|
3 years ago ::
Feb 06, 2010 - 10:32AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2008
|
I recommend e-mailing Customer Service for the correct interpretation. They're pretty quick responding. Once you have it gives your argument more validity. Simply saying "I read it differently" makes it a matter of interpretation as well as seeming like you're breaking Wheaton's rule. If he still whines, suggest he contact customer service as well. If he does, and the responses conflict, contact CS and tell them their responses conflict. I've done this with mine and a players' interpretation of Shaman healing, and it worked well. Basically, instead of creating a conflict, make him your ally by setting it up as you two working together trying to figure out how the item really works. Here is what I like to do for any similar situation:
- State my interpretation of the rules.
- Listen to any other opposing interpretation.
- Make a decision, and clearly state it, explaining my reasoning.
- If this is the first time the player has brought this situation up, or if it makes a major difference to their character, then, for this adventure only, allow some sort of halfway position.
- Tell them that if they get other information -- like an official ruling -- that supports their position, I will allow it, but based on current info, I will not.
- Allow no discussion while gaming
- Afterwards, discuss if I feel I need to
So for this case I would say "It appears that the immobilize is meant to work only while the target is adjacent to you. I cannot think of another item that puts a permanent condition on another character, and if there were one, it would definitely cost more than 45,000. I understand you bought this thinking it was more powerful, so for this mod, I'll make it a 'save ends' effect for both marked and adjacent characters. Afterwards, feel free to decide whether or not you want to keep it, but I'm going to run it in future as only working on adjacent characters while they remain adjacent to you."
(Strike through is mine) With one exception, I agree with this. I had this happen with my Fighter that used (pre-errata) Deft Hurler as a major component in her build. The DM argued that, despite the rules text the feat was two powerful and, at his table, it would work similar to its post-errata function. The half-way tactic isn't allowed by RPGA rules, and creates extra variation. It teaches new players to ask, "can this power work this way? The DM at my last table said it could." As such, I think it ingrains bad habits and goes against the spirit of LFR. Stick to your guns.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 06, 2010 - 11:02AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
More generally, I think in LFR 4.0 a DM should try and rule "questionable" rules interpretations in favor of the players. The game is about them (and you) having fun -- let them have fun with their toys. It is not the LFR DM's job to correct cheesy rules or interpretations.
Unfortunately, this policy breaks down when the other players at the table are not having fun as the result of the questionable rules interpretation.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 06, 2010 - 11:12AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I reckon the issue is more about interpersonal skills and less about the game.
The answer to "what would you do" is really going to be more related to how you'd answer the same question about a jerk at the supermarket, or at work, or sitting behind you in the stands at a football game, than it is related to anything specific the RPGA/WPN or D&D.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 06, 2010 - 4:37PM
#14
|
|
|
I'm pretty much just echoing what other people have said, but when you judge you make the decision on rules. Listen to the person, explain your position and move on. If the person argues, explain that they are being disruptive. If they continue to argue ask them to leave. If they don't leave talk the the organizer or just completely ignore them.
Be polite but hold your ground. If they want to discuss a rule after the mod, that's fine but you have a game to run ... it's not fair to you or the rest of the table to have one person bring the game to a halt.
Allen.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 06, 2010 - 5:52PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
More generally, I think in LFR 4.0 a DM should try and rule "questionable" rules interpretations in favor of the players. The game is about them (and you) having fun -- let them have fun with their toys. It is not the LFR DM's job to correct cheesy rules or interpretations.
I disagree. The DM's job is to adjudicate the game in a fair way, not to kowtow to every player in the game.
If the player is holding up the game or acting in a disruptive way, then he's in the wrong, and he should leave the game. It doesn't matter if his rules interpretation is right or wrong. In a time-sensitive environment, if the debate can't be settled in a minute or two, the correct response is for the player to tell the DM "I disagree, but let's move on."
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 06, 2010 - 6:04PM
#16
|
|
|
Adjudicating the game in fair way should not include applying nerfs to things you find overpowered. If the rule is unclear, you should side with the player. Again, the game is about having fun and using powerful items is fun for many players. If you think saying "no" is fun, then you proabably shouldn't be DMing. The only exception to this is if a particular power is so powerful that it results in other players not having fun. But for a DM to say no just because he doesn't like something is lame. Daren More generally, I think in LFR 4.0 a DM should try and rule "questionable" rules interpretations in favor of the players. The game is about them (and you) having fun -- let them have fun with their toys. It is not the LFR DM's job to correct cheesy rules or interpretations.
I disagree. The DM's job is to adjudicate the game in a fair way, not to kowtow to every player in the game.
If the player is holding up the game or acting in a disruptive way, then he's in the wrong, and he should leave the game. It doesn't matter if his rules interpretation is right or wrong. In a time-sensitive environment, if the debate can't be settled in a minute or two, the correct response is for the player to tell the DM "I disagree, but let's move on."
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 07, 2010 - 1:07AM
#17
|
|
|
For the Ring of Personal Gravity, the property gives you the Stand Your Ground Dwarf racial feature.
The Daily Power as written states that you and enemies adjacent or marked by you are either Slowed or immobilized. For marked enemies, this is save ends. For adjacent enemies, no saving throw is allowed. As a free action, you can end this power for all effected creatures. If you have reached a milestone, while you are under the effect of this power's condition, any newly marked enemies or enemies adjacent to you are also affected by the chosen condition.
Basically, while this effect is in place, you are also under the effect. If you don't want to be effected by it anymore as a free action you can drop it removing the condition from yourself and effected creatures.
It's common sense, just like MYREs and rust monsters.
MYRE + Rust Monster + Master Crafter Artificer = Everyone wins!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 07, 2010 - 4:59AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
Adjudicating the game in fair way should not include applying nerfs to things you find overpowered. If the rule is unclear, you should side with the player. Again, the game is about having fun and using powerful items is fun for many players. If you think saying "no" is fun, then you proabably shouldn't be DMing.
I'm not talking about the ring of personal gravity, but about player behaviour in general.
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not suggesting that the default position should be to rule against the player -- I'm saying that the DM should use his best judgment to come up with a fair decision.
If the DM agrees with the player's points, great. If not, then the player should accept it and move on, and maybe discuss the issue after the game if he feels really strongly about it. But saying "no" is not automatically unfair or unfun.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 07, 2010 - 7:53AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Dec 23, 2009
|
Adjudicating the game in fair way should not include applying nerfs to things you find overpowered.
If the item is overpowered, the only ways I can think of to run a challenging game (and it's my impression that running a challenging game is something the GM is supposed to be doing) is to either:
1) Nerf the item so that the players are on an more equal footing.
2) Increase the strenth of the monsters to return the game to a challenge.
It's my experienced that one person at the table has less fun when #1 is used and 4 people at the table have less fun when #2 is used. And where that one person is concerned, I have to wonder, did they really need to find a way to break the game just to play the hero? The other four people did nothing to deserve getting pushed to the side other than sitting at the table with the player in question and the DM. If they get pushed aside because of a player who wants to break the game, eventually they won't come back.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 07, 2010 - 9:16AM
#20
|
|
|
As a LFR DM its not your role -- nor do you have the power -- to nerf powerful items because you don't like them. The 4.0 rules developers have that job. So, Bloodclaw pre-errata -- you might have thought it was broken (it was), but you couldn't make it an encounter power or lowered the damage it did. Thankfully, the 4.0 developers took care of it. Same thing with the Dice of Auspicious Fortune. You might not like them, but you can't tell a LFR player he can't use them. As far as increasing the strength of the monsters, I think DM empowerment is fairly limited, but if the table as a whole wants you to do it, then go ahead. Running a challenging game is secondary to trying to make sure everyone has fun. Plus, some power-gamed parties are almost impossible to challenge with most mods and many of them like cakewalking mods. Daren
[snipped my original quote]
If the item is overpowered, the only ways I can think of to run a challenging game (and it's my impression that running a challenging game is something the GM is supposed to be doing) is to either:
1) Nerf the item so that the players are on an more equal footing.
2) Increase the strenth of the monsters to return the game to a challenge.
[snip]
|
|
|
