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
Summon Greater Demon, Arcane Focus and blood of a humanoid killed in the last 24 hours
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="jgsugden" data-source="post: 9070076" data-attributes="member: 2629"><p>Not aimed at anyone specific, but in response to several opinions stated on this thread: Interpretation is a thing. When you believe you have the only correct interpretation and that is the only way to go, but there is a discussion surrounding the interpretation, you would be well served to consider the practicalities of your approach and tweak your view to be more inclusive.</p><p></p><p>If you're the DM and you set your interpretation as <em>the</em> rule, but you have players that see it another way, the players may not be getting the experience they would enjoy the most. </p><p></p><p>As a DM, I tend to look at the rules with the question of whether the interpretation the players are requesting is reasonable. If so, I look for ways that implement it that do not cause forseeable problems. </p><p></p><p>My usual approach ends up being a bit of a cheat: I tell them that what they think isn't how the spell/situation generally operates, but I allow them to make a roll to try to make it work that way in this situation. Some players decline and tell me that if it isn't the way, that is fine with them. Others make the roll and live by the results. Still, others either resist the roll, or make the roll and complain if it goes against them. I was never going to please the people that complained in the end - but the people that accepted the general rule without a roll are just as well off and the people that made the roll and lived by the result feel like they had a chance - and know the general rule for the future. Further, some small number of them feel like they got to do something special, which is a good feeling. </p><p></p><p>However, as a DM, sometimes the interpretation the players offer creates problems. It may be inconsistencies, or it may be broken and far too powerful. Whatever the problems, I raise them to the players and offer to discuss it. Similar to the roll discussed above, players respond to the discussion differently, but more players feel heard when you talk it through. You may have to stick with the hard ruling, but it comes off better to the players when they see you wish you could accomodate their view rather than them seeing you laying down the law.</p><p></p><p>As for those players that are coming at it as they're unsatisfied unless they get their way ... As a player, if you think you have the only reasonable interpretation and the DM disagrees ... well ... it all comes down to the type of DM you have. I have seen conflicts arise where players and DMs get mean over a ruling. I've seen it kill friendships. I've also seen it kill a game when the players throw their hands up and feel like the DM is railroading them (whether the DM is being reasonable or unreasonable). This results in players disengaging, and that is a huge game killer. If you have a DM like I describe above, however, the DM might work with you and navigate the situation ... but honestly, DMs that operate that way are fairly uncommon - which is the reason I make the suggestions above for both DMs and players - to take the path less taken. </p><p></p><p>Even if you and the DM agree on the one interpretation and another player disagrees: Telling that player they are wrong to think as they do can be a negative experience for that player and result in disengagement.</p><p></p><p>Generally speaking, the majority of negative responses revolve around someone digging in their heels. I advocate for looking at whether there is a reasonable way to interpret things as the other person has, and if so to treat it as another valid option and work out how to decide between the valid options. It works well for me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 9070076, member: 2629"] Not aimed at anyone specific, but in response to several opinions stated on this thread: Interpretation is a thing. When you believe you have the only correct interpretation and that is the only way to go, but there is a discussion surrounding the interpretation, you would be well served to consider the practicalities of your approach and tweak your view to be more inclusive. If you're the DM and you set your interpretation as [I]the[/I] rule, but you have players that see it another way, the players may not be getting the experience they would enjoy the most. As a DM, I tend to look at the rules with the question of whether the interpretation the players are requesting is reasonable. If so, I look for ways that implement it that do not cause forseeable problems. My usual approach ends up being a bit of a cheat: I tell them that what they think isn't how the spell/situation generally operates, but I allow them to make a roll to try to make it work that way in this situation. Some players decline and tell me that if it isn't the way, that is fine with them. Others make the roll and live by the results. Still, others either resist the roll, or make the roll and complain if it goes against them. I was never going to please the people that complained in the end - but the people that accepted the general rule without a roll are just as well off and the people that made the roll and lived by the result feel like they had a chance - and know the general rule for the future. Further, some small number of them feel like they got to do something special, which is a good feeling. However, as a DM, sometimes the interpretation the players offer creates problems. It may be inconsistencies, or it may be broken and far too powerful. Whatever the problems, I raise them to the players and offer to discuss it. Similar to the roll discussed above, players respond to the discussion differently, but more players feel heard when you talk it through. You may have to stick with the hard ruling, but it comes off better to the players when they see you wish you could accomodate their view rather than them seeing you laying down the law. As for those players that are coming at it as they're unsatisfied unless they get their way ... As a player, if you think you have the only reasonable interpretation and the DM disagrees ... well ... it all comes down to the type of DM you have. I have seen conflicts arise where players and DMs get mean over a ruling. I've seen it kill friendships. I've also seen it kill a game when the players throw their hands up and feel like the DM is railroading them (whether the DM is being reasonable or unreasonable). This results in players disengaging, and that is a huge game killer. If you have a DM like I describe above, however, the DM might work with you and navigate the situation ... but honestly, DMs that operate that way are fairly uncommon - which is the reason I make the suggestions above for both DMs and players - to take the path less taken. Even if you and the DM agree on the one interpretation and another player disagrees: Telling that player they are wrong to think as they do can be a negative experience for that player and result in disengagement. Generally speaking, the majority of negative responses revolve around someone digging in their heels. I advocate for looking at whether there is a reasonable way to interpret things as the other person has, and if so to treat it as another valid option and work out how to decide between the valid options. It works well for me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Summon Greater Demon, Arcane Focus and blood of a humanoid killed in the last 24 hours
Top