Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Fifth Element]

Actually, that is quite easily done by the simple expedient of declaring impossible whatever the rules do not stipulate.

While true, this is not relevant to the discussion at hand. No edition of D&D has ever done this. They've all said something along the lines of "if the players want to try something not covered by the rules, you're going to have to improvise."

That is, one might notice, logically implied in the "down with the DM's discretion, up with rigid interpretation of the rules" position.

Flatly untrue. I'm saying that if someone is explicitly covered by the rules, the DM's role as arbiter is rarely, if ever, needed to be applied. There are enough cases where the DM will have to be arbiter (ie, the many things not covered by the rules), that questions of "if you can knock a snake prone, who needs a DM at all?" are specious.

 

[Fifth Element]

Not when the player is stubbornly insisting that he can reach the troll despite the DM's statement to the contrary.

To bring it back to an equivalence of the dreaded snake example, let's say you're using a battlemat in your 4E game and your PC is standing adjacent to the troll. You roll an attack because, according to the rules, you can reach the target. Can the DM say "nope, you're only using a dagger and there's no way you could reach the troll, you're standing five feet away from it"?

That's akin to disallowing the proneness of the snake. Rules say one thing, DM can't imagine it that way and therefore overrules the rules.

 

[Ariosto]

To bring it back to an equivalence of the dreaded snake example, let's say you're using a battlemat in your 4E game and your PC is standing adjacent to the troll. You roll an attack because, according to the rules, you can reach the target. Can the DM say "nope, you're only using a dagger and there's no way you could reach the troll, you're standing five feet away from it"?

That's akin to disallowing the proneness of the snake. Rules say one thing, DM can't imagine it that way and therefore overrules the rules.

I do not think so. I do not expect that we shall see 23 pages of debate on that question!

However, if you are for some reason unable to get closer than 60 inches or to extend the blade tip more than 42 inches, then indeed you are out of luck. Maybe you can throw the dagger.

 

[Ariosto]

4e PHB

p. 277: "PRONE...You're lying on the ground."

p. 288: "When you are prone, you can crawl."

p. 292: "If you've been knocked prone, you need to take a move action to get back on your feet."

It looks to me as if prone is a snake's default condition. Has it any feet to get back on?

There may well be a counter-argument on the same basis of reference to rules and reality. Certainly there is (and I have presented) a counter-argument that this is the wrong basis in 4e.

However, I do not think there is warrant for the "obviously we are objectively right and those who disagree with us are objectively wrong in their ruling" attitude.

At any rate, what is objectively true is that we have no legal right (at least in the U.S.A.) to hold Dungeon Masters in involuntary servitude, nor they to keep us in bondage as players. Each must choose for himself with whom he will associate in either capacity.

 

[Fifth Element]

4e PHB

p. 277: "PRONE...You're lying on the ground."

p. 288: "When you are prone, you can crawl."

p. 292: "If you've been knocked prone, you need to take a move action to get back on your feet."

It looks to me as if prone is a snake's default condition. Has it any feet to get back on?

Since the PHB includes no player races that lack feet, there's no reason to put such a thing in the PHB. The "you" in these descriptions, after all, applies to player characters.

 

[the Jester]

DMing has a big job description and, imo, a part of that is a certain level of sacrifice to his own preferences to create a game that is fun for all based on the group dynamics. A player likes what he likes. If he is a powergamer type, he wants to be awesome, a role-player wants to roleplay. The DM can indulge himself here and there but he pushes aside the preferences of his players at his own risk. A big part of DMing, imo, is finding a balance where the players get to indulge their preferences without the DM sacrificing all of his. He's the one with the responsibility to sacrifice, though. If he can't live with that, he shouldn't get behind the screen. GMing has a broad enough scope that you can play to the players and still find your fun, even if it isn't your optimal preference.

Not only no, but HELL NO. The dm puts in the vast majority of the work for any given game. He is responsible for his fun first. Selecting the right players is key- but a dm should absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him.

 

[Ariosto]

Since the PHB includes no player races that lack feet, there's no reason to put such a thing in the PHB.

Should we presume, then, that you rule the text not to be in the PHB?

It is really not at all clear to me what point you are trying to make.

 

[Thasmodious]

"The argument that a snake being knocking prone is UNreasonable has been soundly, objectively defeated" only if you accept the evidence given.

Well, of course, but when that evidence is real world snake behavior, it would be foolish not to.

And, if you accepted the conclusion before the evidence......Well. Of course you conclude that it is soundly, objectively defeated.

While that is not what I am saying, most of the time, at the table that is exactly what would happen. I don't spend playtime worrying about how much "sense" it makes to apply this condition to this monster. If it doesn't have an immunity, that is what happens because those are the rules we're using and its just a combat, which is not the focus of the game.

I don't expect a "gamer utopia", but neither do I believe that GMing is "a big, largely thankless, job and bears most of the burden for making a good game that is engaging to 3-5+ completely different personalities". I have certainly been thanked. I've been thanked a lot over the years. I've had former players from over 20 years ago look me up through the Internet to thank me....to tell me that they are continuing campaign milieus I created.....and to ask me for advice.

Who else bears the bulk of the responsibility for making a fun game? Player 3? I explicitly stated the players bear some, but the burden falls on the DM. It's not a big job? Or are you solely objecting to the largely thankless part? I said largely, not entirely.

I run games I enjoy running. I run games that I would enjoy playing in.

FWIW, I think my system works fine. I run the best game I can, and that requires running a game I enjoy, in a manner that I enjoy, with people whose company I enjoy, and who also enjoy the game as it is run. There is no shortage of such people, so it's winning all around IME.

But do you tailor your game to the particular players at the table or do you run a game where the player in seat #1 is irrelevant. It could Bob or it could be number 3 on the waiting list?

I don't do that. I tailor my games to the players I have. One of my players is a powergamer, he loves being awesome. He is happy when he gets to do cool things. I make sure he has the opportunity to do that (big fan of pg. 42, that one, though I don't think he knows about pg. 42, I've certainly never told him). Another is a casual player who enjoys getting into the game, but you have to directly coax him into the game. I've gotten quite good at doing that in stark contrast to the other fella who DMs for our group, who has not. Another player really wants the characters quirks, and his characters are always quirky, to really play up in the game. When I make sure they do, he is quite rewarded.

I'm not saying you don't do this, but it's not in your list. My players like indulging their favorite things. If you run a game where the game play doesn't change based on the players involved, they would be less happy in your game than they are in mine. Maybe it's just a personality quirk of mine that I place my players fun above my own. It would be more accurate, though, to say, I find my fun in theirs.

 

[TheUltramark]

after sitting on the bench for 5 pages, I'm tagging back in
I find it ironic that some folks disagreed with me, but then argue there points in such a way that backs up everything i have said. Let be perfectly clear on several points here.

1st- All of the following "rules" are home-brewed and I don't begrudge anyone for not finding them to their liking.

2nd- at our table no player has even uttered the phrase "I knock the snake prone" and if one did, it would cause a serious break in flow as evreyone tried to catch their breath from laughing so hard.

3rd - the DM has final say on ALL issues, but every dm at our table - including me - often yields to the players if they come up with even a half way plausible explanation for the whacky, seemingly impossible stupid human tricks they attempt.

4th - at no point during a battle does a dm "OWE" the players an explination of why something did or did not happen. If a clue is present, then that clue needs be explained, but giving away the punchline because the player whines about the unfairness of the ruling is no way to run a game in my "humble" opinion

5th - You can pull up nature channel videos, cite zoological papers, even do an actual demonstration, I will NEVER say it is possible for a punch to knock a snake prone. Stop trying to sell me on it, stop insulting me, stop trying to make your case about flipping and grabbing and states of being and all that, and just hear me....you cannot knock a snake prone using a thrusted fist whilst you game at a table I dm on. period.

 

[Fifth Element]

Should we presume, then, that you rule the text

No, just that text in the PHB cannot be considered definitive with respect to all creatures in the game. What does the DMG or MM say, for example? I'd look it up but I don't have my books with me.