Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Fifth Element]

that was the scenario - can you punch a snake prone, and not one person provided a useful explanation. All I got was "you're unfair" or "that's not how you should play" or"you can pick up a snake" or "use the flat end of your weapon" or "why does it have to be a punch"

Someone may have used "punch" at some time, but the term most often used (and the technical term in 4E) is "knocked prone", which does not specify the type of attack that caused the prone position.

 

[chaochou]

The GM's power comes from the same source as the players' power -- they can walk.

This has been touched on, but I think it deserves more consideration.

I don't think power at the table comes from the ability to quit the game. It comes from the social contract of the people at the table.

If you say that the power in the game comes from a threat of walking, well, that's a horrible mess. Because then, presumably, it also comes from a threat of not giving someone a lift home, or not sharing the beer or pizza. That's not cool.

And if I actually walk from a game I no longer have any power in that game. So what my walking represents is an admission that the 'rules' can not enforce a structure of authority and that any such structure is voluntarily.

Once it's agreed that the structure of authority is voluntary, well then it's a case of agreeing one. We can agree that the GM has the final say on rules or rulings. Or we can agree that a decision requires complete concensus. Or a simple majority. Or the flip of a coin.

We choose that structure as part of the social contract before we play. And I'd assert that such a choice may be informed by, but cannot be enforced or governed by, the rules. The social contract is self-governing, beyond the reach of the rulebook.

What I think the dreaded snake example has demonstrated is a certain incoherence in the design of 4e. I may be assuming that my prone power is giving me narrative rights as a player. You may be assuming that GM fiat is explicitly allowed in all cases. What we have is a mismatch of social contracts, and no debating over 'the rules' or citations of 'the rulebook' is going to solve it.

The problem was caused by the rules, but the solution is not within the rules.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oh, for crying out loud. Wear an iron gauntlet (or be good at hitting) and hit it in the back of or on the top of the head when it coils and its hood starts to expand. Sending it face down into the dirt. But apparently there are no circumstances ever when you would allow a punch to knock a snake prone...

And have you ever played 4e or any Indy game with narrative rather than simulationist mechanics? In Wushu you gain a bonus to dodge if you dodge through a hail of bullets rather than just stay put.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This thread seems like it is in danger of spiralling into complaints by people with radically different (yet equally valid) playstyles. I don' t know how useful it will be from here on in, as the original question seems long gone - however, I'll be OK with leaving it open for a while longer.

We are starting to see reported posts from this thread though, and I'd rather close the thread than start taking action against individuals.

Anyway, try to avoid getting involved in personal confrontations. There are no 'wrong' people here that you have to 'correct' (xkcd: Duty Calls).

Thanks

 

[TheUltramark]

Oh, for crying out loud. Wear an iron gauntlet (or be good at hitting) and hit it in the back of or on the top of the head when it coils and its hood starts to expand. Sending it face down into the dirt. But apparently there are no circumstances ever when you would allow a punch to knock a snake prone...

And have you ever played 4e or any Indy game with narrative rather than simulationist mechanics? In Wushu you gain a bonus to dodge if you dodge through a hail of bullets rather than just stay put.

i am the one crying out loud
now you want to include and iron gauntlet and a block....sure, whatever.

let me turn this into a game-time scenario the way everyone seems to be arguing it.

player: I punch the snake
dm: ...uh....ok....why?
player: I want to knock it prone
dm: I'm gonna say that a punch can't knock a snake prone
player: but it says so on my sheet
dm: can you come up with any way possible?
player: I pick it up and throw it down.
dm: well, first then, roll to see if you grab it
player: no, I said punch it
dm: then if you hit the snake will not be prone
player: I lift it up with end of my sword
dm: that's a different attack too, I won't give you sword damage
player: I said I punch the snake???? are you stupid????
dm: I'm sorry but your punch will NOT affect the snake in that way
player: what if I put on an iron gauntlet and hit the snake when it raises up
dm: so you ready an action?
player : are you deaf??? I said I punch the snake

-------
like I said before
bat-crap

 

[Thasmodious]

that was the scenario - can you punch a snake prone, and not one person provided a useful explanation. All I got was "you're unfair" or "that's not how you should play" or"you can pick up a snake" or "use the flat end of your weapon" or "why does it have to be a punch"

Whose scenario? The original scenario that spawned this was a slam attack on a hydra. If it was just some scenario you made up, clearly the punch has not been the focus of the discussion.

if a player says I want to grab the "monster A" by the neck, do you then have the player roll to grab? of course you do. If the attack is successful, the player doesn't get to roll sword damage, does he? of course not.

This is a completely invalid example. I also wouldn't let a player initiate a grapple and then polymorph the creature he grappled. This is silly and has nothing to do with what is being discussed. The scenario was never "I'm going to punch and if I hit, the snake will be prone". A punch leads to punching damage. A 4e power that does damage and applies the prone condition is something else entirely. Powers are specifically not bound to the brief, example flavor text that describes the action.

The words the player uses to describe his action define what he does.

Only if they are game terms. If a player says he is going to grapple, he grapples. But a powers flavor text is just that, flavor. If you start punishing players for misspeaking during dramatic description, they'll simply stop doing it. The power isn't defined by its flavor or its title, but by it's effects and any means of delivering those effects is valid, imo. I certainly don't want players describing every power in the same way every single use. I want it be varied, fun, dynamic and to fit the fiction of the moment. Heck, we've been flavoring our spellcasting since the 80s, adding character flourishes, different visuals, etc.

 

[Thasmodious]

player: I punch the snake
dm: ...uh....ok....why?
player: I want to knock it prone
dm: I'm gonna say that a punch can't knock a snake prone
player: but it says so on my sheet
dm: can you come up with any way possible?
player: I pick it up and throw it down.
dm: well, first then, roll to see if you grab it
player: no, I said punch it
dm: then if you hit the snake will not be prone
player: I lift it up with end of my sword
dm: that's a different attack too, I won't give you sword damage
player: I said I punch the snake???? are you stupid????
dm: I'm sorry but your punch will NOT affect the snake in that way
player: what if I put on an iron gauntlet and hit the snake when it raises up
dm: so you ready an action?
player : are you deaf??? I said I punch the snake

Of course this is bat crap, you made it up to be bat crap. This is a straw man scenario. No one, but you, has envisioned a scenario where they claim a punch attack will prone a snake. This entire discussion has been about the use of 4e powers, not the punch mechanic.

 

[TheUltramark]

--

This is a completely invalid example. I also wouldn't let a player initiate a grapple and then polymorph the creature he grappled. This is silly and has nothing to do with what is being discussed. The scenario was never "I'm going to punch and if I hit, the snake will be prone". A punch leads to punching damage. A 4e power that does damage and applies the prone condition is something else entirely. Powers are specifically not bound to the brief, example flavor text that describes the action.

I don't think I understand this at all...if you are using your fist as the weapon, and your power knocks something prone, that means your punch knocks the thing prone, right?

Only if they are game terms. If a player says he is going to grapple, he grapples. But a powers flavor text is just that, flavor. If you start punishing players for misspeaking during dramatic description, they'll simply stop doing it. The power isn't defined by its flavor or its title, but by it's effects and any means of delivering those effects is valid, imo. I certainly don't want players describing every power in the same way every single use. I want it be varied, fun, dynamic and to fit the fiction of the moment. Heck, we've been flavoring our spellcasting since the 80s, adding character flourishes, different visuals, etc.

This is EXACTLY what I am arguing FOR!
When a player tries something unusual, he had better have more than "it says so on my sheet" - I've said that at least a dozen times so far. As far as "punishing players for misspeaking" thats far from how I operate, I am all for letting players do what they want to do, but it has to fit some semblance of structure. There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't think that'll work like that, but what can we come up with instead that will get that done"

I've also said that plenty of times a dm (be it me or someone else) can be swayed by the players. I have been wrong tons of times, and what I thought was the right call was so opposed by the players who gave valid points as to why it was wrong, that I have changed my rulings. Not only that, but if a player wants to do some impossible trick, and i can't come up with the right check or roll off the top of my head, I'll ask the table, and we'll take 2 minutes to hash it out in a way that leaves everyone happy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think power at the table comes from the ability to quit the game. It comes from the social contract of the people at the table.

No matter how you slice it, though, at the end the social contract is enforced by the simple fact that each person decides to be there, or not, under the given conditions.

This is not to say that you spend your game days threatening each other to not play next time, or to not give someone a lift home, or to not share the beer or pizza. In fact, seldom have I ever seen such a thing occur, and on the few occasions when it was so, "There's the door" has been the response. And I do not mean, "Unless you change your mind, there's the door" either. I mean, having progressed so far, you have made your decision.

The social contract at the table exists, primarily, so that you can all get together and play without acrimony. So that you can have fun. The social contract is not the source of the power, it is the settlement that allows you to ignore the source of power during actual play.

Or, as you put it,

Once it's agreed that the structure of authority is voluntary, well then it's a case of agreeing one. We can agree that the GM has the final say on rules or rulings. Or we can agree that a decision requires complete concensus. Or a simple majority. Or the flip of a coin.​

And whatever social contract you decide upon is fine. But I disagree that it is self-governing -- it is governed by the willingness of the people at the table to continue with, and abide by, that contract.

What I think the dreaded snake example has demonstrated is a certain incoherence in the design of 4e.

The problem was caused by the rules, but the solution is not within the rules.

In both these instances, we agree. But, in both cases, I would say that these are not limited to 4e, or to D&D.


RC

 

[Rel]

that was the scenario - can you punch a snake prone, and not one person provided a useful explanation. All I got was "you're unfair" or "that's not how you should play" or"you can pick up a snake" or "use the flat end of your weapon" or "why does it have to be a punch"

from your post, I would ask the following question:

if a player says I want to grab the "monster A" by the neck, do you then have the player roll to grab? of course you do. If the attack is successful, the player doesn't get to roll sword damage, does he? of course not. The words the player uses to describe his action define what he does. I appreciate your 80's video game reference, and your attempt to fill me in on 2e rules and nuances, it was quite enjoyable and a good chuckle is always nice, but my limited thinking probably got in the way.

Are we even talking about a 4e power that knocks a foe prone at this point? If the player has a power called, "Prone Punch" that says that they do unarmed attack damage AND knock the foe Prone then that doesn't mean the execution must be described as a punch.

If the player says, "I want to use Prone Punch on the snake." and your reply is, "I cannot envision a way to punch a snake in such a way as to make it prone." then that strikes me as rules lawyering the player by the GM. The player could justly respond, "Well I don't feel that my PC must punch the snake per se. Maybe I'll grab him and twist him, causing my normal Unarmed Attack damage and it'll take a moment for the snake to get itself untwisted and ready to attack, reflecting the Prone condition."