He may, but the quote you cited is largely orthogonal to the issue Balesir raised.
Gygax is talking about fidelity to the spirit being superior to fidelity to the letter. No one with half a brain argues against that (though there are plenty of people on the internet demonstrating how it goes).
As a DM I'm expected to provide a "consistent" view of the game world to both the "character" and the "player". I do that by making "consistent" adjudications. If something was "green" when I ruled about it yesterday, it should be "green" when I rule about it today, unless there are "extenuating" circumstances that make it different. And I should be ready to explain those. When a new case comes on the scene I use the previous cases to "weigh" how I'm going to rule. I try to maintain whatever precedent I've already established.
When a new game comes on the scene, I don't go changing all the rules to fit "my view" of how they should work. I need to get used to the rules, and understand their basis before I go changing them. And I should change the rules with the full knowledge of the game group.
As a player I expect a "fair" and "consistent" DM. I expect that if a rule is going to be changed without my prior consent (not a known houserule) that I will have the opportunity to change my action. As the "character" I should have a fair understanding of how the "world" works, which the "rules" in some way provide. As a player I need to be able to make informed decisions. If I'm playing checkers and the opponent, after I've taken one of his tokens, tells me that I need to move my token as a knight in chess would, I'd expect that I can change my mind. The rules have changed, and it should not be a surprise. Players are not mind readers, and as a DM, I shouldn't expect them to be.
Balesir is discussing what are good solutions when the spirit and letter are in conflict, not whether they ever are. Gygax's solution is fine as a stop gap. You are running some game, and something comes up that is obviously in conflict with the spirit of the game. So you make a ruling. But outside that environment, and certainly once you talk about reasonable game design, it's a lousy option. If you've got a rule that is that much in conflict with the spirit, change the rule so that DMs will not need to fix it!
Correct, either the game needs to change the parameters of the particular rule (errata, second printing, faq, etc.), or the DM with the players have to come up with a reasonable alternative (houserule).
Part of the presentation problem with 4E is that very distinction. All that syrupy crap about saying yes all the time, with no discussions of the edge cases, is exactly against the spirit of what 4E is trying to do elsewhere in the ruleset.
I saw the "say yes" mentality as a better alternative to the, usually reactionary, "say no" option. The suggestion in the books was not "ALWAYS say yes". Oftentimes as DMs we want "our vision" of something to be the base. I've found that the "say yes" suggestion opens up many more doors. "Yes, and", as well as "Yes, but" are great additions to a DM's repertoire. "No, and", as well as "No, but" are still available too.
The whole idea of flexible, narrative mechanics is that you roll with it when it makes sense, establish what makes sense as it happens, and then build from there. (You might do a "reset" for a new campaign or such, but you'd have some consistency.)
Yep, and good consistency as well as flexibility is key. There has been more than one time that we've reversed a long standing house rule because we came to understand the underlying rule better, or we saw that the houserule was "fixing" a problem that didn't really exist in play.
That is, if someone otherwise happy running 4E who doesn't want the players to have any kind of narrative control, then said DM should ban CAGI and/or house rule it to work some other way. They should not allow it under some mistaken fidelity to the letter of 4E making power choice a player decision, but then effectively neuter that decision by arbitrarily imposing their vision of the power. If the spirit of the rules is important enough here to rule on, it's important enough to either ban the power or state the conditions that make it acceptable.
And that is part of the needed consistency. If, as a DM, I'm going to ban something, or make it work differently because of "my vision", then I need to make sure that the player that took the option is aware of the change, and is able to change his choice based on this "new" information. There should be very few surprises when the player is attempting something that their character is supposed to be able to do. They should have available at their disposal an "informed" decision making process.
-
