|
12 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 1:19AM
#31
|
|
|
I would answer the second question with your answer to the first one.
Taking a vow of silence is a player's decision that has foreseeable consequences in the rules as written. The DM can point to the rules and non-arbitrarily say, "This decision means you won't be able to cast spells. Are you sure you want to do this?" If you're saying that a good DM should work with the player to help him get his character concept to function in spite of the rules, then I fully and wholeheartedly agree with you. But that's outside the scope of this discussion of rule ambiguity. There is nothing ambiguous about the situation here.
Do you have to be capable of speech?
Yes.
Except the spell doesn't say you have to speak, capable or not. It is certainly implicated, yes, but it is not defined as such. That's the issue I have. If it is supposed to have a verbal component, give it the Verbal keyword, or something to that effect. I want the rules to be explicitly clear, and not tuck the actual mechanics away via implications in fluffy rules text. That's why rules-lawyering happens: the player and DM could potentially have different interpretations/understanding of the rules, and while the DM will likely always win the argument (being the final arbiter has its privileges...), that won't stop disagreements from happening.
First things first: in this iteration of the rules, at least, all spells have verbal components by default. It's in the general rules for spellcasting (page 23, under "Spell Components"). So on this particular point not even the most litigious rules lawyer has a case.
More generally, though... are you one of those guys who thought the "dead" condition needed to be clearly defined in 3e? Because if you are, I'm not sure we're ever going to see eye to eye on these sorts of issues. My position is that you write the rules to cover the obvious, but that there's no way you can anticipate everything, and it's better to encourage common sense interpretation than a "the rules don't say you can't" attitude (or a "the rules don't say you can" attitude, for that matter).
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 2:39AM
#32
|
|
|
Does the din of battle drown out your voice?
No, because that would be a jerk move on the DM's part.
What about a cleric who, flavor-wise, has taken a Vow of Silence?
He'd have to break it to cast the spell. (Or any spell, since the rules say they all have verbal components by default.)
I would answer the second question with your answer to the first one.
Isnt that like the player who wants to play a one armed fighter that still uses a two-handed sword?
Reminds me of the one-legged fighter in the arse kicking contest actually.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 4:23AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2008
|
So yeah, that part is definitely up for DM abuse, but yeah, that should be rare.
I don't play with DMs who would abuse a mechanic like that. So I see no reason at all to make it rare.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 4:24AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
Isnt that like the player who wants to play a one armed fighter that still uses a two-handed sword?
I did that actually, but only because the DM put me in a situation where I had to cut off my own arm. We argued about it a bit, but I already put feats into using two-handed weapons and I wasn't going to gimp myself just because he never thinks things through.
And I'd like to see keywords, because it really helps keep everything neat and organized and easy to understand.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 4:55AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2003
|
Does the din of battle drown out your voice?
No, because that would be a jerk move on the DM's part.
So yeah, that part is definitely up for DM abuse, but yeah, that should be rare.
Do you have to be capable of speech?
Yes.
Except the spell doesn't say you have to speak, capable or not. It is certainly implicated, yes, but it is not defined as such.
So having it stated right there in the general rules that all spells have a verbal componant isn't definition enough.
Gotcha.
You're one of those who has the answer but just doesn't like it....
It seems to me that your reply is being intentionally obtuse, and you're not actually taking everything he said into context. He was pointing out that the rule is buried in fluff text that rules have no business being in. The rules need to be very obvious and state din a clear fashion, not in some wordy Gygaxian prose.
There's another system that is bad about this - White Wolf (though I love their games). There are odd little rules spread throughout the core book that unless you read it cover to cover, word for word, memorizing every turn of phrase that you will miss, and guarenteed, you will miss some of them the first time through (Mage especially is horrible about this). Most of the time the missed rules were a big deal (like diminishing defense when dealing with multiple attackers) and heavily impacted gameplay.
The same could end up happening in 5e, and with D&D you need to have clear and well-defined rules. Flowery prose is not clear and well-defined. If something is implicated as Fox pointed out, that is not clear, and can be argued ad nauseum until the moon falls out of the sky with the cows riding it home.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 6:38AM
#36
|
|
|
I'll only chime in to say that I really like the voice and approach of how these rules are written. I hope that Wizards does not make them read more like a section of the zoning code or a computer program. I get it that those types of expressions exist to formulate clear definitions and resolve dispute. But this isn't a game of players versus DM, it is a game of players and DM working together to make a cool story. Rather than expecting the rules to somehow resolve dysfunctional group dynamics I hope they just give plenty of examples of how to resolve typical rules disputes effectively.
Maybe the footer of each page of the rule book should say:
"Players: Remember the DM is the final rules authority and may modify these rules to suit the story.
DMs: Remember that your job is to help the players have fun telling cool stories about their characters."
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 6:42AM
#37
|
|
|
I'll only chime in to say that I really like the voice and approach of how these rules are written. I hope that Wizards does not make them read more like a section of the zoning code or a computer program. I get it that those types of expressions exist to formulate clear definitions and resolve dispute. But this isn't a game of players versus DM, it is a game of players and DM working together to make a cool story. Rather than expecting the rules to somehow resolve dysfunctional group dynamics I hope they just give plenty of examples of how to resolve typical rules disputes effectively.
Maybe the footer of each page of the rule book should say:
"Players: Remember the DM is the final rules authority and may modify these rules to suit the story.
DMs: Remember that your job is to help the players have fun telling cool stories about their characters."
I AGREE!!!
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 6:58AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2009
|
I wasn't at the seminar but my DM was present.
Here are some impressions he gave me...
1. They are being very smart about how they build each component. They want plug and play like functionality. This reminded him of object oriented design (he's a programmer). So each component is far more independent of the rest of the system than it used to be. Thus adding or removing something causes less disruption.
I'm excited for 5e and a supporter, but have they addressed how deciding not to plug some things will work? For example, if a table decides they don't want to plug backgrounds or themes, how are those characters not just less powerful?
Maybe are they are less powerful. It really doesn't matter as long as everyone at the table is playing by the same rules.
The real truth behind D&D is that the DM always decides the difficulty of the game, not the build of the PC's. The DM looks at the composition of the party, determines the level of challenge he/she wants and builds an encounter accordingly. Scaling difficulty can be as simple as adding or dropping a monster here or there, or to use 4e terminology, increase or decrease the encounter level.
You could have a 5e party at level 3 playing with themes and backgrounds and the DM has to throw high difficulty encounters at them to challenge them. Play without themes and backgrounds and you throw low difficulty encounters at them to challenge them. At the end of the day, both parties will be challenged.
I'm not the least bit worried about this issue as long as everyone at the table is playing by the same rules. (ie- you can't have one player using themes and another one not using them)
Want to know more about the history of D&D, especially how to play older editions of the game? Check out Crazy Monkey's "Tour through the editions":
http://community.wizards.com/crazymonkey/go/forum/view/133793/225799/Asylum_Play-by-Post
The current edition is BECMI, the most popular form of Basic D&D and the adventure is the classic Red Box quest to kill Bargle the evil magic user. Check it out, learn about the games roots, and enjoy the story as it unfolds.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 7:11AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2009
|
But this isn't a game of players versus DM, it is a game of players and DM working together to make a cool story. Rather than expecting the rules to somehow resolve dysfunctional group dynamics I hope they just give plenty of examples of how to resolve typical rules disputes effectively.
I agree completely. I've been reading a lot of negativity towards the 5e playtest because of it's rules lite approach compared to 3e and 4e. A lot of people are saying that less rules mean more chance that the DM can be a jerk. I have to disagree on this. DM's can always be a jerk by simply putting the PC's into a situation where the rules will kill them.
Take climbing for example. I've been reading pages of rage over the fact that the climbing rules having been simplified in 5e compared to 4e. People are saying it gives too much power to the DM to decide if a player falls to their death or not and that the 4e rules put the power into the hands of the player. I think this is nonsense. A 4e DM still has the power to design a ridiculously difficult situation where all the climbing rules in the world aren't going to help you.
Jerk DM's will always find a way to abuse the players. Having complex rule sets is no defense, it only masks their nastiness with a veneer of explanation.
Rules don't eliminate dysfunctional groups. That can only be achieved through common sense, good dialogue between players and DM, and a group desire to ensure that everyone has fun.
This is why I think the 5e DMG and PHB both need to contain a lengthy section on this topic.
Want to know more about the history of D&D, especially how to play older editions of the game? Check out Crazy Monkey's "Tour through the editions":
http://community.wizards.com/crazymonkey/go/forum/view/133793/225799/Asylum_Play-by-Post
The current edition is BECMI, the most popular form of Basic D&D and the adventure is the classic Red Box quest to kill Bargle the evil magic user. Check it out, learn about the games roots, and enjoy the story as it unfolds.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 03, 2012 - 7:30AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2011
|
I'll only chime in to say that I really like the voice and approach of how these rules are written. I hope that Wizards does not make them read more like a section of the zoning code or a computer program. I get it that those types of expressions exist to formulate clear definitions and resolve dispute. But this isn't a game of players versus DM, it is a game of players and DM working together to make a cool story. Rather than expecting the rules to somehow resolve dysfunctional group dynamics I hope they just give plenty of examples of how to resolve typical rules disputes effectively.
Maybe the footer of each page of the rule book should say:
"Players: Remember the DM is the final rules authority and may modify these rules to suit the story.
DMs: Remember that your job is to help the players have fun telling cool stories about their characters."
I agree that rules can't solve dsyfuntional group dynamics, they are out of game problems in most cases. On the other hand, while I agree with your view of RPGs being players and DM telling cool stories about the PCs, this is not the only way for RPGs to be played.
I have played with quite a few who enjoyed DM VS PC games, as a contest of wits of sorts. I really didn't get their enjoyment of it, but it was for them the "true way to role play". Some people also like PC VS PC tension to diffenrent digrees. Some enjoy intense PC VS PC betrayal. Some are comfortable with only much less conflict to add more depth to the overall story, such as disagreements over NPC interrogation that end in a non violent agreement.
The main point I'm trying to make is that conflict does not always equal dsyfuntional group dynamics, some groups just like different types of conflict and in different degrees.
|
|
|
