Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5982791" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>I can't XP you, but "Amen!" to all of this!</p><p></p><p>Aaaand... here I disagree completely.</p><p></p><p>The DM bans things that seem "unreasonable" to whom? I can only assume this would be "unreasonable to the DM". So the game becomes "guess what the GM thinks is true or suck at whatever you try to do". I don't find this a good game, or even an engaging pastime.</p><p></p><p>Shy people don't <strong><em>need</em></strong> rules that don't tell them how the game world works "interpreted generously" - they need rules that actually tell them how the damn game actually works without extended discussions that they find self-exposing and uncomfortable. They (generally) prefer non-verbal communication channels - not no communication at all. The rules are a communication; they are supposed to share among all the players how the game (world) works. If "how the world works" is a secret held only by one individual until they (verbally) divulge it to the rest of the players, those that can second-guess what the 'one person' thinks or influence the 'one person's' decision making get an unbalanced advantage, however much the 'one person' might have bold intentions to the contrary.</p><p></p><p>I want the players in my game to have explicit aims! I want them to be active and not passive! If that aim can be achieved by maximising the potential of their characters and the in-game situation through an understanding of unambiguous and clear rules - great! If it gets to be done by having similar views to me on what is "unreasonable" or by blagging me with a touch o'the blarney - not so great.</p><p></p><p>My experience is that much "rules lawyering" arises because what the GM thinks is "unreasonable" (a) conflicts with what a player thinks is "reasonable" and/or (b) conflicts with the way a player has interpreted the (often ambiguous) rules. A lot can be done by recognising that neither the GM's nor the player's view of what is "unreasonable" is necessarily correct, for sure - but the whole issue can be best resolved by having rules that do not judge "right" or "wrong" but simply say "this is how <strong><em>this</em></strong> game-world works".</p><p></p><p>Can you have loosey-goosey rules to start with and rely on consistent rulings as play progresses? Sure; but a consistent ruling is nothing other than a rule. And if the players had been able to read and understand the rule in the first place, that is <em>de facto</em> better than having to find it out later at a potentially key moment, in my view.</p><p></p><p>I agree - the game is about creativity.</p><p></p><p>Maybe it's because I was originally trained as an engineer, though, that I value creativity used within the "laws of physics" of the game world infinitely higher than the "creativity" involved in persuading someone that some trick/idea/stretching of the rules is "cool" enough to get to "I win" without passing "Go" but still collecting 200 g.p...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5982791, member: 27160"] I can't XP you, but "Amen!" to all of this! Aaaand... here I disagree completely. The DM bans things that seem "unreasonable" to whom? I can only assume this would be "unreasonable to the DM". So the game becomes "guess what the GM thinks is true or suck at whatever you try to do". I don't find this a good game, or even an engaging pastime. Shy people don't [B][I]need[/I][/B] rules that don't tell them how the game world works "interpreted generously" - they need rules that actually tell them how the damn game actually works without extended discussions that they find self-exposing and uncomfortable. They (generally) prefer non-verbal communication channels - not no communication at all. The rules are a communication; they are supposed to share among all the players how the game (world) works. If "how the world works" is a secret held only by one individual until they (verbally) divulge it to the rest of the players, those that can second-guess what the 'one person' thinks or influence the 'one person's' decision making get an unbalanced advantage, however much the 'one person' might have bold intentions to the contrary. I want the players in my game to have explicit aims! I want them to be active and not passive! If that aim can be achieved by maximising the potential of their characters and the in-game situation through an understanding of unambiguous and clear rules - great! If it gets to be done by having similar views to me on what is "unreasonable" or by blagging me with a touch o'the blarney - not so great. My experience is that much "rules lawyering" arises because what the GM thinks is "unreasonable" (a) conflicts with what a player thinks is "reasonable" and/or (b) conflicts with the way a player has interpreted the (often ambiguous) rules. A lot can be done by recognising that neither the GM's nor the player's view of what is "unreasonable" is necessarily correct, for sure - but the whole issue can be best resolved by having rules that do not judge "right" or "wrong" but simply say "this is how [B][I]this[/I][/B] game-world works". Can you have loosey-goosey rules to start with and rely on consistent rulings as play progresses? Sure; but a consistent ruling is nothing other than a rule. And if the players had been able to read and understand the rule in the first place, that is [I]de facto[/I] better than having to find it out later at a potentially key moment, in my view. I agree - the game is about creativity. Maybe it's because I was originally trained as an engineer, though, that I value creativity used within the "laws of physics" of the game world infinitely higher than the "creativity" involved in persuading someone that some trick/idea/stretching of the rules is "cool" enough to get to "I win" without passing "Go" but still collecting 200 g.p... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Top