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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Do You Use Your RPG Rules as Written?
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="Mercule" data-source="post: 7377356" data-attributes="member: 5100"><p>No. What I'm saying is that there is the potential for rulings that are just mechanically better than they should be. The +1/+2 for higher ground is a somewhat contrived example. I do think it's appropriate for tactically-minded players to look for things like higher ground to give them advantages. But... if turns into a situation where all the PCs and NPCs make a mad dash for the tables, leaving cover and/or taking on opportunity attacks, then there's something not right.</p><p></p><p>Now, I don't know that a +2 for higher ground would actually cause that sort of weird ripple effect. As I said, it's a somewhat contrived example. The point is that, it's something I'd consider if a player wanted to do something not covered by the rules, but that sounded reasonable.</p><p></p><p>Really, though, you calling out the idea of tweaking the bonus as unreasonable is <u>exactly</u> the sort of thing that would cause me to stop working with a player to have their character do cool things. I'm more than willing to look at a player suggestion and say, "Yeah, that does sound like something that would grant an advantage, so let's try it." But, if it turns into an unreasonable advantage, then the player needs to be willing to work with me, as well. If the "try it out" only works in the player's favor, then it's not a matter of the DM being unreasonable. It's the player being uncooperative.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Never said you did. In trying to explain the sort of game I enjoy, I realized that I could be taken as dissing those folks who leaned to the tactical and "old school" dungeon delves (my wife happens to be one of those). The pure "kill things and take stuff" would be the extreme example of that, so I just clarified that I wasn't throwing shade that way.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, if the GM were a complete flake, I'd hate it, too. Maybe the key point that has us talking past us is that I nail the ruling the vast majority of the time. If the rule is in the book, I'd prefer to follow it unless I have good reason not to (which shouldn't be whimsical). I also have a darn good memory for rules and am, typically, the guy everyone hands the rules to to digest and explain for everyone because I'm the one most likely to get them all right the first time and remember them.</p><p></p><p>I'm at a point in my life, though, where I have a lot more going on than just gaming. My youngest kid is now the age I was when I learned to play D&D. My oldest is heading off to college. I've got a 40+ hour a week job that requires me to do to tech what I used to do for games. Remembering whether higher ground gives a +1 or +2 bonus has a slightly different priority than it did 25 years ago. It definitely doesn't have the priority to stop the game for 10 minutes to confirm that I was right, when we only play for 4 hours every-other week instead of 10-12 hours every week -- and I'm 80% confident that I'm right and 99% confident that a mistake isn't going to kill a PC. We can look it up after the game. Or, if it's a rule that doesn't exist and I have to make a call, we can tweak it if it even ever comes up again. For something that does end up becoming a regular thing, I would definitely want to be consistent and have it written down.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, I had a case in 3.5 where a player made a stink because he tried something and I made a different ruling than I had three years earlier, under 3.0, when he was playing a different character, in a different setting, and we were all coming back to D&D after a few years with WoD. I honestly couldn't even remember the event, let alone the ruling or whether there were other factors at work. While it would have been nice to get it exactly the same, I don't feel particularly bad in giving a +1 vs. a +2 modifier for something that came up, literally, twice in eight(ish) years of play. Heck, I'm not even sure the player was right in his recollection. So... that's the sort of inconsistency I'm talking about. Not week-to-week variance or not bothering with learning the rules, just being willing to be "close enough" for things that are uncommon and confirm/revisit them later, rather than being OCD about things.</p><p></p><p>For the whole "higher ground" thing, that's just an example of there being no rule in the book and it's OK to play test rulings before committing them to stone. By objecting to refining house rules (rulings) based on experience in play, you're really just saying that the GM should either not work with the players by working outside the lines of RAW or that the GM should always make the least favorable ruling his players will let him get away with because God help him if he's ever too generous and has to walk it back.</p><p></p><p>FWIW, my most recent "walk it back" was in PotA, where I'd been so easy on stealth when combined with temorsense (spoilers) that the rogue was able to set the party up in such a way that they pretty much made it through the Water temple without the cultists having a chance to get an attack off, even when they had to open heavy stone doors. Everyone agreed that the combo was just too good and the players would have felt cheated if I'd used it on them, but it took a bit to figure out how to get all the rules (stealth, initiative, tremorsense, etc.) could interact correctly without removing the clear RAW of each or totally nerfing tremorsense or stealth. I made the initial ruling to favor the players (when in doubt, do that), but the remaining Earth cult would have eaten them alive, if it'd been applied consistently. So, we refined it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 7377356, member: 5100"] No. What I'm saying is that there is the potential for rulings that are just mechanically better than they should be. The +1/+2 for higher ground is a somewhat contrived example. I do think it's appropriate for tactically-minded players to look for things like higher ground to give them advantages. But... if turns into a situation where all the PCs and NPCs make a mad dash for the tables, leaving cover and/or taking on opportunity attacks, then there's something not right. Now, I don't know that a +2 for higher ground would actually cause that sort of weird ripple effect. As I said, it's a somewhat contrived example. The point is that, it's something I'd consider if a player wanted to do something not covered by the rules, but that sounded reasonable. Really, though, you calling out the idea of tweaking the bonus as unreasonable is [U]exactly[/U] the sort of thing that would cause me to stop working with a player to have their character do cool things. I'm more than willing to look at a player suggestion and say, "Yeah, that does sound like something that would grant an advantage, so let's try it." But, if it turns into an unreasonable advantage, then the player needs to be willing to work with me, as well. If the "try it out" only works in the player's favor, then it's not a matter of the DM being unreasonable. It's the player being uncooperative. Never said you did. In trying to explain the sort of game I enjoy, I realized that I could be taken as dissing those folks who leaned to the tactical and "old school" dungeon delves (my wife happens to be one of those). The pure "kill things and take stuff" would be the extreme example of that, so I just clarified that I wasn't throwing shade that way. Oh, if the GM were a complete flake, I'd hate it, too. Maybe the key point that has us talking past us is that I nail the ruling the vast majority of the time. If the rule is in the book, I'd prefer to follow it unless I have good reason not to (which shouldn't be whimsical). I also have a darn good memory for rules and am, typically, the guy everyone hands the rules to to digest and explain for everyone because I'm the one most likely to get them all right the first time and remember them. I'm at a point in my life, though, where I have a lot more going on than just gaming. My youngest kid is now the age I was when I learned to play D&D. My oldest is heading off to college. I've got a 40+ hour a week job that requires me to do to tech what I used to do for games. Remembering whether higher ground gives a +1 or +2 bonus has a slightly different priority than it did 25 years ago. It definitely doesn't have the priority to stop the game for 10 minutes to confirm that I was right, when we only play for 4 hours every-other week instead of 10-12 hours every week -- and I'm 80% confident that I'm right and 99% confident that a mistake isn't going to kill a PC. We can look it up after the game. Or, if it's a rule that doesn't exist and I have to make a call, we can tweak it if it even ever comes up again. For something that does end up becoming a regular thing, I would definitely want to be consistent and have it written down. On the other hand, I had a case in 3.5 where a player made a stink because he tried something and I made a different ruling than I had three years earlier, under 3.0, when he was playing a different character, in a different setting, and we were all coming back to D&D after a few years with WoD. I honestly couldn't even remember the event, let alone the ruling or whether there were other factors at work. While it would have been nice to get it exactly the same, I don't feel particularly bad in giving a +1 vs. a +2 modifier for something that came up, literally, twice in eight(ish) years of play. Heck, I'm not even sure the player was right in his recollection. So... that's the sort of inconsistency I'm talking about. Not week-to-week variance or not bothering with learning the rules, just being willing to be "close enough" for things that are uncommon and confirm/revisit them later, rather than being OCD about things. For the whole "higher ground" thing, that's just an example of there being no rule in the book and it's OK to play test rulings before committing them to stone. By objecting to refining house rules (rulings) based on experience in play, you're really just saying that the GM should either not work with the players by working outside the lines of RAW or that the GM should always make the least favorable ruling his players will let him get away with because God help him if he's ever too generous and has to walk it back. FWIW, my most recent "walk it back" was in PotA, where I'd been so easy on stealth when combined with temorsense (spoilers) that the rogue was able to set the party up in such a way that they pretty much made it through the Water temple without the cultists having a chance to get an attack off, even when they had to open heavy stone doors. Everyone agreed that the combo was just too good and the players would have felt cheated if I'd used it on them, but it took a bit to figure out how to get all the rules (stealth, initiative, tremorsense, etc.) could interact correctly without removing the clear RAW of each or totally nerfing tremorsense or stealth. I made the initial ruling to favor the players (when in doubt, do that), but the remaining Earth cult would have eaten them alive, if it'd been applied consistently. So, we refined it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Do You Use Your RPG Rules as Written?
Top