|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 3:06PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...Just post 260. (Ok, I lied. The LFR-relevant aspects continued for the next however-many pages) Is the expectation of the campaign management that DMs are actually expected to be rules arbiters, even if the rules question is complex, unintuitive, and dramatically favoring the PCs? Or are the DMs expected to be allowed to make rulings in situations where they have doubt?
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 4:28PM
#2
|
|
|
No LFR DM I have ever played with are rules arbiters, they all make rulings, especially when it pertains to things like Lightning Rush, Death From Two Sides, BB damage rolls, etc. When I say no DM, I mean ones that at even somewhat invested in the game (ignoring DMs that only do it from time to time)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 4:29PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
No doubt unsurprisingly I am firmly on the side of "make a ruling where the rules interpretation is unclear" (that ruling of course being generally aimed at the "fun" of the table ).
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 4:34PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
Lets expand that to something (other than the topic linked, cause ... yeesh) that's not unclear. Say: something that's a blatent infinite loop.
Say (as far as I know, this does NOT exist) "Whever the target takes damage, you can make a melee basic attack against it with a +8 bonus to hit"
Is it valid for the DM to say "No, the MBA can't trigger the effect to give you another MBA. Why? Because I said so"?
Edit: I would rather strongly say that it should be valid for the DM in that situation.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 4:56PM
#5
|
|
|
I've never had that occur, most DM interpretation is
1. Things are REALLY REALLY REAAALLLY cheesy
2. They're timing issues.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 5:00PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
""because I said so" is probably not the best way to argue it, but when accompanied by a reasonable explanation I would say absolutely.
I just see no way to have an endless loop be a good thing for the play experience and that is what a DM is protecting.
On the other hand if a table insisted this be handled in a pure RAW fashion is where it gets interesting.. I would still say its a valid call to make, but maybe just handing the players their XP and lewt would be the smarter play at that point.
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 5:05PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
Lets expand that to something (other than the topic linked, cause ... yeesh) that's not unclear. Say: something that's a blatent infinite loop.
Say (as far as I know, this does NOT exist) "Whever the target takes damage, you can make a melee basic attack against it with a +8 bonus to hit"
Is it valid for the DM to say "No, the MBA can't trigger the effect to give you another MBA. Why? Because I said so"?
In general, how some players read the rules literally to gain an advantage doesn't mean I need to agree with how they parsed the English language. Particularly when they're using context when convenient, but not when it isn't. I'm not going to get into it at a table other than to say that I don't agree with how they're reading the rules and that they need to not use it that way.
Also, the fun of the table is paramount over the fun of any one individual player - I personally don't sit down at a table to watch a PC singlehandedly wipe out the mod, either as a player, player of that specific PC, or as DM.
Pretending that there was such an option, as a DM, I'd talk with the player first about how they need to tone it down for the fun of the table and if they're unwilling to do that, then I'll need to make rulings to compensate. In all my years of playing living campaigns, when a DM has made that kind of ruling, one of two things happen:
The player accepts the ruling.
The player angrily leaves the table
Either way, I've never seen the rest of the table be unhappy about either of those options unless they're trying similar things and are friends of the player in question. And I'm saying that mostly as a player as my home group doesn't generally do such things.
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 6:35PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2005
|
For the most part I rule in favor for the spirit of the game, BUT when those RULZ NAZIs show up, I start seeing blood gentlemen. Ive seen them all. they'll even hijack your game as a DM if your not careful. Now if a dm is just being a douche to gimp a player or make it difficult for whatever reason I may question at first, then afterwards ask about the ruling where we all can argue and hash it out. But never during the game time alloted for the session. Sometimes reasoning and logic gets nerfed or becomes irrelevent because of a Fantasy setting. Story tellers always play the "It's fantasy" card to back their ruling.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 3:58AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2004
|
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Just post 260.
(Ok, I lied. The LFR-relevant aspects continued for the next however-many pages)
Is the expectation of the campaign management that DMs are actually expected to be rules arbiters, even if the rules question is complex, unintuitive, and dramatically favoring the PCs? Or are the DMs expected to be allowed to make rulings in situations where they have doubt?
The expectation of an LFR DM is pretty much the same as the the expectation of any other DM. All DMs are arbiters of the rules, whether in Organized Play or in a home game. The way D&D is structured, the role of the DM is to provide the framework of the shared narrative and interpret how the game's given rules work.
That said, it is also expected that the DM follow the rules framework provided by WotC through the rule books, and not obviously stray from them. But lack of clarity exists.
Unfortunately, in LFR, the DM lacks the authority of a home game DM to outright disallow the use of seemingly overpowered character options.They are, however, allowed to ask nicely in the interest of the group's enjoyment of the adventure 
John du Bois
Living Forgotten Realms Writing Director, Netheril story area
Follow me on The Twitter: @JohnduBois
Follow my presence on The Intertubes: johncdubois.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 4:36AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2004
|
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Just post 260.
(Ok, I lied. The LFR-relevant aspects continued for the next however-many pages)
Is the expectation of the campaign management that DMs are actually expected to be rules arbiters, even if the rules question is complex, unintuitive, and dramatically favoring the PCs? Or are the DMs expected to be allowed to make rulings in situations where they have doubt?
The expectation of an LFR DM is pretty much the same as the the expectation of any other DM. All DMs are arbiters of the rules, whether in Organized Play or in a home game. The way D&D is structured, the role of the DM is to provide the framework of the shared narrative and interpret how the game's given rules work.
That said, it is also expected that the DM follow the rules framework provided by WotC through the rule books, and not obviously stray from them. But lack of clarity exists.
Unfortunately, in LFR, the DM lacks the authority of a home game DM to outright disallow the use of seemingly overpowered character options.They are, however, allowed to ask nicely in the interest of the group's enjoyment of the adventure
An addendum: that thread (and many forum posters in general) refer to the "rules as written" as though the rules are simple commands that were written on stone tablets at the Temple of the Near Moon by Selune herself. They're not. Even the "rules as written" perspective is an interpretation of the rules, using certain assumed definitions of English words and interpreting the intent of the designers to be that a certain set of written rules is both all-inclusive and all-exclusive (e.g. That the rules on the page are all necessary and that no other content or input is necessary). That's also an interpretation of the rules, no matter how much someone may try to convince you that it's "the rules" and everything else is a derivative interpretation.
Also, given how much we argue about the meaning, interpretation, and application of the real-life rules that *were* written on stone tablets (not to gpol political here, but in the US, many who refer to themselves as religious have interpreted "you shall not kill" to exclude criminals and certain foreigners), we should expect that with more complicated rules systems, there will be discussion and disagreement about what a certain rule means or should be interpreted as. Part of the DM's role is to ensure that such discussions are asides to the game, not a significant portion of gameplay time.
John du Bois
Living Forgotten Realms Writing Director, Netheril story area
Follow me on The Twitter: @JohnduBois
Follow my presence on The Intertubes: johncdubois.wordpress.com
|
|
|
