|
3 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2009 - 8:22AM
#871
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
If it isn't singled out as an optional or variant rule, it is one that applied to me unless the DM actively denies it through the use of rule 0. When I alter my spells to look like what I want them to look like, I take them to the DM. At that point, HE CAN LET me keep it, or deny it, but he can't stop me from using that rule if he doesn't actively deny it.
True, but the idea here is that in 4E, the DM would be denying you by citing that he's the DM, and what he says goes. This may be a sentiment not shared by the group, and he may well find himself with less players than when he started. In 3.5, the DM can say "it's in the rules that I make these decisions, and I can let you describe them if you like. Frankly, that doesn't synch with the whole 'counterspell' thing, so I'm gonna say...nah."
Yes, I get that. I'm not trying to argue how the players will react from edition to edition. I'm only saying that since it's a rule, and not an optional rule, I can use it unless the DM actively asserts his right to "CAN LET" me.
Oh, neither Sam nor I are arguing that the DM must allow reflavoring in 3ed. Only that the DM has to actively deny the rule if he wants us not to do it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2009 - 8:23AM
#872
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
It is a rule that he can let me reflavor. Since it is a rule, not an optional rule, then I can come to him with flavor, without asking him first. At that point, he CAN LET me use it or not. I do not have to wait for him to tell me, "Okay, you can reflavor.", like would have to wait for him to come to me with say, the spell points OPTIONAL RULE.
The Dm should make all rolls at the table. The players describe their actions to the Dm and he makes a roll accordingly.
in another -two- subsections, it then says.
You can let the players make some rolls instead but don't let it get too out of hand.
Would you assume that Players make the rolls by default then?
Yep. That's why every game I've ever seen does this. I've never even heard of a DM making all of the rolls. The default is that the players roll for themselves. Sometimes the DM decides that some rolls should be made privately to keep the information of the die roll from the players.
No Max, it is a rule that says the DM Let your Reflavor. It does not say by default you can reflavor. There is a huge difference between the two.
However your interpretation contradicts in that case the rules. The Rules say that the Dm by default in this case does all the rolling. Unless he lets the players do otherwise. You are letting your perception of what is "common" contradict what is actually there.
Just because most Dms, and most players come to a general consensus on something does not make it, what it actually says.
In the case of the hypothetical rule I posted, the Dm is the one that does all of the rolling. The Dm can Let Players do some of the rolling instead however.
It's alot different than saying the players can make a given roll for an ability check or attack roll or what have you, unless the Dm says otherwise.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2009 - 8:24AM
#873
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
The fact that you seem hung up on this is also weird. Stop lumping me in with "people," too. Just because I disagree with you does not make me indistinguishable from anybody else who disagrees with you.
My last post didn't lump you in with "people". Care to quote where I did that?
RAW: Players are allowed to ask, and DMs are allowed to say no.
Weird, it's like this statement isn't tied to a specific edition. Almost like a DM could say no to reflavoring in 4e as well...
This has nothing to do with Rule 0; it is that specific entry in the DMG.
It's not. The rule is not an optional rule. Unless the DM states otherwise, players can use it.
If anything I say is wrong, clueless or spelt incorrectly, it is because, I am, in general, wrong, clueless and... Well, I'm usually spelt correctly.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2009 - 8:26AM
#874
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
The base rule says that the DM picks the effects. It goes on to say that the DM can also let players in on the game, if he wants. Now, the standard-rules interpretation makes it okay for a player to go up to a DM and say, "Hey, man. Are we allowed to reflavor our own stuff?" To which the DM will either reply in the negative or the affirmative. It does not state an imperative in which the DM MUST acquiesce to the players and allow them to reflavor their own spells.
Right. This differs from an optional rule like spell points or the spell rolls variant in that those rules are ones that the DM must choose to include in the game. The reflavor rule is already in the game and he much choose to deny it.
RAW: Players are allowed to ask, and DMs are allowed to say no. This has nothing to do with Rule 0; it is that specific entry in the DMG.
I will admit that it is not rule 0 to deny this rule, since the denial is built in. However, I don't have to ask him if I can reflavor. I can just reflavor and show him for approval or denial.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2009 - 8:26AM
#875
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2007
|
And he may well end up with less players as well.
As for reflavoring in 4th edition, I could cite any number of reasons other than "I'm the DM, what I say goes!"
More to the point, what you're citing up there for 3e, is basically, "The DM can choose to not let the players reflavor". Well guess what? That applies to 4e as well (as you pointed out). There can be explanations given in both instances, or not.
The fact is, Max and I are well aware that the DM can say we're not allowed to use the rule, but in that case he is actively deny us the use of the rule. Which sets up a house rule that says "You can't do X", and that's just as doable in 4e.
No, both you and max do not understand English very well it seems. You both do not seem to understand the specific verb can, should and might as well as the meaning of context.
The context is that the section is written to the DM. So the first part you have to overcome is that the part is written for everyone and not just the DM. In that context the "rule" is given in three parts that each is an override of the one proceeding it.
In this case there are three rules.
1. The DM should describe everything.
With this the context seems to be less of a rule and more of DM advice.
2. The DM can change the Flavor
With this "rule" it specifically is saying that the DM can override the default fluff and tell his own.
3. The DM can allow the players to describe the Spells
This section is telling the DM that he can override the previous two rules if he chooses to do so by handing it off to the players.
Nowhere in any of the above three rules in context of the section or the book as a whole does it describe the third option as anything more then a DM option.
In fact that is probably the best way to describe the "rule" itself, they are three DM options.
 Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2009 - 8:28AM
#876
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Yes, I get that. I'm not trying to argue how the players will react from edition to edition. I'm only saying that since it's a rule, and not an optional rule, I can use it unless the DM actively asserts his right to "CAN LET" me.
Oh, neither Sam nor I are arguing that the DM must allow reflavoring in 3ed. Only that the DM has to actively deny the rule if he wants us not to do it.
I can agree with that, but Sam seems convinced that there is nothing in that section that allows a DM to say no, that it all comes back to Rule 0. My point is that, while they may both have the same outcome, it is the RULES that determine how many people may utilize this outcome. The same rules-neutral DM could see the 4E PHB and say, "Oh, that's nifty. Players reflavor their spells. Unless they do something crazy, I'm not gonna mess with 'em." When looking at the 3.5 DMG, the same person might say, "Hrm, I reflavor the spells, but I can let the players do it, too. This makes me have to choose whether or not I should do it."
In either situation, the DM could deny reflavoring through use of Rule 0. Only in the second scenario would he be able to do it through a specific rule other than Rule 0.
The original core books said that this was our game too. It doesn't feel like that anymore.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2009 - 8:30AM
#877
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
No Max, it is a rule that says the DM Let your Reflavor. It does not say by default you can reflavor. There is a huge difference between the two.
My PHB tells me that I can make rolls in combat. My PHB tells me I get to roll for initiative. My PHB tells me that I make the rolls for skill checks. Nowhere does my PHB tell me that the DM must allow me to make those rolls. It tells me that I make the rolls for caster level checks, SR checks, etc. It tells me that I make all of the rolls.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2009 - 8:32AM
#878
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
I will admit that it is not rule 0 to deny this rule, since the denial is built in. However, I don't have to ask him if I can reflavor. I can just reflavor and show him for approval or denial.
True. I'm just operating within the rules that Sam is presenting; namely, that a player will see this and somehow automatically know that he is fully allowed to reflavor, tra-la-la-whoopsie-knickers. Most people, seeing this, will place the responsibility on the DM, and will ask permission first. Others, such as yourself, will do it automatically and leave it up to the DM whether or not to deny it. Both work just fine, and I am making no argument that either is forbidden. My argument is simply that one edition gives an additional, highly specific rule that a DM can deny something, while the other edition does not. Therefore, in the context of this debate (if it can be called such), one edition's reflavoring can only be denied through the DM's use of Rule 0, while the other edition's DM can point very clearly to a specific rule and say, "look here. This says I don't have to."
The original core books said that this was our game too. It doesn't feel like that anymore.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2009 - 8:33AM
#879
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2006
|
No, both you and max do not understand English very well it seems. You both do not seem to understand the specific verb can, should and might as well as the meaning of context.
The context is that the section is written to the DM. So the first part you have to overcome is that the part is written for everyone and not just the DM. In that context the "rule" is given in three parts that each is an override of the one proceeding it.
It doesn't matter who the rule is written to. It's a rule. Yes, it says the DM can disallow the rule, but that doesn't prove your point.
In this case there are three rules.
1. The DM should describe everything.
With this the context seems to be less of a rule and more of DM advice.
1. It never says that.
2. It's a rule, you can't suddenly claim "it's advice", and move the goalposts and expect to not be called on it.
2. The DM can change the Flavor
With this "rule" it specifically is saying that the DM can override the default fluff and tell his own.
That does not exclude the players from overriding the default fluff and telling their own.
3. The DM can allow the players to describe the Spells
This section is telling the DM that he can override the previous two rules if he chooses to do so by handing it off to the players.
No, you're still taking that line out of context.
Nowhere in any of the above three rules in context of the section or the book as a whole does it describe the third option as anything more then a DM option.
Well, nowhere in the book does the first option actually show up, but there you go.
In fact that is probably the best way to describe the "rule" itself, they are three DM options.
The only option the DM has is to actively deny me the use of the rule. In that case, fine, I won't be allowed to reflavor, but until the DM denies me that rule, I can - and will - reflavor. He can also stop me from certain refluffs, but permit others, as the section says.
So I could say, "Can my [SPELL] be [X]?", and he could say, "No, but it can be [Y]."
If anything I say is wrong, clueless or spelt incorrectly, it is because, I am, in general, wrong, clueless and... Well, I'm usually spelt correctly.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Dec 29, 2009 - 8:34AM
#880
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
However your interpretation contradicts in that case the rules. The Rules say that the Dm by default in this case does all the rolling. Unless he lets the players do otherwise. You are letting your perception of what is "common" contradict what is actually there.
No, it doesn't. The rules tell me that I make all of the rolls unless the DM decides to make some of them himself. Where is this rule that the DM rolls everything?
|
|
|
