) took control of a tamed giant Frosthawk (like a roc, but able to breathe cold). But being 4e, it only gave him enhanced movement (ie a fly speed) but otherwise - per the mount rules - didn't give him any bonus actions.

I was also able to just deduct the value of a 24th level mount from the treasure allocation for that level.



Eric V said:


> In a sense, with a very tight rules system (say, 4e), there is no need for "collegiate" or "Never question the DM" debates...the rules are there, and that's it.  "This is how stealth works. Period."



Parts of 4e are loose, though - such as taking control of the enemy's animals in battle, for instance, which has happened twice in my game (the frosthawk just mentioned, and at early paragon the ranger-cleric took control of the hobgoblins' dinosaur). And various other p 42/skill challenge-y stuff.

In my mental framing of 4e, adjudicating these sorts of things is a three-stage process. There is the fictional positioning component: is this action feasible for this PC? - in this situation, relative to global considerations of flavour, genre etc as well as more local considerations of capability, equipment, opposition, etc.

And then, if the player gets a tick at the first stage, there is the DC allocation stage. This is done via the DC-by-level charts.

The final stage happens if the player succeeds on the check: the GM has to narrate the results. If the first stage was handled well, this should be relatively automatic, because the consequence of success will have been determined as part of that original framing of what is happening in the fiction.

At that first stage, I think the GM is first among equals, as you suggested upthread. But the players also have an important role to play. While they have a standing temptation to push a bit too far in pursuit of advantage, each player should also should have a better handle on what his/her PC is capable of than anyone else at the table. And there is also the fun factor - if a player thinks it would be fun for his/her PC to take control of a giant frosthawk, and the rules of the game make it easy to accommodate this without breaking (which, in 4e, they do), then that tells strongly in favour of saying "yes" at the first stage and moving onto the second stage of setting a DC.

I hadn't foreseen that the PC would take control of the steed on either occasion. In both cases it took the encounter in a slightly different direction from what I had anticipated. That's a big part of what I enjoy about RPGing.


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 3, 2015)

The DM "first among equals" - I like that.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 3, 2015)

The Excluded Middle in this discussion is large enough to choke a purple worm.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 3, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> The Excluded Middle in this discussion is large enough to choke a purple worm.



That might be true, but I imagine that you also agree that there are a variety of feasible but meaningfully different approaches to GMing, rules adjudication etc.

I've encountered GMs, both in the face-to-face world and online, whose first response to any player action declaration outside a fairly narrow comfort zone is to try and shut it down to stop the game breaking. And early in my career as a GM I was one of them!

I've also played systems which make it easier or harder to accommodate more diverse action declarations. If it's not clear how to incorporate something without the risk of breaking, that makes me more likely to say "no" rather than "yes".


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 3, 2015)

Of course there's a variety of feasible styles that are meaningfully different. And said variety includes both reasonable and unreasonable styles.

But so far this conversation has (for the most part; obviously there are exceptions) treated the issue as though the only options are "DM as tyrant" or "DM has no more say than any other player," when the truth is that every reasonable, feasible DMing style must, by the definitions inherent in the game, fall somewhere between the two. It's a high-gradient continuum, not a binary equation.

And the cause célèbre of this thread, in particular--the manticore in the forest--is being used to represent something it's not. See, there are two facets to it--the question itself, and Hussar's reaction to his player--and they're being treated as one.

Facet 1: The question and answer themselves. Some people want to treat this as being a "dictatorial DM" thing, when it absolutely isn't. (Talk to me sometime about the campaign I played in where player backgrounds were changed by the DM mid-campaign, and the entire thing was a tightly scripted railroad.) As Celebrim pointed out, the "favored terrain" thing isn't a rule. Even if the DM is going strictly by the book (and the DM always, in _every_ reasonable campaign style, has the right not to do so), it's only a suggestion. Regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable the player who brought it up might have been, that's exactly the sort of thing the DM is _supposed_ to make decisions on.

Facet 2: How it was handled. This is the part that we weren't there for. This is the part that might have some bearing on what DM style Hussar was employing at the time. _How_ he arrived at the "Sorry, I'm keeping the manticore in the forest" point in the discussion--whether it was polite and friendly, judgmental and rude, whatever--_might_ influence whether this is an example of "dictatorial" or not. But the fact that he _did_ reach that point? Meaningless, in the "dictatorial or not" context.


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 4, 2015)

That's not what the argument is about. The DM does have final say, "first among equals", but it's not his game and his game alone. It's not even his story alone. There are x number of other participants who are also at the table that he rightly should consider before refereeing decisions, some of those participants may be making a larger commitment to be there than him, kids and other factors depending.

So again, in conclusion, he should be doing what make sense for the table, either the table can vest ultimate power in him, or a more distributed approach such as how I prefer.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 4, 2015)

[MENTION=6786202]DaveDash[/MENTION], I've read this entire thread, and I can't find anyone claiming that the DM _should_ make decisions without ever even considering everyone else at the table, or claiming that it _is_ only the DM's game.

I see people claiming that the DM should have X amount of authority vs. Y amount of authority, but in neither case do people seem to be arguing for "all" or "none." It does seem to me, however, that some people on each side of the discussion view the _other_ side as arguing for all or none.

People are arguing a matter of degrees, and reacting as though they're absolutes.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 4, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> So again, in conclusion, he should be doing what make sense for the table, either the table can vest ultimate power in him, or a more distributed approach such as how I prefer.




And we are back to the false contrast just that quickly.   Start out in a good place, but within 3 sentences we are back to clinging to a patently false argument.   I mean seriously, how quickly can you go from, "That's an excluded middle argument." to "No it's not; because, excluded middle"?   

I mean someone in this thread managed to throw this one out:



> But the DM can be wrong...and reading here, it seems like some DMs invoke infallibility more than the last 25 Popes combined.




Yet there is not one statement in the entire thread invoking DM infallibility.  Not one.  Yet, out comes the patently false declarations which no doubt the person making the statement really honestly believed, and yet this is an opinion with absolutely zero evidence behind it.  

Or how about this one:



> You've made it more than clear that you abhor collegial games and everyone who plays them.




And yet again, there is not one statement by me in any way abhoring collegial games, and yet somehow I've made it more than clear that I not only abhor collegial games but everyone who plays them.    

I mean seriously, is there any evidence at all that anyone in the thread actually disagrees with this statement?



DaveDash said:


> The DM does have final say, "first among equals", but it's not his game and his game alone. It's not even his story alone. There are x number of other participants who are also at the table that he rightly should consider before refereeing decisions




And yet, from that we go right back to the idiocy of 'collegial' versus 'dictatorial' just in different words: "either the table can vest ultimate power in him, or a more distributed approach such as how I prefer."


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 4, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> And we are back to the false contrast just that quickly.   Start out in a good place, but within 3 sentences we are back to clinging to a patently false argument.   I mean seriously, how quickly can you go from, "That's an excluded middle argument." to "No it's not; because, excluded middle"?
> 
> I mean someone in this thread managed to throw this one out:
> 
> ...




Other than to add more pages to the argument, I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 4, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Are you meaning to imply that people who take a different attitude towards the role of the GM, and/or the place of the rules, have trouble finding players for their games? Or aren't giving "people" what they want?
> .





No, that's not what I'm implying at all.  I'm saying that if he's going to make a personal attack on me and imply that I have "unhealthy views", that doesn't seem to mesh with the fact that it seems players like to have me as a DM.  In no way was I saying anything like people with a different attitude have a hard time finding players.




DaveDash said:


> Other than to add more pages to the argument, I'm not sure what your point is.




I'm guessing to say, "stop making up strawmen arguments to support your position, and actually address what is being said."


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 4, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> No, that's not what I'm implying at all.  I'm saying that if he's going to make a personal attack on me and imply that I have "unhealthy views", that doesn't seem to mesh with the fact that it seems players like to have me as a DM.  In no way was I saying anything like people with a different attitude have a hard time finding players.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You are the one that referred to anyone challenging the DM at the table as a "rules lawyer".

You also think of the DM as having a special right because it's *his* game, based upon something Gygax wrote eons ago.

Those are two points I have strong issues with. Nothing straw-man about it. Like me to get your direct quotes?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 4, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> You are the one that referred to anyone challenging the DM at the table as a "rules lawyer".




See, this is a the strawman we're talking about.  I said the person arguing with Hussar was a rules lawyer.  I did NOT say _anyone __challenging _the DM was a rules lawyer.  Hell, I even specifically said my #1 rule as well, but I'm sure you glossed over that like you've glossed over so much else.

#1 Rule: No reasonable request should be unreasonably declined.

*Edit*  Now that I see your edit (added sentences), I did say the game is the DM's because it's the DM who is running it.  It also states this directly in the rulebooks (supposedly you're super into following the rules, right?) that this is the case, and while I don't have the 3e or 4e book in front of me, I know it's been that way for at least the first 25 years of the game--not some afterthought.  

Here's a tip for you: Just because you personally don't like something (and it's obvious you don't), doesn't mean that it isn't the intended style of play.  The great thing about D&D is you can play in whatever style you want, and that's not really wrong.  but the intended style of play is something that isn't in dispute because it's explicitly defined for us.  For example, in D&D you can play with a group of evil PCs raping and murdering towns if you want, but that is not the intended style of play.


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 4, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Why won't anyone think of the rules lawyers!




You weren't even quoting Hussar at all. You were quoting Authweight, and letting your true intentions shine through in the process.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 4, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> You weren't even quoting Hussar at all. You were quoting Authweight, and letting your true intentions shine through in the process.




Jesus man, Authweight was defending the guy (and people like him) in Hussar's story in that post I quoted.  You know, the guy I called a rules lawyer.  Do you have a problem following basic conversation?  I don't mean to be snarky, but it sure seems that way so far between your posts directed at me and Celebrim.

And "true intentions"?  Bwahahahahahaha.  You don't know anything about me.


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 4, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Or, another time, I bombed the party with a manticore.  I love manticores.  One of my favourite critters.  A player piped up and complained that I was using a manticore in a completely wrong terrain - manticores in 2e were desert monsters and we were in a temperate forest.  Now, he was 100% right, but, I stuck to my guns.  It wound up being a rather lengthy argument at the table, so it stuck in my mind.  I often wonder if I had of just admitted that I screwed up and skipped the encounter, if it wouldn't have been a better solution.
> 
> And again, DM's good and bad are sometimes wrong.  It happens.  AFAIC, a good DM knows when to step back and relax.




Wow.  I'm surprised someone actually argued about that detail.  The player i mean. It could have been a forest dwelling cousin of the desert manticore.  Who cares?  Just kill it!


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> [MENTION=6786202]DaveDash[/MENTION], I've read this entire thread, and I can't find anyone claiming that the DM _should_ make decisions without ever even considering everyone else at the table, or claiming that it _is_ only the DM's game.
> 
> I see people claiming that the DM should have X amount of authority vs. Y amount of authority, but in neither case do people seem to be arguing for "all" or "none." It does seem to me, however, that some people on each side of the discussion view the _other_ side as arguing for all or none.
> 
> People are arguing a matter of degrees, and reacting as though they're absolutes.




Actually, I'm going to disagree with you here.  Way, way back in the thread, in my first post in this thread, in regards to the very first point on the flow chart, I asked:



			
				me said:
			
		

> Not to be a killjoy, but, "makes sense" to who? That's generally where the issue comes up at the table. I've had DM's make all sorts of rulings that "made sense" to them and I'm sure as a DM I've done exactly the same thing. "Makes sense" isn't always what's best for the game.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...w-to-Interpret-the-Rules-quot-)#ixzz3NoS13yhX




and I was told, in no uncertain terms:



			
				Sancrosanct said:
			
		

> The DM. That's really the only person who needs to know how the rules work. He or she is the one running the game, not the players. Also, there's some pretty significant historical precedence that shows that the game can easily be played this way.
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...w-to-Interpret-the-Rules-quot-)#ixzz3NoSJi8o4




which is pretty much my entire bone of contention.  That decisions that the DM makes only have to "make sense" to the DM.  My placing a manticore in the game at that point didn't make sense to that player.  Suggestion or rule, it doesn't make much difference AFAIC.   I put the manticore there, without realising that it would cause any issues at the table because I had no idea that I was using the manticore outside of its climate/terrain.

Funnily enough, at the time, I acted exactly as Celebrim or Sancrosanct or Mistwell have advocated - I told the player that, no, it's my game, and there's really a manticore here, deal with is.  

That was the wrong answer in this case.  I could have just as easily said, "Oh, wait, the sun was in your eyes.  Did I say manticore?  I meant wyvern (or chimera, or any number of other honking big flying beasties), roll for intiative."  And the argument would have been over, everyone at the table would have been happy and it would have made zero difference to the game.

Instead, it turned into a kinda big deal, not a major one, just something that stuck out in my head.  So, my advice to DM's is that just because it makes sense to you, that's not necessarily always the best solution to the situation.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2015)

Nebulous said:


> Wow.  I'm surprised someone actually argued about that detail.  The player i mean. It could have been a forest dwelling cousin of the desert manticore.  Who cares?  Just kill it!




Well, to be honest, that's my take on it too.  But, as far as this thread is concerned, I would have hoped that people would start from the position that we want to keep the players happy and engaged, rather than telling them to shut up and play.  :/


--------


And, just another thing, I always thought rules lawyering was when you took a rule and bent the rule to your advantage, either through byzantine definitions or twisting the intent of the rules.  How is being 100% right being a rules lawyer?  It's not like he was mistaken here.  Manticores really ARE desert dwelling monsters.  He wasn't wrong here.  Inflexible?  Sure, but, not wrong.

Funny thing was, otherwise, he was a joy at the table.  Really brought interesting characters to the table, ran some very fun games, otherwise never a problem, as far as I recall.  He was just a real stickler for the idea of D&D canon being followed.

Again, hardly a rare occurrence, if threads here are any indication.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 4, 2015)

No, it wasn't the wrong answer. It's not the sort of objection a DM should change plans for. But it's also not indicative of a "dictatorial style."

Now, you may ask how I can say "It's not the sort of objection a DM should change plans for." I _could_ answer that by going back into gaming philosophy, about how that's the sort of thing the DM is expected to change, about how players need to buy into the world the DM's created. But we've had page after page after page of that.

So let me instead offer you a _practical_ reason why the DM shouldn't acquiesce to that sort of complaint:

You said that you "accidentally" put the manticore there. If it hadn't been an accident, if there was a plot-centric reason for it being there, you wouldn't have changed it then, right?

Well, if you start making that sort of decision based on whether something is plot-centric, you've just informed everyone at the table whether a monster is "important" or not. "Okay, Hussar changed it to a wyvern last time but not this time? There must be a plot-related reason for it."

Sure, it's OOC vs. IC knowledge. Doesn't matter. It can way too easily influence behavior, and it can also ruin the pacing of the story. Even if that particular player doesn't mind being spoiled, perhaps _the other players_ do.

_That_ is why you only retcon or make last-minute changes for _serious_ objections: Not because "What the DM says goes no matter what!" but because, even if you're willing to do it for minor ones, it's potentially more detrimental to the enjoyment of the game than it is helpful.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 4, 2015)

Just for the sake of clarity, let me explain my basic position.

There's a bare minimum of trust currency--to use GMfPG's term--that I always offer my DMs, and that I assume/demand from my players. If this basic bare-bones level isn't met, then as a player, I'll politely leave the game; and as a DM, I'll politely raise the idea that the player isn't a good fit.

But I will never, ever, play in or run an ongoing game without that bare minimum.

The decision of what monsters to use and where to place them falls below that bare minimum threshold. I may not always like or agree with the DM's decisions on such matters, but I won't challenge them (at least during the game). So _for me_, I consider it inappropriate for a player to interrupt a game with that sort of concern, unless there's a _very_ good reason. (And by "very good," I mean things like, "Can we not face giant spiders, please? I have _severe_ arachnophobia.")


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 4, 2015)

Hussar said:


> And, just another thing, I always thought rules lawyering was when you took a rule and bent the rule to your advantage, either through byzantine definitions or twisting the intent of the rules.  How is being 100% right being a rules lawyer?  It's not like he was mistaken here.  Manticores really ARE desert dwelling monsters.  He wasn't wrong here.  Inflexible?  Sure, but, not wrong.
> .




My take on what you said (and i could be wrong) was that BECAUSE the manticore was encountered in the wrong terrain as expressly stated in the Monster Manual, he was arguing that it should not have been encountered period.  That to me sounds like trying to manipulate your decision for an encounter based on two words of text from a rulebook.

This isn't even a "rule", it's like an argument about throwaway flavor text and trying to build a case for it.

BUT...you liked the player and this was just a one-off random thing, not like some ongoing headbutting.  So water under the bridge....


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 4, 2015)

Hussar said:


> And, just another thing, I always thought rules lawyering was when you took a rule and bent the rule to your advantage, either through byzantine definitions or twisting the intent of the rules.  How is being 100% right being a rules lawyer?  It's not like he was mistaken here.  Manticores really ARE desert dwelling monsters.  He wasn't wrong here.  Inflexible?  Sure, but, not wrong.




Out of curiosity on the 100% right thing: Celebrim claims that the 1993 Monstrous Manual has Manticores listed as Terrain: Any. Were you running this before the MM came out, and if so, was the terrain different in the Monstrous Compendium? I no longer own either so I'm curious how you verified the "Terrain: Desert" claim in this case.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> Out of curiosity on the 100% right thing: Celebrim claims that the 1993 Monstrous Manual has Manticores listed as Terrain: Any. Were you running this before the MM came out, and if so, was the terrain different in the Monstrous Compendium? I no longer own either so I'm curious how you verified the "Terrain: Desert" claim in this case.




Huh, would you look at that.    Guess that's what happens when you go from memory.    1e MM says the same thing too.  LOL.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 4, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> Other than to add more pages to the argument, I'm not sure what your point is.




Pretty sure it's "I wish people would stop being such dicks to their peers in this thread".


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 4, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Funnily enough, at the time, I acted exactly as Celebrim or Sancrosanct or Mistwell have advocated - I told the player that, no, it's my game, and there's really a manticore here, deal with is.
> 
> That was the wrong answer in this case.




So, a couple of points.   First, my first post on this thread was to note that I found the original flow chart far too simple, because it didn't take into account a lot of factors that could sway how you rule on a particular point.     Some of the factors that I noted were:

"Are you in play or between sessions?"
"Are you the DM?"
"Do your player's trust you yet?"
"Will a player's PC or player be significantly inconvenienced by the rule change?"
"Is the life of a PC at stake?"
"Does everyone at the table agree that rule is unclear?"
"Does everyone at the table agree that your new rule is clear, balanced, and playable?"
"Is one of the players that is objecting normally an insufferable rules lawyer?"

The ideal situation is that players trust you and find that you are doing what they would have done themselves in your shoes.  The ideal situation is that everything goes smoothly, you don't make mistakes, everyone has a good time, and everyone is content.   Of course, in reality, you'll make mistakes, you'll find yourself in uncharted territory rules wise, you'll forget the fictional positioning, the player's will feel uncomfortable with a rule that you make either intentionally or because you forgot some detail of the rules, players get bored, and some of your players will be prone to being moody.  And you have to be able to deal with all of that gracefully as possible, which isn't easy.

As a DM, you are as many have said: "first among equals".   You are more than that.  You are an elected judge that the other players have invested with the authority to make ruling, conditionally on the expectation that you'll be just and fair the vast majority of the time.  You are a referee.  You are the games secret keeper and as such inevitably its foremost architect.  You are the voice and mind of the opposition.  You are every single NPC in the game.  You are the player at the table with the hardest job, the most pressure, and almost inevitably the most time invested in the game (and at many tables, the most money).   As such, you are also the player whose role calls for the most skill and also the player that will make 90% of the mistakes that are to be made and the player most likely to ruin a session in most groups (and if you aren't the player most likely to ruin a session, the player that is is probably such a jerk that your best bet is to toss him).

What this means is that because the DM is appointed to this role, and because the role is hard, and because everyone's enjoyment depends on the DM, if you are player you have an obligation to assist the DM in every way you can.   And foremost, this means don't be a dick.   Because the last thing the DM needs is a player being a dick.   And it means that often you should pretty much keep silence if the alternative is a table argument.  By all means, help the DM remember the rules and the current fictional positioning.  I appreciate that as a DM.  I can't keep all the rules straight and I lose track of the fictional positioning all the time.   Anyone actually trying to assist me in those things is more than welcome to it.  

But there is a big difference between trying to help your DM and arguing with him.  I've been playing for 30+ years, had 10+ DMs, and 5 or 6 groups of players, and I've never once seen any player actually argue with a DM except to obtain some sort of advantage.   The general gist of all of those arguments is, "Hold on, you messed up.  I'm taking over the DM's chair for a while, and I'm going to make the rulings."   If that happens, I've got very little sympathy for the player.  I've been a player.  Sometimes the DM screws you.  I can't think of any time it was actually malicious, though I can recall early in 3e a DM just blatantly getting a rule wrong (grappling or some such), and refuses to listen to me.   So I shut and finished the encounter with rulings that weren't by the book unintentionally, because it wasn't worth arguing about.   Maybe if it was definitely going to end in a dead PC, I would have tried more than once to correct the DM.   But I don't intend to be 'that player'.

You Hussar didn't make a mistake in your ruling.  There are a lot of reasons why you were right, which I'm not going to list again because I've already listed a bunch of them - and I could list a lot more.



> I could have just as easily said, "Oh, wait, the sun was in your eyes.  Did I say manticore?  I meant wyvern (or chimera, or any number of other honking big flying beasties), roll for intiative."  _And the argument would have been over, everyone at the table would have been happy and it would have made zero difference to the game._




You could have, but you would have been wrong to do so IMO.  One reason I'm confident of that is that your reasoning that you are wrong is based on a counter-factual.  You can't really know what would have happened had you switched the manticore for a wyvern because that player complained.  Acting as if that imaginary alternate time-line is solid evidence of something is to make a logical mistake.  You know what did happen; there was an argument.   But that doesn't mean that if you'd done something else there wouldn't have been an argument.  With a player like that, you probably would have had arguments regardless, and it's not at all clear that backing down would have reduced the number you had.  Probably quite the contrary.

What you probably didn't do is handle the challenge as gracefully as you could have, but I can only speculate about that.  That particular challenge should send up red flags like crazy, because it really is trivial.  And the fact that is trivial doesn't make it better for you to compromise; it makes it worse.  If the guy was legitimately arguing a point where his character's life was at stake, and the point really is debatable and you can see the other side of the argument that is when you want to be as reasonable and flexible as possible.   If the guy is being a tedious rules lawyer - and this is clearly tedious rules layering - you have to deal with that in a completely different way.  The red flag is going up because if a guy is willing to provoke a table argument over something this trivial, he'll provoke it over everything.   A general gameplan might be:

a) Deflect with humor.  I'm only half joking about: "This one won an all expense vacation on Wheel of Fortune" or "This one is on his way to see a man about a horse.", being a good first answer.
b) If he doesn't laugh and shrug but persists, remind him gently to play his character, and that his character might not actually know anything about the ecology of manticores.
c) If he doesn't seem to know how to play his character, coach him how to play his character, and suggest paths for acquiring that knowledge in game.
d) If he's still being a tedious rules lawyer, out maneuver him as a lawyer.  In particular, 'favored/terrain' isn't a binding contract that the monster always appears in that terrain and that is spelled out in the text.  In this case, out maneuver him should have been pretty easy.
e) If he persists in arguing, you've got problem case.  Explain to him again as gently as you can the style of play you expect from a player and why.   If that doesn't work, stand on your authority as a DM, make up a fiction that justifies the manticore on the spot if you need one, and tell the player really if he'd rather run the game, then the group should take a vote regarding who the DM should be.  Because really, that is what now is at stake.  It's not at this point just your ability to keep this player happy, but the group asked you to be the DM and now someone thinks he can run the game better than you can.  If the group agrees, it probably is a sign you've not been doing a very good job and you probably should stand down.  If he group doesn't agree, then problem player is no longer making this an 'us against the DM' contest, and you can show the group the fiction that justifies the manticore.  That's subversive and I don't think I've ever had to take things that far, but mostly because most of the time I really already have a fiction explaining things because I do like to plan ahead.
f) Regardless of what happens, if the player argues at all, take the player aside after the session and talk to them privately about their concerns and try to figure out why they were willing to argue over something this ridiculous, and explain to them clearly again why you ruled as you did and further why you think as a DM it is necessary to be allowed to place monsters as you see fit. 

Now there are probably special circumstances were I wouldn't do that, and I'd handle it some other way.  But if you aren't even allowed by a player to make reasonable monster placement in the setting, trust me, it isn't you at fault and acting like it is you won't make it better.


----------



## Abraxas (Jan 4, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> Out of curiosity on the 100% right thing: Celebrim claims that the 1993 Monstrous Manual has Manticores listed as Terrain: Any. Were you running this before the MM came out, and if so, was the terrain different in the Monstrous Compendium? I no longer own either so I'm curious how you verified the "Terrain: Desert" claim in this case.



I was curious about this also
1E - "They range in all climes, although they enjoy warm places more than cold"
2E - Monstrous compendium (loose leaf and bound edition) - "Manticores are found in any climate but prefer warm lands to cool ones"
3E - "Warm and temperate land and underground"
3.5E - "Warm marshes"

Desert is never mentioned.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 4, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> No, it wasn't the wrong answer. It's not the sort of objection a DM should change plans for. But it's also not indicative of a "dictatorial style."
> 
> Now, you may ask how I can say "It's not the sort of objection a DM should change plans for." I _could_ answer that by going back into gaming philosophy, about how that's the sort of thing the DM is expected to change, about how players need to buy into the world the DM's created. But we've had page after page after page of that.
> 
> ...




Trust mouse.  Mouse is good.  Mouse is wise.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 4, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> stop making up strawmen arguments to support your position, and actually address what is being said."



OK.

I believe my posts in this thread have been addressing what is being said, but for the sake of maximum clarity I will address the following quotes:




Sacrosanct said:


> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> > Not to be a killjoy, but, "makes sense" to who?
> ...



That is a statement of playstyle that I, personally, do not agree with - in the sense that that is not how I prefer to run games, and not how I prefer games I play in to be run.

I don't think the GM is the only one who needs to know how the rules work. When I referee an RPG I expect the players to know how the rules work and engage with them. If there are action economy rules, I want the players to use them - I don't want the job of shepherding them through their turns.

If there are rules about PC building, I want the players to use them - I am happy to give a player advice around PC building, but I don't want to be the one who takes responsibility for building the character who has to be that player's vehicle through many gaming sessions.

If there are rules around resource acquisition and recovery that are relevant to decisions about pacing, resource expenditure, etc, I want the players to use them. In the context of 4e this means making sensible decisions about the use of daily powers, action points, healing surges etc. In other systems these rules can take other forms: eg in classic D&D this is mostly about managing spells and hit points; in Rolemaster it is mostly about managing spell points; etc.

I also don't agree that "makes sense to the GM" is the right way to state the litmus test. For me, the test is "makes sense to the table", and particularly to the player concerned. I can give an example from actual play that illustrates what I mean (I'll flag [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] here, because he likes it (or maybe he groans) when I pull this example out).

The player of the dwarf fighter-cleric wanted to reforge Whelm, his dwarven thrower (a one-handed hammer) as Overwhelm, a mordenkraad (a honking great two-handed hammer). He had the dwarven smiths of the town ready to help him out, as well as the party invoker-wizard. This was resolved as a simple skill challenge - 4 checks before 3 failures. There were some successful checks - Dungeoneering from the fighter-cleric (the closest that 4e has to an engineering skill) to supervise the firing up of the forges, Arcana from the invoker-wizard to handle the magical energies, Diplomacy from the fighter-cleric to keep the dwarven artisans calm and on task as the magical forces in the forges built to a near-overwhelming level. One more successful check was required. The player of the fighter-cleric decided that his PC would pray to Moradin, and made a Religion check, which failed. Moradin had not deserted the PC, but wasn't going to hand him his reforged hammer on a platter either!

At this point the player looks over his character sheet to see what else might be brought to bear, and fastens on his best skill - Endurance. I'm describing how the arcane energies are building up in the forge, making it hard for the artisans to hold the hammer down with their tongs and work its metal into shape. So the player says "I want to put my hands into the forge and hold Whelm down so the artisans can work it properly." The idea that this might happen hasn't crossed my mind, but then I think about the character - he is a mid-paragon fighter-warpriest of Moradin, already established in the fiction as the toughest dwarven cleric and warrior around, and his Endurance is about as good as you can get for a character of his level. Why can't he shove his hands into the forge and try and wrest control of the hammer despite the near-overpowering arcane forces?

So I set the DC (a Hard level-appropriate DC), and the player rolled, and made it, and Whelm was reforged as Overwhelm. The PC's hands were burned and took a week to recover (with some treatment by the invoker-wizard using Remove Affliction powered by some Fundamental Ice), which sucked up the rest of his downtime. But the player got what he wanted, and in the process also helped establish the broader tone for the campaign, setting the scene for more high-magic stuff in upper paragon and epic.

This is the sort of thing I, at least, have in mind when I talk about a "player-driven" game, or "making sense to the table", as contrasting with "makes sense to the GM". On this occasion (and not only this occasion) I was led by the player, not vice versa. Which is what I want in my game.



Sacrosanct said:


> #1 Rule: No reasonable request should be unreasonably declined.



This invites the question - What counts as a reasonable request? Is it reasonable that a mid-paragon PC can, in virtue of his superlative Endurance bonus, be so preternaturally tough that he can do what no human being could do, and hold down a magical hammer in a super-heated arcane forge so that the artisans can rend it into the shape they want?

Different people will have different views on that, influenced by their own preferred fantasy fiction, their own interpretation of the rules, their own sense of what is cool and what is over-the-top gonzo, etc.

I don't think the GM's view on these issues is the fulcrum around which the game turns. Other participants have views that are just as important - especially when it comes to conceiving of their PCs - and the GM is a legitimate audience for those views just as the GM can legitimately express his/her view to the players. In a fairly traditional game of the sort that I run the GM has the job of chairing the discussion and mediating the group towards a consensus, but that is a procedural role. On the issue of substance the GM is first and foremost another voice at the table, not the dominant voice. The GM has something like a casting vote - if in doubt, follow the GM's lead - but I don't find that comes up all that often.

Upthread some posters have talked about the game getting bogged down in rules debates. But when what is at stake is the capabilities of a player character, and what is or is not a feasible action declaration for that character, I don't see this as getting "bogged down". Working out these things - the content of the shared fiction, and its possible implications - is one part of playing the game. If it takes five minutes of discussion to get everyone on the same page as to what the situation is, how the PC is going to engage it, and what the consequences might be, from my point of view that is time well-spent.



Sacrosanct said:


> I did say the game is the DM's because it's the DM who is running it.  It also states this directly in the rulebooks (supposedly you're super into following the rules, right?) that this is the case, and while I don't have the 3e or 4e book in front of me, I know it's been that way for at least the first 25 years of the game--not some afterthought.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the intended style of play is something that isn't in dispute because it's explicitly defined for us.





Sacrosanct said:


> Also, there's some pretty significant historical precedence that shows that the game can easily be played this way.



Gygax also said that the aim of play, for players, is to cultivate player _skill_. But, at least judging from these boards as well as the tone of the material that WotC has been publishing for the last 15 years, only a minority of contemporary D&D players play in that Gygaxian style.

Gygax certainly never says anything about the importance of the GM's _story_. In Gygaxian play, the function of the fiction is to be part of the arena in which the players prove their skill ("Are there doors? Cool, we listen at them." "Ear seekers!" "Ah, but we have ear-trumpets with wire mesh to protect our ears!"). There is no sense or suggestion that the function of the fiction is to be, or to yield, a cool story.

Gygax does emphasise the role of the GM in adjudicating fictional positioning and its consequences. I think he tends to underestimate the difficulty of this in a high fantasy game, in which crazy magical stuff is part-and-parcel of what is expected. The reforging of Whelm is an example of this; in classic D&D it mostly arises in disputes about the capabilities of spells. If the GM tries to be too unilateral in respect of the limits of the fantastic in the campaign, I think there is a risk of losing the players. At least based on my experience, I think it is preferable to proceed by way of table consensus.

(An alternative is to replace "rulings" with the sort of petifogging detail found in the AD&D and 3E fireball spells, which contrasts so unfavourably, in my view, with the clean presentations of original D&D, Moldvay Basic and 4e. Simply list the spell as doing fire damage, and leave it to adjudication - "rulings" - to work out what damage that might do to gold, paper, ships etc.)



Mouseferatu said:


> let me instead offer you a _practical_ reason why the DM shouldn't acquiesce to that sort of complaint:
> 
> You said that you "accidentally" put the manticore there. If it hadn't been an accident, if there was a plot-centric reason for it being there, you wouldn't have changed it then, right?
> 
> ...



This may be a reason that would have been important for you. That doesn't mean that it is a good reason for everyone else.

For instance, I tend to prefer that my players distinguish between "mere colour" and "important stuff". So I don't mind signalling to them the difference between the two. More generally, I tend to prefer that the players draw upon OOC knowledge to influence their choices for their PCs. In the Over the Edge rulebook, Jonathan Tweet and Robin Laws present differing views on and approaches to this - my general play preference these days is closer to Laws than Tweet.

Also, if I intended a manticore to be important, but then for some reason - including perhaps a terrain error - change it to a wyvern instead, that needn't be a big deal. It's unlikely that it was crucial to my conception of what was "important" about the encounter that it be a manticore rather than a wyvern.



Mouseferatu said:


> Just for the sake of clarity, let me explain my basic position.
> 
> There's a bare minimum of trust currency--to use GMfPG's term--that I always offer my DMs
> 
> ...



In my view this is running together two issues.

There is the issue of "table manners" - under what circumstances is it polite to query a GM's decision about some facet of the game, be that a decision about encounter framing or an adjudication of an action declaration or whatever. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] hasn't suggested that his player was particularly rude or out of line, and I have no independent handle on what the standard of courtesy was that prevailed at Hussar's table at the time - so on this issue I pass no judgement.

Then there is what I take to be the real point Hussar is making - that "what made sense to the GM" was, in this example, not the same as "what is the best decision for the game"  or "what is the decision that the GM should have made".

On this second issue I agree with Hussar.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2015)

In response to [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION]'s point about players being able to know what is important or not, there is a very easy solution in this case. Use monsters that are appropriate for the terrain and that player has no cause to question their presence. Asking that DM's adhere to game canon isn't a hugely difficult thing is it?

If a player considers game canon important, is it reasonable for the player to question the DM on canon points?

((Note, I do get the irony here considering my example is a bad one.  ))


----------



## Cyberen (Jan 4, 2015)

I ve lost my SAN reading this thread.   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] : are you seriously asking DMs to "adhere to D&D canon" ? After 20+ posts explaining (along with me !) why the Planescape Inquistion Squad hunting blasphemers to the Lady of Pain on these forums were a painful band of jerks ? Ouch. Are you seriously telling this totally inapropriate demand from a player to the DM to retcon an encounter because of some splat trivia should be met with nothing but happy steamrolling, when you have been advocating for 20+ posts (along with me !) that players demand are rarely self-serving and deserve consideration, for instance in the fairly benign cases of specifying a NPC has a beard or that there are crates in an alley waiting to be climbed upon ? Re ouch.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] : are you saying that you left a game because the kobold you spent so much effort to capture was not smart enough to conform to your plans ? Ouch. Maybe you should think harder about what it takes to be able to read a map (it is clearly something that we humans are capable of, after some training - why would a kobold red shirt be able to do the same ?), and see that any naturalistically-oriented DM has very good reasons to stat the kobold sentry, roll his INT, and play accordingly. Or maybe the DM was a jerk and derailed your plan purposefully. This is why having a DM screen is useful : in game events should not make you able to discern between these causes, so the players should assume the DM knows what he is doing.
Trust is earned by consent of the players, and can sometimes run thin. I also certainly agree that players and DM may have serious reasons to disagree, especially differing agendas... but it is impossible to DM without being at peace with the rules, so at the end of the day, I believe the rules have to make sense to the DM at least. Of course, the best way to make sense of anything is to discuss it...
TL;DR : having the rules making sense for the whole table is an ideal worth striving for.Having the rules making sense for the DM is an absolute requisite.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 4, 2015)

Cyberen said:


> pemerton: are you saying that you left a game because the kobold you spent so much effort to capture was not smart enough to conform to your plans ? Ouch. Maybe you should think harder about what it takes to be able to read a map (it is clearly something that we humans are capable of, after some training - why would a kobold red shirt be able to do the same ?), and see that any naturalistically-oriented DM has very good reasons to stat the kobold sentry, roll his INT, and play accordingly. Or maybe the DM was a jerk and derailed your plan purposefully. This is why having a DM screen is useful : in game events should not make you able to discern between these causes, so the players should assume the DM knows what he is doing.



I have never used a GM screen. I often have notes that I don't show the players, although as I get older I am more-and-more cavalier about letting them see my maps, and often in 4e I find the game is enhanced if they at least have an idea of the monster stats.

These days I do all my action-resolution rolling in the open.

In the case of the kobold, I didn't have to make any assumptions about what the GM was doing. I, and the other four players who walked with me, knew what he was doing: blocking our plan so that he would not have to deviate from the script of his adventure.

I don't need to reflect on what it takes to read a map; I have encountered people (in this and other countries) who cannot read maps. Likewise, I'm sure the world of kobolds includes those with limited intellects. But the default D&D kobold has average intelligence, and is therefore capable of explaining where his/her camp is located, or describing the nature of his/her fellows and leaders, etc. I would also suggest that the default D&D kobold can read a map, given the prevalence of maps (dungeon maps, treasure maps etc) as part of the game.

The GM had a choice as to how to have the captured kobold behave. He made the choice to block his players. He knew we were irritated at him blocking us - we weren't rude about it, but we didn't hide it either!

I've read at least one post in this thread saying that it's the GM's game, and players who don't like it should walk. (I can't remember who the poster was - maybe  [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]?) We didn't like it; the GM clearly regarded it as his game (he wasn't changing anything in his script to reflect the interests or desires of his players); and so we walked. I don't understand what reason you think I and my fellow players had to waste our time playing a silly game under a railroading GM when I am perfectly capable of running a decent game for them - and went on to do so.

I assume that you  are not arguing that bad and inflexible GMs are owed some sort of moral duty of participation by the prospective players of the world.

(As I already indicated, we invited the GM in question to join our new game as a player - so we discharged our social duty as club members, and didn't just leave him stranded with nothing to do on his club evenings. He declined, and found new players. Win-win.)


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 4, 2015)

Cyberen said:


> TL;DR : having the rules making sense for the whole table is an ideal worth striving for.Having the rules making sense for the DM is an absolute requisite.




Which is what I was getting at in my often replied quote about the chart being for the DM, since the DM is the only one who needs to know the rules.  I wasn't saying that it's a bad thing for players to know the rules.  Seriously, what's up with this assumption that unless I explicitly include something as a good thing, I'm endorsing it as a bad thing?  It means that the only person at the table required to know the rules is the DM.

And I'll note, if you think players are also required to know all the rules, how do you expect the game to grow with new players?  I'm sure there are some out there, but I've never encountered a single player who wanted to learn all of the rules before playing.  Screw that.  The rules are a ton of pages.  I'll also add that if you only want to play with players who know all the rules, you're missing out.  IMO anyway.  Ever DM a group of newbies?  The stuff they come up with is awesomesauce.  They aren't shackled by any preconceived notions of what their PCs can or can't do because they think of the game in the context of a box of rules.  About 2 years ago I DM'd a group of 12 year olds (my son and his friends) who never played before.  It was one of the best sessions ever, because they tried everything and came up with some really creative ideas.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 4, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Which is what I was getting at in my often replied quote about the chart being for the DM, since the DM is the only one who needs to know the rules.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And I'll note, if you think players are also required to know all the rules, how do you expect the game to grow with new players?



Why do you move from "knowing the rules" to "knowing all the rules"? No one at my 4e table knows all the rules. I don't know the rules for many of the players' PC build elements; I rely on the players to handle those. The players don't know the rules for measuring encounter difficulty - at least, not in detail. They rely on me to handle those.



Sacrosanct said:


> Ever DM a group of newbies?  The stuff they come up with is awesomesauce.  They aren't shackled by any preconceived notions of what their PCs can or can't do because they think of the game in the context of a box of rules.  About 2 years ago I DM'd a group of 12 year olds (my son and his friends) who never played before.  It was one of the best sessions ever, because they tried everything and came up with some really creative ideas.



What rules did you use to adjudicate what they tried? What did you tell them about how you were doing that adjudication?


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2015)

Cyberen said:


> I ve lost my SAN reading this thread.   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] : are you seriously asking DMs to "adhere to D&D canon" ? After 20+ posts explaining (along with me !) why the Planescape Inquistion Squad hunting blasphemers to the Lady of Pain on these forums were a painful band of jerks ? Ouch. Are you seriously telling this totally inapropriate demand from a player to the DM to retcon an encounter because of some splat trivia should be met with nothing but happy steamrolling, when you have been advocating for 20+ posts (along with me !) that players demand are rarely self-serving and deserve consideration, for instance in the fairly benign cases of specifying a NPC has a beard or that there are crates in an alley waiting to be climbed upon ? Re ouch.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] : are you saying that you left a game because the kobold you spent so much effort to capture was not smart enough to conform to your plans ? Ouch. Maybe you should think harder about what it takes to be able to read a map (it is clearly something that we humans are capable of, after some training - why would a kobold red shirt be able to do the same ?), and see that any naturalistically-oriented DM has very good reasons to stat the kobold sentry, roll his INT, and play accordingly. Or maybe the DM was a jerk and derailed your plan purposefully. This is why having a DM screen is useful : in game events should not make you able to discern between these causes, so the players should assume the DM knows what he is doing.
> Trust is earned by consent of the players, and can sometimes run thin. I also certainly agree that players and DM may have serious reasons to disagree, especially differing agendas... but it is impossible to DM without being at peace with the rules, so at the end of the day, I believe the rules have to make sense to the DM at least. Of course, the best way to make sense of anything is to discuss it...
> TL;DR : having the rules making sense for the whole table is an ideal worth striving for.Having the rules making sense for the DM is an absolute requisite.




No, that's not what I asked. 

I asked, "Is it reasonable for a player to question the DM on canon points"?  Note, I didn't say that the DM must follow the player.  I didn't say that any and all player requests must be absolutely adhered to.

What I asked is, if a player considers D&D canon important (whatever that canon is - maybe it's alignment restrictions for paladins, maybe it's planar stuff, maybe it's setting canon - Forgotten Realms does have several thousand pages of setting canon after all, someone has to think it's important), is it reasonable for a player to question (not demand, not be a PITA, not explode, not break social conventions or social contracts at the table, simply question the DM) the DM's changes to that canon?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 4, 2015)

Edit: Clarification to the below.

Having seen Hussar's latest post, defining questioning as _not_ arguing, being a PITA, throwing a tantrum, etc... Okay, yes. If it's just an issue of, "Hey, doesn't [monster X] live in the desert?" then yes, I'm okay with that. As long as they're okay with an answer of "Not in this campaign."

But anything that goes beyond that triggers all of what I've said below.



Hussar said:


> Asking that DM's adhere to game canon isn't a hugely difficult thing is it?




Yes. Yes, it is. Because there's no such thing. There's _setting_ canon. But everything in the core game that isn't mechanical--the personality traits of dwarves, the culture/government options of society, where certain monsters live--are starting point _suggestions_.

(And frankly, setting cannon and game core mechanics aren't binding, either, though in those cases, the DM should make it clear from the start that he's changing a lot of things.)

One of the primary responsibilities, and primary joys, of DMing is world-building and setting design. I consider it, frankly, unreasonable and unrealistic for a player to expect a DM to abide by any of that unless the campaign was described, from the word go, as adhering strictly to written canon. If a player doesn't like it, he's welcome to politely leave the game. And obviously, if a whole group doesn't like it, the DM can either change or can lose the group.

But yes, I _do_ consider it unreasonable for a player to expect/demand that a DM go by exactly what's written in the flavor text. And I have to say, until this thread, it never even _occurred_ to me that a rational player would strongly object to something like having a monster outside its favorite terrain. Obviously it happens, or this thread wouldn't exist, but I'm honestly taken aback. I've never, in 31 years of gaming, encountered it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 4, 2015)

edit TL/DR: if you have a huge base of players, or players that always play no matter what, or players who always agree with your point of view you can do what ever you want... however if your player base is important that you want to keep them, and you all have different points of view, it is very much in the DMs best intrest to listen to the players and find a compromise that makes you all happy...




Mouseferatu said:


> Edit: Clarification to the below.
> 
> Having seen Hussar's latest post, defining questioning as _not_ arguing, being a PITA, throwing a tantrum, etc... Okay, yes. If it's just an issue of, "Hey, doesn't [monster X] live in the desert?" then yes, I'm okay with that. As long as they're okay with an answer of "Not in this campaign."




yea, not in this campaign is both a good and a bad answer... 

1st, I love your work Mousefeatu, and hate being on a different side then you. I respecet a lot of your work and time in this community, and I hope what I have to say is taken knowing I do respect you even if I am about to disagree with you...




> Yes. Yes, it is. Because there's no such thing. There's _setting_ canon. But everything in the core game that isn't mechanical--the personality traits of dwarves, the culture/government options of society, where certain monsters live--are starting point _suggestions_.
> 
> (And frankly, setting cannon and game core mechanics aren't binding, either, though in those cases, the DM should make it clear from the start that he's changing a lot of things.)




the problem is what constitutes "a lot of things"





> But yes, I _do_ consider it unreasonable for a player to expect/demand that a DM go by exactly what's written in the flavor text. And I have to say, until this thread, it never even _occurred_ to me that a rational player would strongly object to something like having a monster outside its favorite terrain. Obviously it happens, or this thread wouldn't exist, but I'm honestly taken aback. I've never, in 31 years of gaming, encountered it.




the closest I have ever encountered is when I throw dragons around willy nilly (Why yes my red dragon lives at the north pole) and even that lead to more eaised eyebrows then voices...

however there is a threashold for everyone, and I don't know why that player had his... so instead I will state ones I ran into.


1) If you are going to run a superhero game set in one of the two major comic book universes (DC and Marvel) you don't want me in your game... I will be miserable and so will you.  I have tried a few times and "Not in this campaign." or similar wears thin after a while... Example: I expect that if we are in the DCU that Lois and CLark are world famus reporters. I expect that flash, green lantern, aquaman, and wonder woman are house hold names. being told that when I ask for a "Daily Planet" news paper that the DM would rather have it be the new York times rips me out of the story right away. Being told no one has ever heard of Green Lantern makes me ask "Wait, why?" Being told that there is no such thing as the speed force and that my character can't tap it as a orign leaves me kinda confused. If you wanted a world with no super history, why not make your own why set it in the DCU? 
Same thing with Marvel, why run in a Marvel univers with no avenger mansion, no xaviar school, no genoshia, no mutants...

When I run a super hero game I start off with either it being my own universe, or an exsisting one, but if I say "DCU" I try to atleast keep the majority of the game that... the issues come up when someone really loves x part of that universe... and I don't

[sblock=both right]I ran a game in a future (batman beyond) world based half on  the cartoons and half on the comics... it left a lot of open to interpretations stuff... I called it Titan's Beyond... and I got into an argument with a player game 1.

my game started in NYC and I described the old Titan tower sitting abandoned... and the first words out of his mouth where "Then we are in California not New York" now this was before any of us had smart phones (if they were a thing yet?) so this minor disagree ment got side lined but the next week we both had proof of our geek cred... me with an old issue right after zero hour and him with one right after graduation day... so I guess there are two titan towers. [/sblock]

2) Forgotten realms... I have discussed my failed FR games many times, I wont go through the whole thing again (inless you guys really want to hear it). the long and short of it is the opposite of the comic book one. I as the DM do not know enough about the FR cannon to make the game enjoyable to someone who is a hard core follower of the setting... if you want me to run a FR like campaign I can, but I didn't read more then a few novels, and only the core campaign guids (mostly skimmed) so I can't name all the chosen of the gods, or where they are, so no I can't run FR that way. 

3) Dark sun... the odd ball. Know I have 30 years of comic history in my geek head, and almost nothing about Forgotten realms, but I only know the basic of Dark Sun, but some how I seem to know more then some DMs... and enough to make me have to now ask "How much do you know about the setting" before I can play. I already in this thread was told I threw a tantrum because I could not connect with this world once... but out of 7 experiences with the world (well 5 really, 1 was a spell jammer/planescape world jump thing and 1 was a 1 shot) 3 different DMs I had 2 that made me ask as above "Why are you calling this dark sun?"
   a) the encounter with kobolds (by lore exctint, I only know this because they are my fav monster for low levels) then a gnome illusinist (my issue was the class but another player said gnomes got whipped out too I didn't even know that) that was not persurver or defiler... just illusionist. then the DM said he didn't track food and water just assume everyone has enough... I hit my head on the table. How can I be expected to make a darksun character and then be told everything I know about dark sun is wrong...
    b) less sever, but still jarring was a guy who decided in darksun to have a flood... then tell us about his dragons that caused it (Not dragon kings, not the dragon, but normal D&D dragons).


this is why homebrew is far easier... everything you know comes from the DM, when you get info from books, or movies or just interpratations things get mangled...

now  "Not in this campaign." works great, until it doesn't... when it hits the player threshold and ripps them out of the game and effects there enjoyment, it becomes an issue. Now you say "Or walk" (and lets be honest some people make that sound like your the villain for walking) but there is a lot of issues with that too. 

people try to accept (most people yes there are jerks too) things the DM says. That is where my whole trust currency idea comes from... things build up. 

I didn't say anything to the Dark Sun DM who started us in a very un darksun way (a caravan that doesn't work in the setting) but maybe I should have... if we had talked then at the begging we would both understand each other more... instead I went with it... then I should have asked more about the kobolds... but in game my character could not know they were whipped out long ago, so I went with it... I did make a big deal in game (but not out of game) about the gnome illusionist, but the DM thought I was weird in game... the final thing the whoel (DOn't worr there is plenty of water in the dessert world) made me hit my head on the table, and that triggered another player to start the out of game discussion...  whitch ended up ending his game when 3 of the 4 players left (I was the only one left I didn't even leave then)

to explain, he was a new DM and picked darksun up then basicly just followed the DMG without thinking about adapting to the setting... he doesn't play with us anymore (this was many years ago) but my understandin last I knew he had a GURPS game running in another state, so he still roleplays


----------



## Ranes (Jan 4, 2015)

In my home-brew campaign setting, I reworked the MM goblin. Instead of making the goblins good riders (with racial ride skill bonuses) à la the MM, my subterranean dwelling goblins were good climbers, enabling them to move with greater alacrity up, down and along stalactites, stalagmites, the balconies and bridges of dwarven ruins and so forth. There were other differences, too, that made them suited to their subterranean domain. Every facility I gave them was matched by something I took away, so they were no more or less of a challenge than their MM-dwelling counterparts. They were simply different.

Four of my five players were old hands at D&D. Two of them had been playing (on and off) since 1e. I did not tell the players in advance that I'd used the various monster-building guidelines and rules in the MM and DMG to create my goblins. I just sprung them on the party (when they were first level, at that). So, is this messing with 'D&D canon' (which, if indeed there were such a thing, we know just from this thread, would be subject to change with every edition)? If so, should I have forewarned the players of this deviation from official monster listings? Should I explain to players before introducing a new creature to the game how that creature works? If I don't, am I not diverging from 'canon'?

What does a first level PC know about 'canon', by the way?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 4, 2015)

If a DM says "We're playing in the DCU," then sure, it makes sense that you'd be taken out of the world if you find out there's no such person as Clark Kent.

But if a DM says "We're playing in an alternate version of the DCU that I've heavily modified," then... Well, then anything goes, frankly.

You say "'Not in this campaign' works until it doesn't." I say that, as long as it's not sprung on people--as long as the DM's made it clear in advance that this is his own version--then it was the player's choice to play in a modified "canon" at the beginning, and objecting to that later is inappropriate.

As far as having players to choose from... "No game" is better than "bad game." If my only options are "a game I won't enjoy" or "I can't game for a while," I'll go with the latter every time.

(As a brief aside, people keep saying "Well, we don't know why Hussar's player objected to the forest manticore, so we can't judge." I don't agree, because so far as I can tell, _there is no good reason_. It's not like my arachnophobia example, where there's a real-world emotional connection. It's not like he'd somehow based his entire character concept on the idea that manticores lived only in the desert. I cannot, for the life of me, think of any good reason, or even any _adequate_ reason, for the complaint. "It says so in the book" is the only justification we've gotten, or that I can come up with. If Hussar wishes to chime in with a different theory, since he's the only one who knows the guy, I'll listen--but I would bet real money that it won't be a reason most of us would find compelling. And if it's not, if it's just a kneejerk "But it's not that way in the book!"... Well, I've already mentioned that I consider monster placement to fall into the "bare minimum" threshold of DM trust I'll offer, or accept, in a game.)


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2015)

No, iirc, "it's that way in the book " was the reason. I don't recall any other. Of course this also sticks out in my head because it only ever happened once.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 4, 2015)

Cyberen said:


> @_*Manbearcat*_ : please keep in mind 5e has been built from the ground up with this foundational "rulings" aspect. The system is really very robust wrt DM's judgement.
> To resolve an action the DM has to pick a level on the scale auto-success > advantage > normal > disadvantage > auto-failure, and maybe pick a stat and decide if proficiency applies. Note that :
> * the stacking rules is meant to be the least toxic, as the disconnect between a player's expectation and the DM's call should differ by at most one step on the resolution scale.
> * bounded accuracy means the actual odds of success won't change drastically, whatever the DM decides.
> ...




If I may, I'm going to respond with a recent play example of a Dungeon World game I'm running and juxtapose those play procedures, GMing agenda and principles versus how I think those things might work out in 5e.  Here is the actual scene if you want to see it all together (and if you need more background info).

Briefly:

1)  When the players arrived at a highland's settlement that has been too long out of contact with its sister settlement at the base of the mountains, they could hear deranged whispers that began to drive them to terrible thoughts and filled their minds with horrific images.  A prior encounter with a Winter Wolf and his pack foretold an infectious madness.

2)  Old dog, who appears to be deaf, is seemingly the only surviving member of a settlement where everyone is either dead or assimilated into some kind of aberration collective.  

3)  While the PCs battle this horror, effectively rescuing the dog, the canine takes off out of the settlement.

4)  There are clues as to what happened here and where some refugees may have gone, but nothing firm.

5)  PC Ranger has a magical primal tattoo that allows her to speak with wild beasts.  While "other stuff' is going on back at the settlement, she is going to attempt to track down this dog, befriend her and bring her back to try to communicate and confirm what may have happened and where the refugees went.

Ok.  As a truly "rules-lite", abstract conflict resolution system, Dungeon World handles this affair, its dramatic momentum/complications/resolution/fallout, with some very basic components; (a) the unified resolution mechanics, (b) the GM's agenda/principles/rules, (c) intuitive and straightforward play procedures (conversation between GM and players creating framed-fiction > player action declarations > resolved actions > evolved fiction and repetition of steps until the situation is full resolved).  The players and GM both know all of these things and there is virtually no mental overhead expended on adjudicating how various rules components intersect (and what should come out of them).

So the player of the Ranger declares that, despite the incoming blizzard, the dead of night, and the ever-present danger of exposure (think high fantasy Afghanistan in dead of winter) and monsters...that she wants to find this dog and bring her back before the blizzard comes in.  Lets take it from the top:


*Dungeon World*

She goes to the last spot she saw the dog before she lost sigh of her (the apex of the hill where the open gates to the settlement lie) and player makes her Ranger move Hunt and Track which is triggered by the fiction of *when you follow a trail of clues left behind by passing creatures*.  She rolls a 10 +.  The outcome of a 10+ is stipulated in the move, thus binding the GM to the outcome.  As such, she follows the creature’s trail until there’s a significant change in its direction or mode of travel and *determines what caused the trail to end*.  That last bit is up to the GM, but I can easily look to the stipulations of the basic resolution mechanics and the GMing agenda/principles and to determine best practices here:

* Follow the rules
* Make a move that follows from the fiction
* Portray a fantastic world
* Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
* Play to find out what happens
* Be a fan of the characters
* Think dangerous

If I decided "what determines the trail to end is that the dog has frozen to death", I would be violating pretty much all of those (which neatly ties into the way that  @_*pemerton*_ 's GM's behaved and the implications on play).  So I decide that she is certainly alive, but afraid, starving (the players already knew this), and resting in a freshly dug hole in a snowdrift (for cover against the oncoming storm and possible lurking predators).  

Now, the player needs to try to win her trust.  She believes that she is deaf (due to stuff that happened prior), so she is pretty sure that normal communication is going to be difficult.  As such, she doesn't just try normal conversation.  She tries to assume a nonthreatening, friendly posture, and gives her an offering of food.  This triggers the Parley move with the leverage being the food (not to mention friendship and security) that the dog desperately wants.  

Well, this doesn't go so well.  She neither rolls a success (10 +) nor a success with complications (7-9).  She rolls an outright failure (6-) which triggers a GM move that follows from the present fiction (which is fair game, but as always, should follow the rules, agenda, and principles).  I decide that the fallout from this which would best "fill her life with adventure", "portray a fantastic world", "be dangerous", "follow from the fiction", and "let us find out what happens (keeping the dramatic momentum)" would be the below:



> Per Manbearcat
> Her ears perk up. The dog looks interested in your offering. However, if she is deaf she doesn't need ears to perceive the thundering herd of reindeer bearing down on you. She, like you, can feel it in the ground. Your mind is ushered back to the Winter Wolf's words regarding a maddened realm near the two great bodies of water in the highlands where "...herds of reindeer would stampede each other and tear each other, and themselves, to pieces." Whether they're simply running from the fury of the storm that is hot on their tails or deranged creatures intent on your harm is impossible to say at this distance (far, 10 creatures).
> 
> The scared dog abruptly bounds out of her carved hole and rushes to your position where she might see the obscured threat. When she sees what is on its way, she tucks her tail between her legs and runs in a circle behind you, looking to you with uncertain eyes.
> ...




Amongst the list of GM moves, that is, of course _*Show signs of an approaching threat*_.  I'll stop there because this post is long enough, but this situation could have forked into any number of ways depending on future player action declaration, resolution, and my reframing of the fiction (and following the rules, agenda, principles). 


*5e*

There are lots of rules in 5e (especially when compared to a system like DW).  I've looked through the Basic DMG PDF for 5e, and I don't see any analogue to DW's transparent and focused agenda and principles for Gamesmastering.  I'm certain that this neutral (lacktherof) voice is intentional (as its perceived that it helps open up play to various, already established, styles).  But I don't find it helpful.  For instance, consider the above conflict.  The noncombat action resolution system appears to be a mish-mash of micro task resolution (focused on process sim with tight zoom spatially and temporally) and macro conflict resolution (focused on abstract resolution of intent/stakes with zoomed out spatial and temporal concerns - or none at all).  

So, I'm running 5e and this Ranger wants to track down that dog.  What is the play procedure?  It says the GM has to pick the ability score that should be involved.  Wisdom and Survival look good to me.



> p62 of player PDF
> The DM might ask you to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to follow tracks, hunt wild game, guide
> your group through frozen wastelands...




Well that sounds just about perfect, right?  Ok, now I've got to set a DC as it says that is my responsibility as well.  The text indicates that I'm supposed to do this from a process-sim perspective; "based on the difficulty of the task."  My players might think it is a pretty trivial task because of the depths of the snow and the freshness of the tracks.  However, while I'll grant them freshness of the tracks, I might think the depth of the snow (and the propensity for collapse and trail obscurement and/or difficulty of movement) actually serves to make things more difficult rather than easier.  Further, the limited visibility, and the whipping winds from the oncoming storm actually serve to make the task not only nontrivial (Very Easy or Easy), not only not Medium, but Hard.  That is a potential difference of 15 in the DC.  That "makes sense to me" so it doesn't matter how they feel about it (if they feel anything at all as apparently lots of folks don't care about that disparity of perception of difficulty of task or don't even think about it in the first place).

Regardless of their misgivings of the DC, they pass their (let's call it) 30ish % chance to succeed.  Ok.  Lets move the fiction forward.  One problem.  I don't have any idea if this Survival roll is supposed to be of the task resolution variety or conflict resolution variety.  There are no stipulations and nothing to bind/guide the fallout of this action resolution attempt.  Does that mean that she successfully tracks down the dog...regardless of how far the dog might be?  It sort of seems like this check is supposed to be driven by a conflict resolution ethos ("the creature overcomes the challenge at hand" - tracking the dog to its current location).  Meaning she tracks the dog all the way to its current, no matter if 20 miles or 2 and no matter what else is going on, and we should be transitioning directly to that moment of discovery.   I think that is the intent given the aforementioned "success" part of the rules language.  

Ok, so we're at the dog.  The PC wants to win her trust.  Because of the DC range being based on the difficulty of the task, am I supposed to now roll an Insight check for the dog to determine its initial Reaction to the PC's sudden presence (but with nonthreatening mannerisms).  If so, how do I set the DC for that and does success for the dog on its Insight mean a lower DC for the player in their subsequent "win the dog's trust" check.  That seems sensible to me.  Or can I just eschew the Reaction check and come up with my own Reaction (thus base DC to "win the dog's trust") for the dog.  

On to the "win the dog's trust" check.  Charisma check?  Animal Handling is Wisdom and is about calming/handling domesticated animals?  However, the Ranger can speak to wild beasts.   Persuasion?  Persuasion seems to be about influencing someone/people using tact, social graces, and good nature.  Does the domesticated animal count as a person now because she and the Ranger share a common language (thus transcending her "domesticated animal" status)?  Well, the Ranger is probably hoping for Animal Handling and Wisdom due to proficiency and stat distribution.  Not particularly sure on this.  Perhaps Persuasion > Charisma > Lower DC due to the offering of food (which is just "skilled play" and not resource management as it really costs the PCs nothing, as it actually is a precious resource in DW, and is basically just some color) > Advantage (due to the Ranger's magical ability to speak to wild beasts)?  Or maybe I give the PC Inspiration to spend for discovering the dog's Trait of "starving to death" and using that as leverage.  There is the other option of just "saying yes" due to the prior established fiction and the Ranger's ability to speak with wild beasts.  Not sure how all of this intersects.  And I don't have any focused agenda or principles to guide me here.

Regardless of what play procedures I choose regarding Insight/Reaction, subsequent DC, and the "win the dog's trust" action resolution, the Ranger fails.  According to the rules text:



> p58 Player PDF
> Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM.




Does "make no progress toward the objective" establish a firm "loss condition" whereby the stakes need to be resolved, the player goals denied, and fallout tallied?  "Progress toward objective" seems to imply that the "loss condition" may not have been met.  If that is the case, when is the "loss condition" met?  What's more, there is direct "Fail Forward" advice following that.  "Fail forward" towards what and how (no GM agenda/principles which focus/narrow my mental overhead and thus bind my decision-making regarding "what comes next")?  

It seems legitimate GMing to do precisely what I did in DW, fill the PC's life with adventure, and show signs of an approaching threat...give them another opportunity to win the trust of the dog if they can prove their intentions by actions rather than words.  However, I'm 100 % certain, given conversations I've had on this board about my various usage of Fail Forward and "Shrodinger's This or That", that a large number of folks would balk HARD at that handling of the situation and feel that a process-sim approach should be applied; eg - the dog should now have an established negative reaction toward the ranger, thus closing out the immediate prospects of any positive relationship between the Ranger and the dog (perhaps the dog should run off or act like a terrified animal backed into a corner...and combat ensues).  Thus the sought information is no longer attainable from the dog.

If, however, folks do find it kosher to "make something interesting happen" as a result of the failed "befriend dog" resolution, what is on the table and what is off the table?  How should I approach it?  Deftly and not-heavy-handedly handling "off-screen" stuff is one of the most important skills of GMing.  What sort of "Shrodinger's Stuff" is on the table here and what is off?

And finally, lets say that I do pull out the maddened reindeer herd.  I can't find anything on Encounter Distance and any play procedures to establish how this should work out.  Do I roll a Perception check for the reindeer herd?  Do I then establish the DC based on the medium DC > distance (and how would I figure out what that distance should be?...Ranger rolls a Perception check and the higher they roll is the distance between the PC and the thundering herd?) moving the DC to hard (or not) > Dim Light moving it to very hard > and then possibly Disadvantage due to the concealment of light snow flurries?  Well that is no trouble at all.  There is no way they make that check.  They aren't "filling the PC's life with adventure".  They're a non-event.

Or...can I just say "They're coming right for you and they're closing fast!...what do you do!?" 



Blargh.  That was waaaaaay longer than I had intended.  Anyway, just some thoughts on the extreme difference in GM overhead and the lack of clarity on agenda, principles, resolution mechanics, and general play procedures (specifically where various rules intersect...especially when there are different levels of abstractions, specificity, and interpretation involved in those intersections) between the two systems.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 4, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> If a DM says "We're playing in the DCU," then sure, it makes sense that you'd be taken out of the world if you find out there's no such person as Clark Kent.
> 
> But if a DM says "We're playing in an alternate version of the DCU that I've heavily modified," then... Well, then anything goes, frankly.




is it really _anything_ though? How far do you push those changes... there is a line between Playing in a DCU game, playing in a hombrew alt DCU game, playing in a superhero game based on/with stolen things from DCU and just homebrew with flavor of DCU... and you and your players (lets say 1 DM 4 players) have 5 different points where those lines are... open communication is best, and frankly everyone has a pushing point...

   I know with my group it is flash/Green lantern... if I just say DCU one player thinks wally and kyle, another thinks barry and hal... its a minor thing but something I would say up front...

if there is a DCU game with no Green lantern Corp, and no superman/clark kent, no daily planet, no gotham no matrapolis, no green arrow, no flash... where is the line (that actual sounds like a game I pitched is the funniest part... where Bruce Wayne multi billionaire was a good lex luther type and batman was jean paul valley)




> You say "'Not in this campaign' works until it doesn't." I say that, as long as it's not sprung on people--as long as the DM's made it clear in advance that this is his own version--then it was the player's choice to play in a modified "canon" at the beginning, and objecting to that later is inappropriate.




the problem is that accepting an alt canon is not the same for everyone... so again know your players...



> As far as having players to choose from... "No game" is better than "bad game." If my only options are "a game I won't enjoy" or "I can't game for a while," I'll go with the latter every time.



 yup same here... but I've been called a bully on these boards for that... "Because that is like an ultimatum... run it the way I have fun or loose a player"


> (As a brief aside, people keep saying "Well, we don't know why Hussar's player objected to the forest manticore, so we can't judge." I don't agree, because so far as I can tell, _there is no good reason_. It's not like my arachnophobia example, where there's a real-world emotional connection. It's not like he'd somehow based his entire character concept on the idea that manticores lived only in the desert. I cannot, for the life of me, think of any good reason, or even any _adequate_ reason, for the complaint.




I agree, but since we weren't there maybe a bit of laughter and an "Opps, just go with it" from the DM would have been fine... maybe the DM started the fight... or maybe the player was crazy... I only have that Hussar's word he was in the wrong, and no details... I think we get hung up on details (or in this case lack there of) the basic antodat was "A player raised an objection, and the DM didn't want to hear it. A fight broke out, and the DM years later says he wished he had handled it differently."


> "It says so in the book" is the only justification we've gotten, or that I can come up with. If Hussar wishes to chime in with a different theory, since he's the only one who knows the guy, I'll listen--but I would bet real money that it won't be a reason most of us would find compelling.




I bet so too. Just like "The titan tower is on the west coast" "No it's on the east coast" is stuipid in hindsight... I'm sure it was important to us both at the time (enough so we both brought books to the next game.



> And if it's not, if it's just a kneejerk "But it's not that way in the book!"... Well, I've already mentioned that I consider monster placement to fall into the "bare minimum" threshold of DM trust I'll offer, or accept, in a game.)



 yea, but again... everyone has a different threshold... I run game differently for Matt then I do for Kelly, and very different when larry is in either


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 4, 2015)

Yeah, it really _is_ "anything goes."

Sure, different people have different lines. But that doesn't change any of what I'm saying.

Players W, X, Y, and Z are playing in a game run by Player A. Player A says "This is based on the DCU, but with major changes." All the other players agree.

Seven games in, we discover there's no Green Lantern Corps in this game. And we discover that that's a major problem for X, because he's always considered that a central point of the DCU.

X has two options. He can grit his teeth and go with it, because he trusts A to deliver a good campaign. Or he can politely bow out of the campaign.

What he does _not_ have the right to do, assuming he's a halfway mature adult, is demand A change the setting, or to sulk about it.

Sure, the DM has to know his players, and the players have to know the DM. But that goes back to what I said about "minimum trust." Unless it's a brand new group that I'm just starting to get to know, I _always_ take into account what I believe my players will enjoy when designing a new campaign. AFAIAC, that's such a basic part of the process that it doesn't even warrant being called out. It kinda goes without saying, I think, that a DM who doesn't consider his friends' preferences when designing a campaign isn't going to have players very long.

I don't pretend to be perfect. I can screw up a mechanic or a plot point or a setting detail, and if I do, I have no problem with my players pointing it out. But once they've done so, and I've made the call--one way or the other--I expect them to go along with it. Because that's the implicit promise they made me when they agreed to be in a game I was running, just as "I will do my best to make this an overall enjoyable experience" was an implicit promise I made when I agreed to run.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 4, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> And finally, lets say that I do pull out the maddened reindeer herd.  *I can't find anything on Encounter Distance and any play procedures to establish how this should work out.*  Do I roll a Perception check for the reindeer herd?  Do I then establish the DC based on the medium DC > distance (and how would I figure out what that distance should be?...Ranger rolls a Perception check and the higher they roll is the distance between the PC and the thundering herd?) moving the DC to hard (or not) > Dim Light moving it to very hard > and then possibly Disadvantage due to the concealment of light snow flurries?  Well that is no trouble at all.  There is no way they make that check.  They aren't "filling the PC's life with adventure".  They're a non-event.




Check out page 243 of the DMG for encounter distance (visibility outdoors ranges from 2 miles down to as little as 100-300 feet in foggy conditions), or page 117 for underwater encounter distance.


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 4, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> Yeah, it really _is_ "anything goes."
> -snip-
> I don't pretend to be perfect. I can screw up a mechanic or a plot point or a setting detail, and if I do, I have no problem with my players pointing it out. But once they've done so, and I've made the call--one way or the other--I expect them to go along with it. Because that's the implicit promise they made me when they agreed to be in a game I was running, just as "I will do my best to make this an overall enjoyable experience" was an implicit promise I made when I agreed to run.




QFT...and because apparently it bares repeating for the loads of folks out there that do not comprehend playing this way.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 4, 2015)

Pondering this further, I think the above is why I--and, if I may dare presume to speak for them, people like Celebrim and Sacrosanct--are so bothered by the notion that Hussar would even consider changing an encounter for such a trivial (and not even canonical) complaint.

It's not because we're tyrant DMs. It's not because, as some have suggested, we're upset that a player dared to challenge the All-Mighty OzDM.

It's because challenging/objecting to something that minor is a violation of the implicit social contract that is all but required to make D&D work. It's a violation of the minimum trust/authority that a DM needs in order to even begin to run an effective game. And it is, by definition, _personal_. Saying, "Hey, shouldn't manticores only be in the desert?" is fine, a legit question if that's where it ends. But as soon as someone begins arguing it, it ceases to be a question and becomes, whether intentionally or not, a statement of "I don't trust you, as DM, to make rational decisions or to know what you're doing."


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 4, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> QFT...and because apparently it bares repeating for the loads of folks out there that do not comprehend playing this way.




I suspect there is far less difference between how play actually proceeds at the table, than there is between how people conceptualize their play at the table.


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 4, 2015)

I wouldn't be surprised if this were so.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 4, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> Yeah, it really _is_ "anything goes."
> 
> Sure, different people have different lines. But that doesn't change any of what I'm saying.
> 
> ...




except isn't that exactly what I said... now lets take the 'sit and grit your teeth" approach... do you think that someone that knows you well (a friend) might not notice you doing so? how about if you did it for 2 or 3 things? what if you noticed two of your friends doing it? how long before someone says something?

heck it isn't being immature either to talk about likes and dislikes...




> What he does _not_ have the right to do, assuming he's a halfway mature adult, is demand A change the setting, or to sulk about it.




and the difference between sulking and gritting your teeth is? and again we go to extremes, where I agree he can't "Demand" can he ask?

lets use your example... something happens (what it is doesn't matter) then the PC wants to and had thought he had the ability to contact Green Lantern Corps...

so at this point Player a "I use X and call the GL Corps"
DM: "There is no such thing?"
player gives dm weird look "What?!" not angy but confused.
DM: "Not in my world"

do you think any of the following is acceptable (assume they are friend and both being polite):

1) Player: "Why not?"

2) Player: "Um, since when?"

3) Player: "I really love GL and have been trying to get a way to contact them... would it hurt to change it?"


QUOTE] I _always_ take into account what I believe my players will enjoy when designing a new campaign.[/QUOTE]  um then we are on the same page... and I am confuesed




> AFAIAC, that's such a basic part of the process that it doesn't even warrant being called out. It kinda goes without saying, I think, that a DM who doesn't consider his friends' preferences when designing a campaign isn't going to have players very long.



 except on this board in the last 2 months I have been told "I will not let a player ever play a dragonborn." and when I ask exactly that... if you knew a player wanted to could you make a world where it is exceptable... I was again told "No why would I "
I have also been told the same about multi classing, and many other things...

the argument of note is always "Why should I let Player X do Y" and if the answer is "None of my players want to do Y" then it isn't a fair question... the assumption I am making is that a DM and player are debating someoth the PC would want to do... and in that equation the basic part you just said is not so basic...

there are people who made a D&D world up in 2e and are porting it for the 4th or 5th time, who don't care what there new PCs want, it was set in stone 30 years ago...



> I don't pretend to be perfect. I can screw up a mechanic or a plot point or a setting detail, and if I do, I have no problem with my players pointing it out.



some people in this thread seem to think "piping up to mention it" is a problem...



> But once they've done so, and I've made the call--one way or the other--I expect them to go along with it. Because that's the implicit promise they made me when they agreed to be in a game I was running, just as "I will do my best to make this an overall enjoyable experience" was an implicit promise I made when I agreed to run.



and once again this goes back to... as long as everyone is having fun, that works great. In fact that is perfect. When someone stops having fun (for what ever reason) it is as your job to as you  said "do my best to make this an overall enjoyable experience"

and if that means taking 2 mins to say something, I don't see why that is wrong


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 5, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> Pondering this further, I think the above is why I--and, if I may dare presume to speak for them, people like Celebrim and Sacrosanct--are so bothered by the notion that Hussar would even consider changing an encounter for such a trivial (and not even canonical) complaint.
> 
> It's not because we're tyrant DMs. It's not because, as some have suggested, we're upset that a player dared to challenge the All-Mighty OzDM.
> 
> It's because challenging/objecting to something that minor is a violation of the implicit social contract that is all but required to make D&D work. It's a violation of the minimum trust/authority that a DM needs in order to even begin to run an effective game. And it is, by definition, _personal_. Saying, "Hey, shouldn't manticores only be in the desert?" is fine, a legit question if that's where it ends. But as soon as someone begins arguing it, it ceases to be a question and becomes, whether intentionally or not, a statement of "I don't trust you, as DM, to make rational decisions or to know what you're doing."




I think the reason I am saying it isn't a problem, is because we are viewing the same thing differently... you keep seeing the PC starting the argument, and not just saying "Hey that shouldn't be here" 

all I go by is Hussar said he wished he had handled it differently... I thought he started the argument and was dismissive, maybe even rude... as such he wished he handled it differently...

I agree the PC should not have started a fight, but all the post said was PC said X and fight started, but not what DM said, then it went on to say DM was in the wrong (in fact that was the whole point of the post) so if I know DM was in the wrong, and not who started or escalated, I assumed it was the DM




Celebrim said:


> I suspect there is far less difference between how play actually proceeds at the table, than there is between how people conceptualize their play at the table.



I imagine so too, but somehow I still get told I am doing things wrong, and that my antodotes are less important then other poples, and that I am like a 9 year old...


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 5, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> Check out page 243 of the DMG for encounter distance (visibility outdoors ranges from 2 miles down to as little as 100-300 feet in foggy conditions), or page 117 for underwater encounter distance.




Appreciate it.  I was just looking at the Basic PDFs.  Couple questions if you don't mind:

Any mention in the DMG's encounter distance guidelines of sound's effect on encounter distance (eg the thundering impact of a herd in stampede).  

Also, any mention about the action resolution/play procedure questions (specifically the lack of clarity on task resolution versus conflict resolution and win/loss conditions) that I posed in that post.  Or Specific GM Agenda, Principles, Techniques/Moves and how these couple with the play procedures/resolution mechanics to create a specific play experience?


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 5, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I imagine so too, but somehow I still get told I am doing things wrong, and that my antodotes are less important then other poples, and that I am like a 9 year old...




This forum has an "ignore" button for a reason. Anyone who insults you instead of reasoning calmly can safely be killfiled.


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 5, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> Yeah, it really _is_ "anything goes."
> 
> Sure, different people have different lines. But that doesn't change any of what I'm saying.
> 
> ...




Here's the thing, plain and simple.

Anything story based who really cares? The DM can put a Dragon in a toilet for all I care. It might strain my suspension of disbelief but I'll get over it. As long as I'm not a passenger in the DM's story it doesn't bother me.

But when it comes to interpreting the rules, the DM better damn well take into considering my input, and the others players input, if it effects us. If I am playing a rogue character and he suddenly decides after a few sessions that he doesn't like the hiding/stealth rules, he better damn well consult me about it or I will be challenging him at the table and away from the table for sure. 

It's my character, not his, and I am the one putting the time and effort into that character. Rule interpretations generally don't have much of an impact on his story, so they're not HIS alone to decide upon. Of course the exception to this would be anything that breaks the game.

The rule book is there for a reason, otherwise we all might as well just sit around and play cops and robbers "I shot you, nah nah, I shot you first!".


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 5, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> Appreciate it.  I was just looking at the Basic PDFs.  Couple questions if you don't mind:
> 
> Any mention in the DMG's encounter distance guidelines of sound's effect on encounter distance (eg the thundering impact of a herd in stampede).
> 
> Also, any mention about the action resolution/play procedure questions (specifically the lack of clarity on task resolution versus conflict resolution and win/loss conditions) that I posed in that post.  Or Specific GM Agenda, Principles, Techniques/Moves and how these couple with the play procedures/resolution mechanics to create a specific play experience?




No problem. Page 243 addresses visibility but not sound, so when _hearing_ the reindeer in foggy conditions you're probably going to have to default back to Wikipedia and the principles of physics, or just guesstimation.

Page 243 does have specific DCs for tracking--"light snow" is DC 10--which would help narrow down the range of uncertainty in your example. But no guidance there for what "failure" to befriend the dog represents. I personally would object to the Schrodinger's aspect of making failure cause reindeer to appear, although I understand why you'd run your game that way. (I wouldn't object to your making the reindeer appear for your own reasons, only to the idea of me having spontaneously summoned them by my giving the dog food. In a narrativist system like DW this wouldn't be a problem, but in D&D disassociated mechanics bug me.)


----------



## Eric V (Jan 5, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> QFT...and because apparently it bares repeating for the loads of folks out there that do not comprehend playing this way.




Maybe it does _bear_ repeating, but I think more than a few people have said something along the lines of what Mouse has said; Hussar (the guy who gets accused of believing the DM is always wrong) seems to have dealt with it in this fashion for example.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 5, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> do you think that someone that knows you well (a friend) might not notice you doing so? how about if you did it for 2 or 3 things? what if you noticed two of your friends doing it? how long before someone says something?




There are degrees of "teeth-gritting." If it's a big enough deal that it's literally ruining the game for him, the player should politely bring it up--_between_ sessions, not during--and be willing to leave the game if the discussion doesn't go his way.

But honestly, if it's a DM I truly like/trust, I have a hard time thinking of anything of this nature that would bother me so much I wouldn't be willing to give it a try and see where he was going.



> and the difference between sulking and gritting your teeth is? and again we go to extremes, where I agree he can't "Demand" can he ask?




Politely ask? Yes. Between games. One time. And he needs to be prepared to live with the answer, one way or the other.



> do you think any of the following is acceptable (assume they are friend and both being polite):
> 
> 1) Player: "Why not?"
> 
> ...




Done politely? All are acceptable, _if_ the player doesn't keep arguing once the question is answered. But in Hussar's example (for instance), it became a long, ongoing, game-interrupting discussion/argument. That is _not_ acceptable.



> except on this board in the last 2 months I have been told "I will not let a player ever play a dragonborn." and when I ask exactly that... if you knew a player wanted to could you make a world where it is exceptable... I was again told "No why would I "
> I have also been told the same about multi classing, and many other things...




"Taking into account" doesn't mean "I will allow/agree with every specific detail." It means, "Do I think the players will, overall, enjoy this particular campaign concept I have in mind?"

Specific issues, like whether the world has dragonborn or multiclassing? Irrelevant if the _overall campaign_ is one that works for the group. I may be a tad disappointed if I have an idea for a character and then discover I can't use it in this campaign, but it's not going to turn me off of a campaign that otherwise sounds fun.

Also, let's consider that the DM has to enjoy the game, too. If the inclusion of dragonborn is going to disrupt the feel/mood/theme of a setting--say, for instance, the DM was going for a very human-centric Lankhmar-style campaign--then no, the fact that a specific player really likes dragonborn isn't a good enough reason to allow them in _this particular_ campaign.

And again, if the DM knows the group well enough to know they'll likely enjoy the campaign overall, that shouldn't matter.

The campaign I'm running right now? For various reasons, I limited the racial options. I wanted most of teh group to be human, and even the rare nonhumans couldn't be tieflings or dragonborn. That's not a constant rule with me as DM; I like tieflings and dragonborn, in their place. It just didn't fit _this particular_ campaign. And my group was fine with that, because they understood it was a decision was making for the campaign. My next campaign will likely be quite different, and if anyone wants to play a dragonborn or tiefling, they'll probably have the chance then.

Now, if the DM is just excluding them because "I don't like 'em, and I want my D&D as it was twenty years ago," well... That's not as solid a reason, and can probably bear a longer discussion than it otherwise would. But at the end of the day, it's the DM who has to "run" the entire setting. And thus, we're back to the basic equation for the player: Once we've had our polite discussion and he hasn't changed his mind, I have to decide, can I live with this and still enjoy the campaign, or should I go?

It really _does_ almost always boil down to being that simple.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 5, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> But when it comes to interpreting the rules, the DM better damn well take into considering my input, and the others players input, if it effects us. If I am playing a rogue character and he suddenly decides after a few sessions that he doesn't like the hiding/stealth rules, he better damn well consult me about it or I will be challenging him at the table and away from the table for sure.




Any good DM will make such major mechanical decisions outside the game--before or after a session, for instance. At which point, a prolonged discussion is absolutely acceptable.

At no point have I suggested that PCs shouldn't have any input into rules changes. (My own technique is usually to say to the group, "I'm considering Changes X and Y. Do you guys see any problem with this?")

_But..._

It still, ultimately, comes down to the two-step process I've been describing.

1) Discuss it (politely, out of game) with the DM.

2) If the DM still rules in a way you don't like, decide if you can live with it or if you'd rather leave the game.

Any DM who's _consistently_ unreasonable will eventually find himself with no group.


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 5, 2015)

Eric V said:


> Hussar (the guy who gets accused of believing the DM is always wrong)




Good catch on the homonym.

As for this quoted bit, there's several years of other comments in other threads on all sorts of topics to support that view. Whoever it was who brought it up here (I've lost track in all of this muck and mire) is not the only person who has noted that trend. I take it as a statement on a pattern of observed behavior, not a personal attack.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 5, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> It still, ultimately, comes down to the two-step process I've been describing.
> 
> 1) Discuss it (politely, out of game) with the DM.
> 
> ...




that is my way of handling it.. both as a PC and DM, but people keep telling me that leads to white bread weak games...


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 5, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> Any good DM will make such major mechanical decisions outside the game--before or after a session, for instance. At which point, a prolonged discussion is absolutely acceptable.
> 
> At no point have I suggested that PCs shouldn't have any input into rules changes. (My own technique is usually to say to the group, "I'm considering Changes X and Y. Do you guys see any problem with this?")
> 
> ...




I think that implicit promise you speak of however goes both ways.

The players do need to respect that ultimately the decision rests with you, but you also have an implicit promise to provide them with a consistent set of boundaries (set of rules) so they can do predictable actions and overcome challenges within those boundaries. 

And given the ambiguity of many rules in 5e, I think it's much wiser to get your players input on these interpretation than just doing what makes sense to you [the DM] (not you specifically). 
As an example, the hiding in combat rules don't make a lot of sense to me, so in my game, I asked my players "Do you think it makes more sense to have disadvantage on your stealth roll to hide in the same place after attacking?". All my players agreed that yes, that makes more sense. 

The _table_ decided, not me alone, and everyone is happy.

According to the OP however, I should only do what makes sense to *me*. It's *my* game after all.

View attachment 65970


----------



## pemerton (Jan 5, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> If a player doesn't like it, he's welcome to politely leave the game. And obviously, if a whole group doesn't like it, the DM can either change or can lose the group.



I gave an example of this upthread. The only response I have had is [MENTION=69074]Cyberen[/MENTION] implying I am an unreasonable player. [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] has noted, upthread, similar responses to his previous anecdotes of leaving games. And [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has also been criticised, in past threads discussing similar issues, for indicating a willingness to walk from a game that he didn't care for.

Assuming that the GM does not want to lose the player/group, how is s/he expected to know that change is needed? To me, it seems the best way is for the players to let him/her know, either by direct communication or by implicit signals about what they are enjoying and what they are not enjoying.



Ranes said:


> In my home-brew campaign setting, I reworked the MM goblin.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I don't look at the issue from the point of view of "1st level PCs" - as I see it, the issue is one about player expectations, it's not an issue about the PCs in-game knowledge.

With that autobiographical detail out of the way, I can't answer your (rhetorical/hypothetical) question about what you should have done - I don't know you (other than some interesting posts on these boards!), I don't know your players, I don't know your game.

But I can give an anecdote of my own. When I started my current 4e game, I gave the players a few instructions:

(1) We'll be using default 4e lore from the PHB, MM and DMG;

(2) In your PC's backstory, please give your PC one person/thing to which s/he is loyal;

(3) In your PC's backtory, please give your PC a reason to be ready to fight goblins.​
I set out to make goblins a focus of the game, at least at low-levels, within an express framing of default lore. I regarded myself, then, as obliged to present goblins as prospective enemies which dovetailed into the PCs' backstories. When the players wrote backstories involving previous wars between goblins and dwarves, or wrote backstories involving goblins sacking towns and villages, I had to incorporate all that too.

But no-one wrote a backstory that connected to goblins having a +2 bonus to Thievery by the default rules, and goblin thievery has never come up in the campaign, even after 6 years of playing it. That's a detail that I don't regard myself as bound by (though nor have I deviated from it - it's basically irrelevant to how the game has unfolded).

If one of the players had built a thief PC whose guild was a rival to the notorious house-breaking second-story goblins, this issue might have been different.

Having good judgement on these sorts of things is part of GMing skill, I think. Like most matters of judgement, I think it is very hard to give hard-and-fast rules about what should or shouldn't be done. An ability to grasp the situation, what is at stake in it for oneself and others, what is possible consistent with those stakes, and bringing others along with a decisions, are all part of it. (I'm reminding myself of Selznick's _Leadership in Administration_.)



Mouseferatu said:


> One of the primary responsibilities, and primary joys, of DMing is world-building and setting design.



For you, perhaps. For me these are secondary - for me the primary joy is in adventure/scenario design, and adjudicating the game in play. (This hasn't always been true. Like many people, my tastes have changd over the years. I can't predict how they might change further into the future.) I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said in the past that he has very little interest in world-building as a GM activity.

For instance, when I told the players that their PCs must have one loyalty, I was leaving it open to them to build (or foreground) those parts of the setting: what I got back was two PCs loyal to the Raven Queen, one loyal to the ideals of the fey and the Elven gods, one loyal to the dwarven strongholds and his mother, and one loyal to the memory of his fallen city. The joy for me was finding ways to make these loyalties a focus of play, to develop connections between them, to push the players to make decisions around them, to see what sorts of conflicts might exist between them.



Mouseferatu said:


> the DM has to know his players, and the players have to know the DM. But that goes back to what I said about "minimum trust." Unless it's a brand new group that I'm just starting to get to know, I _always_ take into account what I believe my players will enjoy when designing a new campaign. AFAIAC, that's such a basic part of the process that it doesn't even warrant being called out. It kinda goes without saying, I think, that a DM who doesn't consider his friends' preferences when designing a campaign isn't going to have players very long.



You are framing this in terms of campaign design. Why is scenario design, or encounter design, in a radically different category?

When I conceive of scenarios, or encounters, I try to design things that the players will enjoy. I've never had a player who cared about the habitat of manticores, but if I did, I would have regard to that. (And how would I know unless the player told me? - perhaps, in the limit case, by voicing an opinion about an encounter I was in the process of framing.) The nearest example I can think of to the manticore one is when, in my 4e game, I was starting to frame an encounter in which the PCs had to overcome some sort of opposition/objection from some NPCs in relation to XYZ. (I can't remember the details at the moment.) One of the players reminded me that, last session, the players had succeeded in a skill challenge in relation to these NPCs, which meant that the issue of XYZ was already sorted between them. I agreed, and corrected my framing to reflect that. I regard that sort of correction, when a player points to a problem with an encounter framing, as part and parcel of good GMing.


----------



## GameOgre (Jan 5, 2015)

I never really understood the whole this monster is found here thing.

 I mean who gives a $%$%? Elves are found in the woods and Dwarves underground but do they stay there?

 What kind of #$#$ player is going to turn to the DM and say " A Red Dragon all the way up here in the frozen north? Not bloody likely, try again!

 I would just laugh at that point and tell the rest of the party "you really can't be sure what happened but it looked like, it sounded like, It's very possible you just saw your team mate commit some bazar form of suicide involving crawling up into his own $#$# .

You know, cause that would be his habitat.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 5, 2015)

*edit*

Nevermind.  not worth it


----------



## Henry (Jan 5, 2015)

GameOgre said:


> I never really understood the whole this monster is found here thing.
> 
> I mean who gives a $%$%? Elves are found in the woods and Dwarves underground but do they stay there?
> 
> ...




I wouldn't go that far, that's a little obnoxious-sounding for the average table, but I would say something to the effect of, _"As hard as it is to believe, there flies a Draconic creature, scales crimson as blood, slightly rimed over, bearing down straight for you? It's your action -- what are you doing?"_ And count to ten.

If I were leaving my workplace, and sitting next to my car in the parking lot is a ****ing Grizzly Bear, I am NOT walking up to the bear and saying, "puh-lease. You have no business in the city." and ignoring it, because I'm not insane. Neither would your Player's Character. He might freak out, "what the **** is THAT doing here?" and doing research if possible after the crisis, but honestly, stranger things have happened. Everyone's seen news stories about wild animals that escaped a zoo, or wandered many miles off its normal habitat, it's not like a ship grew legs and ran from DM fiat or something.

Then again, some players might find that more believable.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 5, 2015)

pemerton said:


> You are framing this in terms of campaign design. Why is scenario design, or encounter design, in a radically different category?




Because they aren't the same thing. Encounter design and scenario design are ingredients or individual dishes. The campaign is the banquet.

A chef is cooking a banquet for ten of his friends, whose tastes he knows well. If he tries to make sure _every_ guest loves _every_ dish, he's screwed himself. People's tastes just don't work like that. There's always going to be _someone_ who dislikes this, or much prefers that.

So he makes sure not to include anything that any guest is _allergic_ to. But other than that, he sets about making sure everyone will enjoy the _banquet as a whole_. Out of a dozen dishes, he can be sure that any given person will like at least seven or eight of them, and that makes the meal a success for _everyone_.



> The nearest example I can think of to the manticore one is when, in my 4e game, I was starting to frame an encounter in which the PCs had to overcome some sort of opposition/objection from some NPCs in relation to XYZ. (I can't remember the details at the moment.) One of the players reminded me that, last session, the players had succeeded in a skill challenge in relation to these NPCs, which meant that the issue of XYZ was already sorted between them. I agreed, and corrected my framing to reflect that. I regard that sort of correction, when a player points to a problem with an encounter framing, as part and parcel of good GMing.




Apples and oranges. The player pointed out an in-game even that you had forgotten, and which had a direct impact on the scenario. That's the sort of thing a DM should absolutely pay attention to.

"Where manticores live," especially in a world where that hasn't previously and formally been established, isn't remotely the same thing.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 5, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> But when it comes to interpreting the rules, the DM better damn well take into considering my input, and the others players input, if it effects us. If I am playing a rogue character and he suddenly decides after a few sessions that he doesn't like the hiding/stealth rules, he better damn well consult me about it or I will be challenging him at the table and away from the table for sure.




Which is why I challenged the notion that interpreting the rules is simple.  You are right.  If a rules interpretation or rule change is going to seriously inconvenience a player, a smart DM is going to initiate the conversation about the rules with the player and express his concerns even before he introduces a proposed fix.   

For example, suppose you have been playing a 3e RAW campaign, and you as a player tend toward the more power gamer, competitive end of the spectrum (which is great, every table needs at least one), and you are playing a sniper character that breaks the game by being essentially undetectable.  You can fire and hide in the same turn, even against enemies with a very high spot check, but simply attacking from 120' away (or more), thereby per the RAW getting effectively a +24 bonus on your hide check.   The DM is getting frustrated as you are single handedly wiping out encounters meant for the whole group with no threat to yourself, and the DMs is getting tired of having to metagame against you in his encounter design.

As a player, you've got a significant investment in this character.  Obviously, in fairness the DM needs to take that into consideration.   But equally in fairness, you know you're using a rules exploit, so you ought to expect at some point the DM to plug that hole.   The solution here is not to scream at the DM about what the rules say and demand you play only by the RAW, any more than the solution for the DM is to completely nerf your character by making it the qualifications for hiding basically impossible to meet.  One typical problem you run into here is when the rules are obviously bad, you have on one hand a player invested in 'winning' who believes that they have a right to get angry and challenge the DM, and on the other hand you have a DM who probably isn't a particularly good rules smith and believes he has a right to be angry about the player's power gaming and/or angry challenge.  

Such is the stuff of internet horror stories.

in general, challenging the DM will never come to anything good.  If you stay in the framework that regardless of what the DM did, it's your job to help, it will tend to work out a lot better.



> The rule book is there for a reason, otherwise we all might as well just sit around and play cops and robbers "I shot you, nah nah, I shot you first!".




While I agree with the general idea, D&D is not and can never be a purely competitive game.  The DM has way to much power.   It's in the power of any DM to create impossible scenarios where the PC's couldn't possibly triumph.   A moderately clever DM can do it with the suggested level of resources simply by putting them together in combinations.   The rule book is there for a reason, but that reason is not and can never be to ensure balance between the DM and the players, as if the DM and the players are in competition.   Beating the players as a DM isn't your job and by and large is something you hope not to do.   As such, the rules also belong to the DM.   Sure, a smart DM consults with his players, but ultimately it's the DM's call.   And that's usually pretty explicitly called out in the text of the rules, so there is no sense in which a player can legitimately stand on the rules either, since those same rules provide for the DM modifying the rules.  

All that said, it's not usually rules per se that really trigger table arguments.   Most table arguments are about rulings in ambiguous cases, fictional positioning, gotchas, GMs trying to tell players how to play their characters, or players trying to tell the GM how to run their game, or players trying to promote guidelines or flavor text to the level of rules.


----------



## DaveDash (Jan 5, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> Which is why I challenged the notion that interpreting the rules is simple.  You are right.  If a rules interpretation or rule change is going to seriously inconvenience a player, a smart DM is going to initiate the conversation about the rules with the player and express his concerns even before he introduces a proposed fix.
> 
> For example, suppose you have been playing a 3e RAW campaign, and you as a player tend toward the more power gamer, competitive end of the spectrum (which is great, every table needs at least one), and you are playing a sniper character that breaks the game by being essentially undetectable.  You can fire and hide in the same turn, even against enemies with a very high spot check, but simply attacking from 120' away (or more), thereby per the RAW getting effectively a +24 bonus on your hide check.   The DM is getting frustrated as you are single handedly wiping out encounters meant for the whole group with no threat to yourself, and the DMs is getting tired of having to metagame against you in his encounter design.
> 
> ...




I find myself in agreement with you.


----------



## Ranes (Jan 5, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Assuming that the GM does not want to lose the player/group, how is s/he expected to know that change is needed? To me, it seems the best way is for the players to let him/her know, either by direct communication or by implicit signals about what they are enjoying and what they are not enjoying.




Sure. But grinding the game to a halt for a _discussion, not just a query_ about the placement of a monster doesn't seem like an appropriate place to have that kind of in-depth communication, to some of us.



pemerton said:


> I don't look at the issue from the point of view of "1st level PCs" - as I see it, the issue is one about player expectations, it's not an issue about the PCs in-game knowledge.




That certainly speaks to the issue but that's kind of my point. The payers should be reacting - to such a thing as an arguably incongruous monster placement - through their characters and, by so doing, giving everyone at the table a chance to keep the game going. This isn't a suddenly egregious case of DM fiat, as was the case in the example you gave earlier in the thread, when your DM suddenly stripped away all your PC investment in your campaign's lore (I felt for you there; that was awful).



pemerton said:


> With that autobiographical detail out of the way, I can't answer your (rhetorical/hypothetical) question about what you should have done - I don't know you (other than some interesting posts on these boards!), I don't know your players, I don't know your game.




Thank you for that. And yes, my questions were rhetorical.



pemerton said:


> But I can give an anecdote of my own. When I started my current 4e game, I gave the players a few instructions:(1) We'll be using default 4e lore from the PHB, MM and DMG;​





Just to interject here: had I framed my example campaign in this way, my re-worked gobbos would have been, if not unreasonable, then a little bit naughty, I think. My players would have had every right to expect by-the-book goblins (assuming they were familiar with the game). But if standard 4e said creature X usually appears here and I made such a beastie appear over there in one case, I would still be unhappy with a player wanting to engage in a discussion on that issue right in the middle of the game. I would refer the player to the word 'usually'. Similarly, I would still consider it within my purview to create 'deep goblins' or something similar, that the PCs may never have encountered or heard of before.



pemerton said:


> ...I set out to make goblins a focus of the game, at least at low-levels, within an express framing of default lore. I regarded myself, then, as obliged to present goblins as prospective enemies which dovetailed into the PCs' backstories. When the players wrote backstories involving previous wars between goblins and dwarves, or wrote backstories involving goblins sacking towns and villages, I had to incorporate all that too.
> 
> But no-one wrote a backstory that connected to goblins having a +2 bonus to Thievery by the default rules, and goblin thievery has never come up in the campaign, even after 6 years of playing it. That's a detail that I don't regard myself as bound by (though nor have I deviated from it - it's basically irrelevant to how the game has unfolded).
> 
> ...




This I understand, agree with and want to thank you for, because it's given me an idea for my game.​


----------



## pemerton (Jan 5, 2015)

Ranes, thanks for your reply! There was only one bit I wanted to pick up on; and Henry's post also relates to it.



Ranes said:


> The payers should be reacting - to such a thing as an arguably incongruous monster placement - through their characters and, by so doing, giving everyone at the table a chance to keep the game going.





Henry said:


> If I were leaving my workplace, and sitting next to my car in the parking lot is a ****ing Grizzly Bear, I am NOT walking up to the bear and saying, "puh-lease. You have no business in the city." and ignoring it, because I'm not insane. Neither would your Player's Character. He might freak out, "what the **** is THAT doing here?" and doing research if possible after the crisis, but honestly, stranger things have happened.



I don't think it really helps progress our understanding of GMing and play techniques, though, to frame this the way Henry has, as an in-game thing. The player whom [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] described wasn't roleplaying his PC's ingame response. He was expressing _his own_, real-world aesthetic response.

Ranes's comment addresses this issue directly, with a suggestion about how the player should respond, within the context of the game, to being irritated by an incongruous monster placement.

My own feeling is that if the player's response really is as strong as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s player's seems to have been, then while telling the player "Please don't respond to this out-of-character" is one possible way of replying, it probably isn't going to make the player's aesthetic response change. It might be a way of trying to keep the game moving in the moment (assuming the player complies), but it isn't going to change the player's dislike of what happened.

I see a connection here to the example I gave of walking from a game over a kobold. In that sort of situation, I don't care how much the GM tells me about the ingame explanations for the kobold's ineptitude, and urges me to roleplay my character's response to that. My irritation towards the GM is not an expression of an in-character response. And it's not a complaint that the gameworld is inconsistent. I'm complaining that the GM is blocking the players' attempt to turn the game from one of reaction and railroading into one of proactivity and player-driven action.

That's an out-of-character, real-world reaction. It seems to me that the GM can't deal with it (or, at least, can't deal with it successfully) just by reiterating imaginary facts about the imagined gameworld.


----------



## Iosue (Jan 5, 2015)

I'll just note that "Say Yes" is not just for DMs...


----------



## pemerton (Jan 5, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> Encounter design and scenario design are ingredients or individual dishes. The campaign is the banquet.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I tend to see the campaign as a gestalt constituted by the encounters/scenarios. For me, making the campaign suit the players is achieved by focusing on encounter and scenario design.

In terms of your analogy, a banquet is pre-planned. For me, a campaign isn't.

The contrast between creature placement and maintaining previously-established facts about NPCs also seems to me not universalisable. For me, pre-packaged backstory and canon aren't as important to play as events established in play. But I'm sure there are other players out there who care more about canon than they do about the outcomes of action resolution, especially social action resolution.


----------



## Henry (Jan 5, 2015)

Pemerton said:
			
		

> That's an out-of-character, real-world reaction. It seems to me that the GM can't deal with it (or, at least, can't deal with it successfully) just by reiterating imaginary facts about the imagined gameworld.




I have to disagree, because (1) it acknowledges you aren't making the choice haphazardly, (2) it does put the focus back on the game, and (3) as I said, it's not unheard of in real life to have animals or people displaced from normal habitats, and the onus needs to be put on the player to realize it. 

If a player still balks, then a single sentence asking to reserve their concerns for after the session should be sufficient, and bring it up for discussion then. But i'm not about to waste session time on a game argument. I get an average of two hours a week to game, and I'm not about to let a fellow player monopolize that when we have all week to debate it by email or after game.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 5, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> One of the primary responsibilities, and primary joys, of DMing is world-building and setting design.






pemerton said:


> For you, perhaps. For me these are secondary - for me the primary joy is in adventure/scenario design, and adjudicating the game in play. (This hasn't always been true. Like many people, my tastes have changd over the years. I can't predict how they might change further into the future.) I think  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said in the past that he has very little interest in world-building as a GM activity.




This variance is GMing agenda, principles and joys is no small thing.  It wouldn't make me unhappy in the least to see the conversation dovetail into a conversation about the divergence on this very issue from one GM to a next and its attendant effect on play.

As people who read my posts are probably well aware, I come down squarely on the  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] side of the issue.  I've never enjoyed pre-game world-building or the intricacies and nuance of setting development.  To be honest, its probably fair to say that I rather loathe it.  

Alternatively, I've steeped myself in the lore of FR and Planescape because perhaps 20 - 30 players that I GMed for in 2e and 3e wanted me to run games in those settings.  But I hated it.  Every minute of it, from the learning of it to the binding application of it in play, and how it seemed to create within those players (who wanted it) a sense that they just wanted to be passive surveyors of their beloved setting...entertained by my bringing to life the goings-ons and whirly-gigs within my personal iteration of their favorite canon.

Over the course of these 30 years of GMing, I've found that I like very specific things about GMing:

1 - Ruminating upon and then devising the most interesting and open-ended ways to hook into the dramatic premises that emerge (either at the PC build stage or in the early stages of play) in each player's character.

2 - Executing consistently on driving play toward the conflicts that the players are interested in and letting their actions and the resolution mechanics dictate where things go.

3 - Prepping extremely low (but that prep having lots of thematic potency and utility), improvising hard, and being proud of and surprised by the results of play.

4 - Observing and using the subtle cues my players give me and exploiting my low prep in order to get to know my NPCs during play and then watch the world manifest and grow as we build it and add to it.

5 - Knowing precisely how, when, and when not to use the almighty GM advantages, "the offscreen" and "the metagame."

6 - Understanding dramatic momentum, how to build it, how to let the conflict snowball, and then let it climax.

7 - Challenging my players themselves, challenging myself in the process, and never subordinating their protagonism or player agency by suspending or overturning the outcomes of their action declarations + the resolution mechanics.


I guess those are the top 7.  Writing an extensive meta-plot/adventure, world-building and setting design aren't even on the list.  Personally, when I consider the meta-plots/adventures I've run and the "steeped in canon" worlds/settings that I've run, I find it liberating for myself personally (from a mental overhead standpoint) and liberating from a play perspective to be rid of them both.   This is because there is no need for any heavy-handed GMing or GM force (no over-leveraging of the off-screen, no fudging, no sneaky suspension/abridgement of the action resolution mechanics) and I can just abide by some simple principles, a clear agenda, observe the rules and I can then play to find out what happens just like the players.

Interestingly enough, I also dislike being involved too heavily in the translation and adjudication of vague or over-complex resolution mechanics!  My guess is that certain folks reading this post are likely thinking "...dude....you hate GMing!"


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 5, 2015)

Okay, but even those of you who don't like world-building are still in the position of making decisions about your setting. If your entire point is to _not_ have canon/setting elements established in advance, then why would you be okay with a player trying to force you to cleave to them? (I.e. the manticore terrain question.) Seems to me like that's pushing _more_ in the direction you're trying to avoid, not less.

It also--again, regardless of whether you're setting-focused, campaign-focused, encounter-focused, whatever--betrays a lack of trust in the DM to argue such a petty issue during game time; and also a lack of consideration for everyone else at the table.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 5, 2015)

Mouseferatu said:


> Okay, but even those of you who don't like world-building are still in the position of making decisions about your setting. If your entire point is to _not_ have canon/setting elements established in advance, then why would you be okay with a player trying to force you to cleave to them? (I.e. the manticore terrain question.) Seems to me like that's pushing _more_ in the direction you're trying to avoid, not less.
> 
> It also--again, regardless of whether you're setting-focused, campaign-focused, encounter-focused, whatever--betrays a lack of trust in the DM to argue such a petty issue during game time; and also a lack of consideration for everyone else at the table.




Above where I noted that I come down squarely in the "Hussar Camp", I was referring to disinterest or active disdain of world-building.  If I had to come up with an opinion on the "Manticore Affair", I would say that it definitely depends on play agenda and the system.  

If I'm running a pawn stance, Gygaxian dungeon-crawl/wilderness exploration game, then knowledge earned from prior experience is all a part of the "skilled play" format.  I do my best to not upend that metagame knowledge so the players can appropriately prepare for, strategize around, and execute their honed SOPs for dealing with "problem n". 

If I'm running a hex-crawl or a sandbox game and the default canon knowledge is relevant to PC build (of which has been bought and paid for by the player), then I'm going to do my best to adhere to it.  If I make a mistake and that mistake negatively impacts a PC's shtick (thematic and mechanical), then I want to know about it and I want to rectify the situation.

If none of the above apply, then who really cares?  If the player is just being a canon-snob for the sake of being a neener neener canon-snob, then I'd just tell them to tackle the problem and move on.  Although I've met a few neener neener canon-snobs, my guess is that the two cases above likely make up a fair chunk of the issues that Hussar is describing.

Personally, again, just like I prefer low resolution setting/canon, I prefer a "less is more" approach with monsters.  Endless ecologies and all the rest leave me cold.  I'll take a tight, focused, brief description/story for the NPC/monster, replete with keywords such that I can use them as interesting, proper-themed antagonism and I'm good to go.  The 4e and Dungeon World approach are exactly what I want.   For example, this is pithy, malleable, and just full of awesome.


----------



## Cyberen (Jan 5, 2015)

Still losing SAN...  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] : thank you for the long example, but I've found your pointer to DW Manticore even more convincing ! I share most of your DMing agenda, except for your point 7.
I take some pleasure in having rules whith enough of a simulationist streak that a world following these rules wouldn't fall apart too quickly. That must be the reason I feel more comfortable with 5e than 4e (too gonzo for my taste) or DW (100 % protagonism is a neat game, but is frustrating for the DM in me). [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] : I was challenging you rhetorically. I believe you when you say the DM was a railroading tyrant. I just wanted to make clear it didn't follow from your in game story (as in-game events can't tell anything about out-of-game events). By the way, you are a strong and convincing advocate to "rulings not rules" ! Also, your kobold kidnapping story would make a nice Fiasco setup 
Re Manticore in forests : assuming it was not a heads up game, DM and player alike deserve tar and feather, and should apologize to the other players. Saying yes is an improv rule, and going against is a foul. This behaviour is against any gamebook and table rules I would care to participate in, and the DM is first among equals to make sure this etiquette is enforced (note that I have been there as a DM and as a player, and I deserve my share of tar). A DM who would not end quickly this argument, or who would yield to this demand would lose me as a player at the end of the session.
Re : DM as master of rules, my own personal preference is close to those expresses by Mouseferatu, Sacrosanct and Celebrim. Rules ARE clunky, and if the clunk is too loud, it should be adressed, and I endorse the operating scheme proposed by Mouseferatu.


----------



## Cyberen (Jan 5, 2015)

Edited


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 5, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> This variance is GMing agenda, principles and joys is no small thing.  It wouldn't make me unhappy in the least to see the conversation dovetail into a conversation about the divergence on this very issue from one GM to a next and its attendant effect on play.




First we have to establish that there is a huge variance in GMing agenda.  I can see that there are conceivable variations, but at least among the group present here, I don't see as much actual variation in agenda as in differences in the tools and talents applied to obtaining that agenda.

You suggest that you have a low enjoyment of world simulation, and that you have no favored setting you are carefully constructing as a toy in your mind.  And that's probably some variation from me as a GM, because I do have such a 'setting as mental toy', but if in fact 'setting as mental toy' was my agenda, I wouldn't bother to nor need to GM, because setting as my own mental toy to develop is just as enjoyable and if not more enjoyable by world building for its own sake.  If I really had this as my agenda, I would build the world but not waste time running the game.  Instead, I find that I do very little world building except where I think it intersects my game needs.  For example, despite the fact that this setting is now 30 years old, I'd never in that time even given much thought to a sun deity until I had a player say, "I want to worship the sun deity."  Only after I had an in game reason for a sun deity, did I begin fleshing out what that sun deity was like.

This suggests to me that are real agendas aren't as dissimilar as you might think.  I think it is fair to say that once I find an in game need for setting information, I'll pour myself into imagining that setting information and that I prefer to spend a lot of time brainstorming for ideas I think I'll need prior to play rather than hoping my first instincts during a game are the best.   From what you've said, I'd guess you prefer to improvise on the fly in response to needs as they come up.  But neither of these things is actually an agenda of play, but rather a GMing technique for bringing about the desired play.   It isn't clear to me that the sort of play we both desire has divergent features, or that the experience of being a GM in play we both desire is all that divergent.  All I hear is you hate to prep and don't think you need it to obtain the desired play experience where as I feel I need to prep in order to obtain the desired play experience because I don't trust improvisation.



> Over the course of these 30 years of GMing, I've found that I like very specific things about GMing:




Yes, but the things you list aren't agendas.  When you say you enjoy: "Ruminating upon and then devising the most interesting and open-ended ways to hook into the dramatic premises that emerge (either at the PC build stage or in the early stages of play) in each player's character.", I can fully agree with that, but first its not at all clear we are using divergent techniques ("Ruminating...and then devising...hooks into the dramatic premises...in each player's character.").  Secondly, the agenda of play here is implied, rather than explicitly stated.

If I may suggest, the actual agenda of play here is nothing less than, "Watching a player play his character in dramatic situations.", and everything else you talk about is a tool or technique toward achieving that end goal.  Tools and techniques however are not agendas of play.

The only other agendas of play I see you mention in your seven techniques is: "Challenging my players themselves" and "challenging myself in the process"

Again, if your actual GMing agendas are:
1) Watching my players play in dramatic situations.
2) Challenging my players (to play skillfully, whatever that means)
3) And, challenging myself (to play skillfully, whatever that means)

Then its highly unlikely that your agenda differs all that much from mine.  Instead, you've basically described only one difference in technique between myself and you - relatively high prep versus relatively low prep.   But both of us are engaged in those techniques I would argue to achieve the same basic ends, and as such I would argue that a lot of the material that I create prior to play is the very sort of material you find yourself improvising in play.  For whatever reason, I find I need or prefer to review and refine those ideas between sessions based on 'what was learned' from the prior session.  For example, I may find that I need a new event or location that I didn't anticipate.  I may need to improvise this event or location in play off the cuff, but if I can foresee it from further off, I prefer to prep that element before hand (even if it turns out half the time I find I don't need it, or that it doesn't happen like I expected, but becomes something I can pivot to many sessions after I first created it).



> Writing an extensive meta-plot/adventure, world-building and setting design aren't even on the list.




All of those things have a certain charm for me in and of themselves, but they really aren't part of play and can be entirely divorced from the task of being a GM.  In fact, many good GMs are poor world builders either by inclination or talent and so 'out source' world building entirely to some professional or content provider.



> This is because there is no need for any heavy-handed GMing or GM force (no over-leveraging of the off-screen, no fudging, no sneaky suspension/abridgement of the action resolution mechanics) and I can just abide by some simple principles, a clear agenda, observe the rules and I can then play to find out what happens just like the players.




This sort of statement strikes me as a misunderstanding, as neither high meta-plot nor high preparation actually requires any of the things you abhor.  When you state this as a reason for avoiding the technique, it just suggests to me that part of your problem is that you understand a lot better how to improvise effectively than you understand how to prepare effectively.   One reason I say that is I engage in high prep precisely to avoid high reliance on fudging, abridgement of the action/resolution mechanics, and reliance on metagaming that I find is the inevitable result (consciously or unconsciously) of high reliance on improvisation.  (See for example my essay on how to railroad, where I assert that all low prep games are unavoidably railroads.)



> My guess is that certain folks reading this post are likely thinking "...dude....you hate GMing!"




Not really.  I suspect that you take great joy in watching players engage dramatic situations in clever ways, and you take more joy in watching someone else come up with a cool idea than you do yourself.  If you don't, you probably shouldn't be a GM.  For example, many stereotypical bad GMs are actually just frustrated players (or novelists), who wish to play out characters engaged in dramatic play but were frustrated at that as players and are so trying to achieve that agenda of play from the wrong side of the screen.  One big flashing warning sign that you are GMing wrong is you spend a lot of time imagining in great detail the one way players are going to respond to a scene instead of prepping for the 20 different ways they might respond and being happy with all of them.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 5, 2015)

@_*Celebrim*_ , very good, clear post and on an extremely quick read-through, I'm not sure that I disagree with much of what you say.  

However, I may have not written clearly what those 7 bits above were.  They weren't meant to be an agenda.  They were meant to be the things I enjoy about GMing.  So, the ends whereby the agenda would be a part of the means (the other being principles and techniques) to get there (but would also include the means to satisfy my players...which should marry to what my joys are our we have a problem at the table).

Don't have the time at this exact moment, but I'll try to respond properly to your post this evening or tomorrow and perhaps layout my general GMing agenda as succinctly as possible (which, again, should look like the means to get to the ends - those 7 scribed joys of GMing).  

What might be helpful in evaluating play divergence, is if the GMs in this thread posted their joys (the ends) and the means to get there (agenda, principles, techniques).  For instance, the agenda of "play to find out what happens" is at one end of the spectrum while "tell my players a good story" probably sits at the other end of the agenda spectrum.  The principle of "draw maps but leave blanks" would lie on one end of the princples spectrum while "before play, flesh out or use an extremely detailed setting/world" would fall on the other end.  And on techniques, something like "fail forward" would be on one end of the spectrum while "task resolution tightly mapped to process simulation/causal logic" would fall on the other.

I'll post more later.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 5, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> I'll post more later.




Cool.  Anxious to hear from you.  To save conversation, for me "agenda" is the end, and the means are the "techniques".   You seem to be using the words slightly differently.   Also, I feel you confuse the "joy" with the "technique" at times.   If you can pay special attention to defining what they mean to you and separating them out, I think I'll understand you more fully.  In particular, you make a statement like:

"Observing and using the subtle cues my players give me and exploiting my low prep in order to get to know my NPCs during play and then watch the world manifest and grow as we build it and add to it."

And I break that down as:

Agenda (ends): Exploration of setting; Exploration of character.
Technique(s) (means): Observing the players cues; Improvisation
Joy (experience): Being surprised by the things you discover in play, about the setting or the characters.

Putting that back together, I'd probably say my corresponding statement would be:

"Observing and using the subtle cues my players give me in order give the players opportunities to play, in order to get to know my PCs during play and then watch the story manifest and grow as we build it and add to it."

If I can tease out a possible difference in agenda, it's that you seem to have a more player perspective on enjoying exploring the NPCs and setting in play (which is what I enjoy as a player, so that's why I call it 'player perspective', this of course could be a bias), where as I tend to do my brainstorming on NPCs and setting out of session and so am not surprised by them in play (since I already 'know' them).  My joy as a DM comes especially by exploring the character of the PCs and the surprising things that they do, and not the NPCs.  The session is about lavishing my time and focus on the PCs (and through them on players), which is precisely why I spent the time between sessions lavishing detail on everything else so I'm not distracted from that mission.  Between sessions I may be 'surprised' to learn of the existence of this or that NPC or location I never before imagined, based on my brainstorming about what 'should' exist (either to serve a narrative purpose or because the 'life' of the setting implies it).  However, I would say that overall, this is a very small difference in agenda or joy compared to the large difference in technique.

Also, if you could address then why you enjoy being surprised about your NPCs or setting, I'd find that very interesting.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 5, 2015)

Cyberen said:


> you are a strong and convincing advocate to "rulings not rules" !



I'm not 100% sure if you're being ironic, or if you're referring to my discussion of 4e's p 42/skill challenge stuff.

If the former, disregard what follows as it reflects a failure to follow your rhetoric!

If the latter, the following is an elaboration.

(If neither, just start again from scratch!)

I can think of three general variations on "rulings not rules".

The first two take as their pivot that action declarations are grounded in the fictional positioning of the PCs.

Variant (1): the poster children for this, in my mind, are Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain. Action declaration is almost always expressed by relation to the GM's narrated fiction ("I poke my staff through the devil mouth"; "I take the doors of their hinges so we can surf them down the frictionless corridor").

The players describe their PCs' actions in purely, or almost purely, fictional terms, and the GM narrates what happens. In the Tweet/Edwards scheme of action resolution (fortune, karma, drama) this is resolution by means of drama (= talking). In the Baker/Crane scheme of techniques, it's a subtle and complex application of "say yes".

I almost never see this technique advocated for resolving combat, although in principle why "I stab him in the back when he's not looking" is just as amenable to this sort of resolution as "I hammer pitons into the wall and use them to climb up it." (Perhaps backed up by "Remember how I said I was sharpening my sword after the last fight? So it shouldn't have any trouble penetrating his leather armour.")

Indeed, in threads that debate how central combat is to D&D, those who (i) concede that D&D has a heavy dose of combat rues, but (ii) deny that combat is central to D&D, often argue that combat _needs_ mechanics for its resolution (ie rules that go beyond narration procedures) in a way that is different from other sorts of action declaration.

Here is my tentative hypothesis about this: in D&D, the most important "stake" is character survival. And combat is, by default, to the death (0 hp). And it would be bad for the game for a GM to fiat a player into losing (by declaring his/her PC dead via drama resolution). Hence, when PC death is on the line, we pull out the dice as mediators. (Hence also why ToH, with so much die-without-a-save, is sometimes seen as unfair.)

This variant of rulings-not-rules doesn't appeal to me very much, for two reasons. First, it only works if all the table are in agreement on the fictional positioning. As I posted upthread, high fantasy (and gonzo genre more generally) can tend to put pressure on that agreement. Second, it treats PC death as the only crucial stake for the players. I don't really like this narrowness of scope, because if you are playing for story (as I prefer to) it is too narrow from the dramatic point of view.

Variant (2): For this I think of Dungeon World (much discussed above), Marvel Heroic, Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, 4e's skill challenges/p 42, and no doubt many other games I don't know as well as I should.

Action resolution starts like variant (1), being expressed in terms of fictional positioning of the PCs, but it isn't resolved simply by drama/GM says yes-or-no. The rules of the game give relatively detailed advice and structured procedures for framing a needed dice roll, _and_ give the player a relatively rich suite of resources to bring to bear to build up a dice pool or bundle of die roll modifiers or whatever, _and_ resolution is then determined by roll, with the GM narrating the consequences in accordance with the game's guidelines.

I am a big fan of variant (2). Compared to variant (1) it somewhat de-centres the GM, or at least positions him/her slightly differently, because ultimately it is the dice which decide. And it also makes negotiations between players and GM over the framing easier, because this is all done as part of determining the die roll needed _before_ consequences are narrated - whereas in variant (1) narration of framing and narration of consequences bleed into one another, with the result that player input into the framing too easily becomes player complaining about the outcome and/or pleading for takebacks/do-overs.

Another strength of variant (2) is that the players get to choose (through various devices, and with more or less freedom at various points in play, depending on game details) how to build up and deploy pools of resources, which means they get to choose when to go all-in (because the stakes are really high, for them) and when to let the odds run against them, thereby increasing the likelihood that the PC will fail and the GM will get his/her nefarious way. It's a nice dynamic for story-focused play, I think.

Now to variant (3) of rulings-not-rules. This is the variant that I think     [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has in mind when criticising aspects of 5e's approach. (If not, or if he doesn't like my approach to distinguishing variants, he can of course correct me!) Here the focus is not especially on fictional positioning. Rather, it is understood that resolution will be by way of die roll, but (i) the procedures for generating the target number are very fuzzy, (ii) the procedures for identifying a player's available resources to modify the die roll, and for governing their deployment, are very fuzzy, and (iii) the procedures for narrating consequences of a successful or failed die roll are very fuzzy.

A classic example of this would be ways of interpreting reaction or morale rolls that emerged in the early to mid 80s, post-Gygaxian D&D community: not as binding constraints on GM narration of monster behaviour (which rewards players who build PCs with high CHA, who systematically stage ambushes and take down leaders, etc) but as "guidelines" or "imagination prompts" for GM narration of monster behaviour.

Another example would be ad hoc "called shots": "I cut the guy's head off" - "OK, roll to hit with a -4 penalty". Outcomes become somewhat random relative to player choices about moves within the fiction (eg no longer is finding a vorpal sword necessary to cut someone's head off in combat other than by reducing them to 0 hp) and choices about resource deployment (the player didn't have to choose between, say, using a vorpal sword and using a +5 defender).

A contemporary example, in my view, is the 5e stealth rules, where the interaction between the resolution mechanics and player choices about resource deployment (PC build eg being a wood elf rather than a human; and during play, such as hiding behind a wall vs hiding in dim light etc) are very fuzzy.

I find that variant (3) tends in play towards variant (1), but with the huge detriment that on the way there it potentially burns players for their build choices or play choices, by appearing to give with one hand (mechanical choices, or in-play choices that are presented as having mechanical significance) while taking away with the other (because the rules for mediating those mechanical or mechanically significant choices into a resolution outcome are so fuzzy).

A borderline case, in my view, is the 5e surprise rule that requires the GM to determine what counts as _a threat_, and hence a potential source of surprise at the start of an encounter. This is close to variant (2) - because the framing is grounded in the fiction, and takes place prior to resolution - but peculiarities of 5e can push it towards a version of variant (1) - the GM narrating the players into a losing situation - which burns their resource choices on the way through. This is because 5e (like 3E and 4e before it) tends to emphasise PC build as the main place for resource choices. Compare this to a Burning Wheel Steel test, which likewise is triggered by GM determination that some sort of threat is present, but still leaves a player free to deploy various fate-point style resources, and other similar stuff, to try and respond to the thread, making it pretty clearly an instance of variant ([-]1[/-] 2).

Here are the two things I think that would put the 5e surprise rules in my variant (2) and hence would, in my view, make it a good application of rulings-not rules:

First, the GM sticks very rigidly to the rolled Stealth results for creatures (a bit like a Gygaxian GM sticking hard to rolled reaction and morale results).

Second, the GM allows the players to spend Inspiration to get advantage (+5) to their passive Perception so that being surprised isn't just a narrated consequence, but one that truly follows from player choices about stakes and resource deployment.

*TL;DR*: some thoughts about "rulings not rules".


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 6, 2015)

I'm obviously late to the part but:
I dunno. Usually, if a rule doesn't seem to make sense it's my interpretation of it that is at fault, not the rule itself. 
If I'm ever unsure about how to interpret a rule, I'm can usually figure it out by making a plausibility check:
E.g. if something from a player's point of view seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Also, to quote my sig: In a sense, the D&D game has no rules, only rule suggestions. - Tom Moldvay


----------



## Cyberen (Jan 6, 2015)

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] : wow, kudos, I feel you've taken the discussion onto something very interesting (at last !) [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] : I was not ironic in the least. I was thinking along the line of your point #2, as you are a strong proponent (and skilled user !) of p42 / open-ended skill challenges (I would also add ad-hoc disease tracks to the lot - maybe to track the dwarf condition when trying to handle the forging of Overwhelm). I really feel that 5e would also shine if used in this style (if only skill challenges were part of it !). Particularly, ad/disad is a wonderful tool for the DM, to express his own view on the situation without imposing it, and conveying it to the players (reducing the risk of miscommunication). Inspiration is also a good currency for the players to show their effort. The math of bounded accuracy looks sound (it might need some polishing - as p42 did - to get the DCs right).
Some rules ARE fuzzy. Rather than sticking to them, I truly believe they should be replaced/tweaked till they make sense (to whom ). For instance, this is the 3rd edition in a row with Stealth & Perception scores. The rules from 3.5 or 4e can be copied and pasted to replace those fuzzy 5e rules without damaging the game.
The surprise rules suck badly, and need to be replaced ASAP, but it's not a big deal.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 6, 2015)

Cyberen said:


> The surprise rules suck badly, and need to be replaced ASAP, but it's not a big deal.



Am I right in thinking that your objection is that they are too swingy relative to the overall dynamics of combat (because of the signficance of a free round in a system built on two-to-three round combats)?


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 7, 2015)

Alright.  Going to try to post this as clearly as possible.  Here goes:

*Agenda *- Your agenda makes up *the things you aim to do at all times while GMing*.  It is your macro approach to play as a whole and concerns broad consideration for aesthetic and functional priorities, which then trickle down to Principles and Techniques.  

4 examples (not exhaustive):  

1)  Play to find out what happens.

2)  Tell the players a good story.

3)  Focus on your players, provoke them, and push play toward adventure/conflict.

4)  Give them a fantasy sandbox (world which has its own will and machinery, untethered to the PCs' fate) to play in.



*Principles *- One of these tenets will serve to bind and inform the GM each time he/she invokes/deploys (or forbids) a specific play procedure (Technique).  Their aggregate effect is to push play toward one agenda or away from another.

4 examples (not exhaustive):  

1)  Pay close attention to what your players give you during play and use it.

2)  Think off-screen but invoke it sparingly and, when doing so, telegraph it deftly (or even overtly).  Never use it as a stick to bludgeon the PCs with or a box to hem them in.

3)  The metagame and the off-screen are GM tools which should be used to show your players "a living/breathing world in motion", to protect class niche/player spotlight, and possibly to deal with character abilities or players' plans which circumvent the drama or story you have planned for them.

4)  Where they are at tension, internal consistency should always trump dramatic need.



*Techniques *- These are the actual specific procedures of play (typically concerning resolution mechanics, authority, player stance(s), genre expectations, and dramatic pacing) which are centered around the introduction of elements into the shared imaginary space for current or future use.  

4 examples (not exhaustive):  

1)  "Say yes or roll the dice"

2)  "Fail Forward"

3)  Unified NPC and PC build rules

4)  Fudging dice rolls or post-hoc manipulation of DCs


----------



## Hussar (Jan 7, 2015)

/edit 

Nope, that was a mistake.  Nothing to see here.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 7, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Now to variant (3) of rulings-not-rules. This is the variant that I think     [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has in mind when criticising aspects of 5e's approach. (If not, or if he doesn't like my approach to distinguishing variants, he can of course correct me!) Here the focus is not especially on fictional positioning. Rather, it is understood that resolution will be by way of die roll, but (i) the procedures for generating the target number are very fuzzy, (ii) the procedures for identifying a player's available resources to modify the die roll, and for governing their deployment, are very fuzzy, and (iii) the procedures for narrating consequences of a successful or failed die roll are very fuzzy.
> 
> *TL;DR*: some thoughts about "rulings not rules".




Some very good thoughts on "rulings not rules" I'll add.  Hopefully the above post is clearer than my initial iteration and the trickle down/association that I tried to communicate between the three elements are at least moderately intuitive.  Thanks again for your critique/assist.

If not, you and  [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] , and hopefully others, will let me know and we can conceive something that we collectively grok!

I agree with all that you've written in the post above.  I'll also add a 4th to your list above (that I invoked before).  There is also spatial and temporal information missing in some of the resolution mechanics.  In a game like 5e D&D with varying resource scheduling based on class and rest mechanics, and all kinds of bits and bobs measured in precise spatial units, that can be very problematic.  Specifically when you consider many of these things (how far, how long, where to) are all off-screen and established in the shared imaginary space only after the player declares the action and the mechanics resolve it.  Principles and techniques will inform the establishment of those things.  If the GM couldn't possibly have prepped for that action declaration, and the "how far", "how long", "where to" becomes particularly punitive to the player who declared the action (or team PC in general), then you may have some players that feel the GM is unethically advantaging their unique access to "the offscreen" (fictional elements not established in the imaginary space as of yet) to block or unnecessarily punish their move.  Your situation with the kobold and your old GM was a version of this.



Cyberen said:


> [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION],  [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] : wow, kudos, I feel you've taken the discussion onto something very interesting (at last !)




Fingers crossed!

 [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] , apologies.  Its late.  Pretty tired.  Long/big day tomorrow.  I only got one of the parts of your request done but I'll try to address the specific requests/points of your prior 2 posts tomorrow evening (hopefully!).  Also, I'm going to try to find some time (hopefully before your next session...) to post some follow-up thoughts (how to thematically challenge the specific PC resources you were talking about) in your thread on your upcoming nautical conflict in your game.


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 7, 2015)

Hussar said:


> /edit
> 
> Nope, that was a mistake.  Nothing to see here.




Awww. Ya tease!


----------



## Hussar (Jan 8, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> Awww. Ya tease!




Naw, the thread has finally gotten some legs in an interesting direction.  I think it's probably more helpful if I stay out of things because it will simply wind up more of directing arguments at the poster and not the post.  Funny thing is, SD, if you note when the whole "Hussar hates DM's" thing comes up, it is almost always the same two or three posters making the claim based on posts they've "seen" in the past.  Given the reactions to some fairly innocuous questions here (like my first one, "Makes sense to who"), I'd say that there's a lot more issues going on than simply discussing what's at hand.  

I've apparently been hung with this reputation because I don't necessarily automatically default to the DM's calls being right every single time.  It's rather unfortunate actually because it makes discussion so difficult when people refuse to address points but instead simply want to rack up an argument score against a straw man that doesn't exist.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Jan 8, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> What might be helpful in evaluating play divergence, is if the GMs in this thread posted their joys (the ends) and the means to get there (agenda, principles, techniques).  For instance, the agenda of "play to find out what happens" is at one end of the spectrum while "tell my players a good story" probably sits at the other end of the agenda spectrum.  The principle of "draw maps but leave blanks" would lie on one end of the princples spectrum while "before play, flesh out or use an extremely detailed setting/world" would fall on the other end.  And on techniques, something like "fail forward" would be on one end of the spectrum while "task resolution tightly mapped to process simulation/causal logic" would fall on the other.




I'm not as eloquent as some in this thread, but I'll respond to your challenge here with some brief highlights of my style:

* I enjoy playing more than DMing, so my joys while DMing are along the lines of "players had a good time" and "memorable things happened", as well as the "play to find out what happens" aspect. I try to be the kind of DM that I would want to play under.

* My other joy while DMing is simulationism. This is to say, both constructing and tweaking rule subsystems to make them more accurately represent the desired fiction, and also building consistent stories/ecosystems/societies based on those rules. Why don't black puddings just take over the world? (Or do they?) What happens when you drop a primary witchlight marauder on a continent, and how quickly does it happen? What effect does Elminster's existence, or an analogous ubiquitous-powerful-crazy-prepared-benevolent wizard, have on a world, and on the adventures that you can have there? A lot of my adventure ideas and plotlines spring out of this kind of thinking.

* Principles that I follow include "have a world which _makes sense_", but also "PCs are Weirdness Magnets." The latter principle implies that the Laws of Plot are allowed to apply to the PCs (a PC sitting in a public restroom will overhear a statistically-unlikely number of Interesting Conversations), and the reason for it is simple: Niven's Law for Writers #4 states, "It is a sin to waste the reader's time," and players are like readers in this sense. But the world also has to make sense--it has to be someplace that you could actually inhabit--so the weirdness that they stumble across will not exhibit obvious gameisms, it will be as self-consistent as I can make it. For example, one of my players recently asked me for rules on falling damage: that is, the damage an object inflicts when it falls on you. I'll come up with some rules, but I'll make sure that they are consistent with the existing rules for falling damage, traps, damage from dragon/giant natural weaponry, and the damage which huge rocks from trebuchets inflict when _they_ fall on you. I'm not going to handwave away any issues with physical laws by invoking gamist tropes like "dragons do more damage than giants because they're supposed to be a higher-level challenge" or "trebuchets aren't intended for PCs." And bad guys will fight bad guys, and some people on the good guy's team will be evil, because that's how a realistic world would work. And sometimes you really will run across of whole clan of 40 Fire Giants, even though it's not a level-appropriate challenge for anybody under 30th level, because Fire Giants are not loners. Anyway, the point is that I am influenced by both simulationist principles and the desire to provide good experiences for my players, and I reconcile the two by bluntly admitting to my players that their PCs are not living typical lives. (Corollary: if a PC starts an industrial revolution with True Polymorph, he is _not_ doomed to discover that some NPC already discovered/perfected/discarded the technique. PCs are allowed to change the world, it's part of why they are PCs.)

* I'm not sure if you would call this a principle or a technique, but I sketch rather than plan. At both a macro scale (campaign design) and a micro scale (what's going to happen in the adventure today), I jot down a list of all the various things that are going on in the region and ways they could possibly intersect: "there's a vampire, and 3 carrion crawlers, and 18 skeletons, and a sign that says 'Treasure in THAT direction'", and then I will ad-lib most of the actual events, but I will pull from my prepped notes as I'm ad-libbing so that, for example, if the PC discovers a sewage line, I have a good idea that one or more of the Carrion Crawlers will be in the sewage (but not more than three of them, because that's all there are). Or I may know the hobgoblins are planning a resurgence in "revenge" for getting kicked out of the area by the original human settlers three hundred years ago, and they've told themselves stories about how the Keglar Clan (in reality only about fifty hobgoblins on the original five-hundred-acre territory, but much more than that in their hobgoblin descendants' minds) are the rightful owners of the Kingdom of Desdemoria--so the hobgoblins the PCs capture may be willing to go along peacefully as long as they don't find out that they are Desdemorians. (And if the wizard listens in on the captives' conversation using Comprehend Languages, I know what they are probably talking about amongst themselves.) And since I know there's a Rakshasa in the kingdom, masquerading as the king's advisor, why, he probably knows about the hobgoblins and is quietly fanning those flames. Or maybe he's opposing them. So anyway, the principle here is "sketch out the main outlines in advance, fill in the details when they become relevant."


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 8, 2015)

I didn't establish *Joy *in the post above, as you had requested (slipped my mind).  That one is going to be hard to pin down to be honest as its probably got far too much subjectivity embedded in it.   I think I'm just going to be lame, cop out somewhat and just say that, in terms of running any given TTRPG, for my money, I derive joy when the mesh of Agenda, Principles, and Techniques are executed well at the table to provide an entertaining version of the expected experience.  

If I'm running Dread, I'm looking for and working toward a very different play experience than if I'm running an old school dungeon crawl versus when I'm running 4e, DW, MHRP, or Dogs.  So different Joys for different games.

I think trying to penetrate that deeper might be difficult for me right now.  You guys can take a crack at if you perceive it differently.



Celebrim said:


> You suggest that you have a low enjoyment of world simulation, and that you have no favored setting you are carefully constructing as a toy in your mind.  And that's probably some variation from me as a GM, because I do have such a 'setting as mental toy', but if in fact 'setting as mental toy' was my agenda, I wouldn't bother to nor need to GM, because setting as my own mental toy to develop is just as enjoyable and if not more enjoyable by world building for its own sake.  If I really had this as my agenda, I would build the world but not waste time running the game.  Instead, I find that I do very little world building except where I think it intersects my game needs.  For example, despite the fact that this setting is now 30 years old, I'd never in that time even given much thought to a sun deity until I had a player say, "I want to worship the sun deity."  Only after I had an in game reason for a sun deity, did I begin fleshing out what that sun deity was like.




I don't think "setting as mental toy" is part of your agenda profile for your d20 homebrew game.  Regarding your extremely high resolution setting, I think its something akin to what I posted above in the examples.  Because I don't know the specifics and only know how it all comes together, and your interests, based off of posts I've read, I'll take a crack at it being something like this:

_* Give them a deep and compelling fantasy world, with its own will and machinery, full of struggle, tyranny, and hope so that they may fill their lives with adventure._

Then you'll have techniques that you deploy, each one informed by one principle or another at the moment of choice, which trickle down from those (and the others that make up your Agenda) aesthetic and functional priorities.

As I wrote above.  It looks like you (a) enjoy the mental exercise and (b) enjoy its impact on play.  So...Joys?



Celebrim said:


> This suggests to me that are real agendas aren't as dissimilar as you might think.  I think it is fair to say that once I find an in game need for setting information, I'll pour myself into imagining that setting information and that I prefer to spend a lot of time brainstorming for ideas I think I'll need prior to play rather than hoping my first instincts during a game are the best.   From what you've said, I'd guess you prefer to improvise on the fly in response to needs as they come up.  But neither of these things is actually an agenda of play, but rather a GMing technique for bringing about the desired play.   It isn't clear to me that the sort of play we both desire has divergent features, or that the experience of being a GM in play we both desire is all that divergent.  All I hear is you hate to prep and don't think you need it to obtain the desired play experience where as I feel I need to prep in order to obtain the desired play experience because I don't trust improvisation.




Strikes me as more of a function/utility component of agenda rather than aesthetic (although it could affect the aesthetic...but possibly not in this case).  Your sense is that you derive your best material for your players to engage in with intensive deliberation.  Whereas, I feel the inverse.

However, outside of you and I, here is what I have to say about the potential negative effect of (1) intensive deliberation (heavy pre-game prep or purchasing and imbibing an AP/module that you expect to run stock) and the potential negative effect of (2) half-assed prep/poor improv:

1 - The first precautionary tale is about deep investment.  While it can certainly be bested, its perfectly natural to seek to protect and get the most bang for your buck out something you're deeply invested in.  As such, that investment (the time, effort, love put into it) can become the primary locus of play.  From that, all sorts of other troubles can arise from putting the PCs in a passive position of plot consumption or setting surveyors to (possibly even subconscious) adversarial play to (a) protect canonical elements against too much player infuence or (b) to make sure that the AP's expectant course is not deviated from (because that is where the action is!...and that is what you've deliberated so intensely over and assimilated with your $, time and mental overhead expenditure).

2 - The second precautionary tale is about incoherence.  The danger here can be several things:

a) genre incoherence or mash-up that flat out doesn't work
b) lack of continuity and internal consistency of elements that have been established in the shared imaginary space during play (NPC names, goings-on, imporant locales or backstory)
c) not knowing your players/their PCs and how to provoke their thematic interests
d) being tasked with but incapable of providing interesting/fun challenges that properly test skill



Celebrim said:


> This sort of statement strikes me as a misunderstanding, as neither high meta-plot nor high preparation actually requires any of the things you abhor.  When you state this as a reason for avoiding the technique, it just suggests to me that part of your problem is that you understand a lot better how to improvise effectively than you understand how to prepare effectively.   One reason I say that is I engage in high prep precisely to avoid high reliance on fudging, abridgement of the action/resolution mechanics, and reliance on metagaming that I find is the inevitable result (consciously or unconsciously) of high reliance on improvisation.  (See for example my essay on how to railroad, where I assert that all low prep games are unavoidably railroads.)




I think what you're referring to above (regarding some dangers of heavy reliance on improv) are most often the fallout derived from trying to do so in a system like 5e or AD&D where the process for handling the basic resolution mechanics and then the varying subsystems that interface with them are a mesh of abstraction, precision, and natural language open to interpretation.  Heavy improv within such a rules framework, especially when you have specific outcomes in mind that you would like to have manifest in play, can put a lot of pressure on the referee during adjudication (and he has to referee a lot) while simultaneously offering up a fair bit of conflict of interest.  The GM _wants _ this or that to happen...and he knows the players want some of the same things...but they want to feel like they're making it happen...a little bit of massaging play procedures here, a little overleveraging the offscreen there...VOILA.  You feel you're good to go so long as the players don't get wise.

This is surely a large part of the reasoning that we all developed our unique AD&D systems (which appears to be happening again with 5e).  To hedge against such temptations and pressures, to firm up our play procedures generally and the action resolution mechanics specifically such that we might GM more confidently and rule more consistently.


Alright, that is all I have for now.  To post anymore would make the conversation more diffuse than I can handle right now (in terms of time or mental overhead).  Later, I'll try to look back through your two posts and find what I didn't answer.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 8, 2015)

Few more minutes so an answer for something I missed.



Celebrim said:


> If I can tease out a possible difference in agenda, it's that you seem to have a more player perspective on enjoying exploring the NPCs and setting in play (which is what I enjoy as a player, so that's why I call it 'player perspective', this of course could be a bias), where as I tend to do my brainstorming on NPCs and setting out of session and so am not surprised by them in play (since I already 'know' them).  My joy as a DM comes especially by exploring the character of the PCs and the surprising things that they do, and not the NPCs.  The session is about lavishing my time and focus on the PCs (and through them on players), which is precisely why I spent the time between sessions lavishing detail on everything else so I'm not distracted from that mission.  Between sessions I may be 'surprised' to learn of the existence of this or that NPC or location I never before imagined, based on my brainstorming about what 'should' exist (either to serve a narrative purpose or because the 'life' of the setting implies it).  However, I would say that overall, this is a very small difference in agenda or joy compared to the large difference in technique.
> 
> Also, if you could address then why you enjoy being surprised about your NPCs or setting, I'd find that very interesting.




First a quick interlude example from a present game.  I like to give my players a glimpse of offscreen things now and again (and a fair bit of the time, I'll request that they assist me in carving out the backstory/offscreen establishing vignette).  This is the sort of off the cuff thing that I'll do:



> Meanwhile...many miles away...
> 
> The chill wind is a hail of daggers on their exposed faces. Their lungs burn in their chests, their feet throb through their boots. Its a whiteout, but the hasty crunch of snow easily marks their fleeing path for their pursuit.
> 
> ...




This offscreen interlude was all off the cuff.  Who are all of these people?  What is their story?  They start out extremely malleable with a few fixed components and lets of questions.  As those questions are answered, the NPCs slowly take shape and are discovered (by myself and the players) as the game progresses.  Of note, and very different than how another agenda would handle NPC creation, their cultivation is based on _*immediate dramatic and/or thematic need*_ and, as such, emerges as play progresses rather than before play.

So now, we know a bit more about this guy (at least we think we do...they still haven't met this guy nor these refugees):



> The histories speak little of the barbarian tribes that claim that place as home. The primary mention is of one family, the Argoths, that was cast out some 20 years ago from this settlement. The patriarch of that family, Ranyon, was a viscous but brilliant man of no small size and stature who nearly died as a boy from a pox. One fateful winter, Ranyon Argoth had a dispute over goats with another man. Ranyon alleged that he leased the goats and a portion of his land so the man and his family could work off an owed debt. The other man alleged that the goats and land were sold to him fairly and that there was no debt.
> 
> The dispute was taken before the settlement's arbitrators. Due to lack of a physical contract and other confounding factors, they found in favor of the other man and ordered Ranyon co-sign a contract that they would write up. Enraged, he refused and a terrible fight broke out in which Ranyon nearly killed three men but lost an eye in the process. Within a fortnight, the man in the dispute with Ranyon was found dead and his wife and daughter missing. Ranyon's large clan, 2 wives and 12 sons, had up and vanished. It is believed that they fled north to the Coldlands to be with the only other humans in this highland realm.




Part of the reason for the in-situ cultivation of this NPC, and his potential relationship with the refugees, is to give both the PCs in this game an opportunity to flex thematic muscles of their character.  Those include:

Alignment (Chaotic):  Break an unjust law to benefit another.

Bonds:  

* The layfolk of this world are brave souls.  I have much to learn from them.
* I will protect the weak against the tyranny of evil men.

PC moves:

* _Throw Down the Guantlet_ and _The Riddle of Steel_:  These abilities are about challenging humanoids to duels.  In the face of immediate combat, you learn about their inner workings and thus can gain future leverage over them.  Further, these abilities also stipulate the prospect of potential, immediate negative fallout to those in power, with respect to the infrastructure of said power and their underlings, whether or not they accept the duel.  

What unjust law (and how)?  What bravery of what NPC and what does it engender within the PC (and what physically transpires from it)?  What tyranny, how potent, and is it legitimately evil?  Is there any potential justification?  Whose power, what infrastructure, and who are the underlings (and why are they subordinate?)?  What is the backstory?

Through play, we'll (meaning myself and my players) find out more about the NPCs and the PCs.  Much of it is low resolution or formless.  I treat NPCs just like maps; "Draw maps, leave blanks."  Most of their workings emerge in actual play.  

Contrast that with Agenda, Principles, and Techniques that promote/require an objective world, with objective NPCs that are significantly fleshed out before play and, accordingly, bring with them prescriptive qualities into the arena of play.

I enjoy this discovery for its own sake (I find myself pleasantly surprised...by myself...but also my players) but I also enjoy it because it allows me mobility and incentive (because I have only a modicum of prep to fall back on) to insert components into the shared imaginary space, *right now*, based on immediate thematic and dramatic need (which will evolve as play evolves). I can predict some of a play session's dramatic/thematic needs in advance so some level of prescribing the nature of the people and places of the world before play will be helpful.  However, because I can't predict nearly all dramatic/thematic needs in advance (nor predict their intra-session evolution), thus assuring that those conflicts and their momentum will be front and center, heavy prescription will have a failure rate that I'm not particularly comfortable with (and don't have the free time to lose!).  As such, I need to go about play prep (very broad considerations for setting, antagonists, with honed focus on theme/dramatic momentum and a variety of relevant scene openers) and play itself (heavy improv guided by familiarity with my agenda, principles, techniques and robust conflict resolution mechanics) a different way.   I've found that this approach inclines my game toward that constant, streaming introduction of, and escalation or snowballing of, situations that the PCs intimately care about.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 8, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> I'm not as eloquent as some in this thread, but I'll respond to your challenge here with some brief highlights of my style:




Eloquent aplenty.  I'll try to comment with more depth on some of the specific parts of your post later.  Given what you've posted here, and what I know of his game through his postings, I think you and Celebrim would likely be a very good match for each others' tables as you seem to share similar aesthetic and functional priorities of play.


----------



## chaochou (Jan 8, 2015)

I'm running Apocalypse World right now - we have the Gunlugger, Savvyhead and Maestro D in play, which is proving ridiculous amounts of fun at the moment. AW contains the Agenda and Principles of play (I suspect [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] pulled the idea from Dungeon World, although I can see some entries of his own devising...). So anyhow, I would say...

My GMing Agenda:

Play to find out what happens
Bring the Apocalypse to life
Upset the status quo

My Principles:

We all own the gameworld
Be honest with the players
Everyone gets the spotlight

Techniques are way too many to list but important ones include:

In the crosshairs*
Ask questions like crazy, and
Make failure not boring


* This technique basically says if your attention falls on an NPC, building, thing or place, your first thought is to consider killing or destroying it.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 8, 2015)

chaochou said:


> I'm running Apocalypse World right now - we have the Gunlugger, Savvyhead and Maestro D in play, which is proving ridiculous amounts of fun at the moment. AW contains the Agenda and Principles of play (I suspect @_*Manbearcat*_ pulled the idea from Dungeon World, although I can see some entries of his own devising...). So anyhow, I would say...




Good stuff.  My thoughts on gaming, as I'm sure you can tell, are in no small part influenced by VB.  While he didn't write DW, it being "Powered By the Apocalypse" means that the DNA and spirit is his (but to be fair to Latorra & Koebel, their contributions are rife and masterful).  You know all the other sources (among them Gygax, Moldvay, Tweet, Laws, Heinsoo, Crane, Banks) but I don't want to bring certain things up as I know there is a lot of antagonism on this website towards "certain sources."  So lets just leave it at that!

The Agenda, Principles, Techniques for a game like AW translates to DW perfectly with only adjustments for genre required (which are certainly required).  Those DW APTs translate to games like MHRP and 4e so what you have above is pretty close to my own.  Obviously the P column expands a little bit and the T column considerable (which has a lot of fluctuation due to the change of resolution mechanics from system to system).

Beyond what you have above, one Technique I like to use in those systems (which I shared above) would be:

* Share the offscreen and use it to foretell ominous portents, to anger, to entice, or to reveal a price paid.

The Principles that guide and inform that usage are typically one of these two:

* Emotionally invest them.
* Start some latent trouble that follows from their actions.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 8, 2015)

My GMing Agenda:

Play to find out what happens/ tell an interesting story... one I would read or watch
shake up the table and make at least someone say "Wow"

My Principles:

We all own the gameworld
Be honest with the players when you can (sometimes the look on someone face when they realize the wild woodland hafling alchemists with super strength potions are based on gummy bears)
Everyone gets the spotlight
Anything can happen ( If PCs decide to do something I didn't espect I try to roll with it)

Techniques are way too many to list but important ones include:

don't be afraid of a loading screen (when a PC does something that totally changes everything... tell them you need a moment, and congratulate them on finding a loading screen in a table top game.)
steal from everyplace imaginable, then hide it behind a more common example of the troupe. (she ra's sword of defense and wonder womans larret both made appearances and where not realizes until multi games in)
ask what you want to gain from this... (When someone asks for info out of no where, before I answer I ask why... if they want to trick an NPC I will help them, if they think they are going to trick the DM I will teach them not to be so aggressive...by just shutting it down)
rich intergrated stories that make people want to care about npcs..


----------



## chaochou (Jan 9, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> Beyond what you have above, one Technique I like to use in those systems (which I shared above) would be:
> * Share the offscreen and use it to foretell ominous portents, to anger, to entice, or to reveal a price paid.
> 
> The Principles that guide and inform that usage are typically one of these two:
> ...




So, was this like the interlude from a few posts back?

I can see how that could provide a sense of mystery and a give a general sense of drama in an as-yet-unconnected-to-us way. I don't think it would suit my style or group...

For ominous portents I tend to go with plumes of oily smoke on the horizon, or the huge blackness of a storm reaching into the sky like a granite wall, a bone-shuddering howl from the impenetrable stinking fog or huddled refugees arriving half starved. Simple things that PCs can react to, or not.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jan 10, 2015)

chaochou said:


> So, was this like the interlude from a few posts back?




It is.



chaochou said:


> I can see how that could provide a sense of mystery and a give a general sense of drama in an as-yet-unconnected-to-us way. I don't think it would suit my style or group...




Its a technique that I use very sparingly (along with player-authored kickers, and having them directly add to the fiction rather than myself on certain action resolution outcomes - eg Spout Lore or Knolwedges/Wises).  I, and the folks at my table, find that, when used sparingly, each of those techniques add their own unique impact to Story Now play. 



chaochou said:


> For ominous portents I tend to go with plumes of oily smoke on the horizon, or the huge blackness of a storm reaching into the sky like a granite wall, a bone-shuddering howl from the impenetrable stinking fog or huddled refugees arriving half starved. Simple things that PCs can react to, or not.




Same here.  In fact, amusing enough, almost all of those exact examples can be found in my recent games as complications brought on by action resolution!

When I have a few moments in the coming days, I think I'm going to assemble some APTs for process-sim sandbox play, pawn stance dungeon crawls, story now (a la DW), and story now/gamist hybrid (a la 4e) play.


----------

