|
6 months ago ::
Nov 24, 2012 - 8:14PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
While arguing is bad, players should still feel they can bring up their thoughts and discuss them. The key point is that it's a calm, rational approach, as opposed to "I'm right, do it my way or else."
Yes. x10000 yes. Arguing is bad but there's nothing wrong with disagreeing and discussing it. If EXTENSIVE discussion or strong disagreement/argument is involved, agree to drop it and move on, then pick up the debate after the game.
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 24, 2012 - 8:35PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Sure, you can rule any way you want at the table, and you can even shut down debates to save time, but you should under no circumstances have any idea that the DM can't be wrong.
The DM can indeed be wrong, and if the players do indeed correct the DM they shouldn't be dismissed.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 11:10PM
#13
|
|
|
No, it isn't. But, there are situations in game where the rule/s doesn't make a lot of sense. I'd rather go for a common sense solution in those cases, instead of a rule that breaks any suspension of disbelief. And thanks, by the way, for the superior attitude. In 33 years of playing this game, I never get tired of someone belittleing my view of the game.
....You realize you are playing a game where Pixies can bench press giants, right? The rules obviously made sense to the people who wrote them. "Common sense" goes out the window when you are dealing with an artificially constructed reality, of any kind, and frankly your players "common sense" is just as valid as yours is, since it is all imaginary, except he is probably at least obeying the rules.
Rule 0 was done away with in 4e. On purpose. Precisely because of the attitude you are displaying.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 25, 2012 - 11:48PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
DMs and players don't need a specific rules to tell them they can change rules. Any games rules are guidelines. If you and your players think a rule should work differently, you are free to change it up. Nobody will kick your door down and take your books away because you do. Its your game so you do whatever you want with it. We even change Monopoly's rules 
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 26, 2012 - 10:04AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I've got a major league rules lawyer in my group. We decided to put straight out in front of him the part of the books that says "These rules are guidelines" so that he gets the picture. The problem is, for some reason, we're not finding it. Can someone (even multiple someones) tell me what book and page that quote, or one close to it, appears on?
From the forum FAQ, if desired:
'Where is rule Zero? Rule zero (i.e. "the DM is always right") does not appear to exist in 4e. The D&D 3.5e DMG p.6 had: "you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game... you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook", but there is nothing similar in 4e. Instead, the 4e DMG seems to espouse a different paradigm. Examples: DMG p.12: "Being a referee means that the DM stands as a mediator between the rules and the players.", "Sometimes this role mediating the rules means that a DM has to enforce the rules on the players.", "Being the DM doesn’t mean you have to know all the rules. If a player tries something you don’t know how to adjudicate, ask the opinion of the players as a group.", DMG p.28: "As often as possible, take what the players give you and build on it.", DMG p.30 "You do not have to have a perfect mastery of the rules, and you should be open to at least some discussion of the right way to apply a rule in any situation.", "If you realize you made a mistake, admit it. If you don’t admit it, you’ll start to lose your players’ trust. Then, if you need to, make it up to the players.", DMG p.173: "You are your players' Litch", etc.'
4e is a very rules oriented version of D&D, so your rules lawyer has precedence for his expectations. Validate his feelings. That said, D&D is a social game, and if your group desires a more rules flexible play style, this is important. Just present it to him as a 'Table Rule' (DMG p.14) or 'House Rule' (DMG p.189) if need be. This manages your rules lawyer's expectations.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 27, 2012 - 2:39PM
#16
|
|
|
chaosfang - If you acknowledge not being rules adept, but know you have someone at the table who is, it's rather petty to follow the suggestions in the DM and your own houserule instead of accepting their ad-hoc ruling for the time being. If you're willing to have made the wrong call for a single session and look up the rule later, why wouldn't you go with the more often correct rules expert, other than selfish pride? It would be like reffing a game for Michael Jordan and then arguing with him about how many points a Free Throw was worth.
True that. In fact, whenever someone tries to correct me, I do ask them to confirm what page they're referring to because I always feel like I'm learning each time I DM, and I want to make sure that whatever rule they're pointing out is actually a rule. The post was directed primarily at Tulloch, as an attempt to compromise between his desire to say that the rules state that they're only guidelines and what the actual rules state on the matter.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 4:14PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Where is rule Zero? Rule zero (i.e. "the DM is always right") does not appear to exist in 4e. The D&D 3.5e DMG p.6 had: "you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game... you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook", but there is nothing similar in 4e. Instead, the 4e DMG seems to espouse a different paradigm.
FWIW There is also DMG p.189 who pretty much tell DMs its within their rights to change rules they disagree with.
DMG 189 Creating House Rules: The D&D rules cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns and play styles of every group. If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 6:48PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
FWIW There is also DMG p.189
My post referenced that with: "D&D is a social game, and if your group desires a more rules flexible play style, this is important. Just present it to him as a 'Table Rule' (DMG p.14) or 'House Rule' (DMG p.189) if need be. This manages your rules lawyer's expectations". However, 4e's house rule advice as presented is different from rule zero.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 7:39PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
How really different are these 2 advices telling DMs that they can change rules if they wish so ? you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook
If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 30, 2012 - 9:02PM
#20
|
|
|
Because a "houserule" is by definition an acknowledgment that you are ignoring the actual rules.
|
|
|
