Waibel's Rule of Interpretation (aka "How to Interpret the Rules")

The only CORRECT interpretation is the one I say!

The sooner the rest of the world gets that, the sooner we can all sit down and have fun...and end all fantasy rpg forum arguments everywhere.

heheheh.

[Seliousry though, nice chart. ]

 

[Hussar]

In response to [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION]'s point about players being able to know what is important or not, there is a very easy solution in this case. Use monsters that are appropriate for the terrain and that player has no cause to question their presence. Asking that DM's adhere to game canon isn't a hugely difficult thing is it?

If a player considers game canon important, is it reasonable for the player to question the DM on canon points?

((Note, I do get the irony here considering my example is a bad one. ))

 

[Cyberen]

I ve lost my SAN reading this thread. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] : are you seriously asking DMs to "adhere to D&D canon" ? After 20+ posts explaining (along with me !) why the Planescape Inquistion Squad hunting blasphemers to the Lady of Pain on these forums were a painful band of jerks ? Ouch. Are you seriously telling this totally inapropriate demand from a player to the DM to retcon an encounter because of some splat trivia should be met with nothing but happy steamrolling, when you have been advocating for 20+ posts (along with me !) that players demand are rarely self-serving and deserve consideration, for instance in the fairly benign cases of specifying a NPC has a beard or that there are crates in an alley waiting to be climbed upon ? Re ouch. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] : are you saying that you left a game because the kobold you spent so much effort to capture was not smart enough to conform to your plans ? Ouch. Maybe you should think harder about what it takes to be able to read a map (it is clearly something that we humans are capable of, after some training - why would a kobold red shirt be able to do the same ?), and see that any naturalistically-oriented DM has very good reasons to stat the kobold sentry, roll his INT, and play accordingly. Or maybe the DM was a jerk and derailed your plan purposefully. This is why having a DM screen is useful : in game events should not make you able to discern between these causes, so the players should assume the DM knows what he is doing.
Trust is earned by consent of the players, and can sometimes run thin. I also certainly agree that players and DM may have serious reasons to disagree, especially differing agendas... but it is impossible to DM without being at peace with the rules, so at the end of the day, I believe the rules have to make sense to the DM at least. Of course, the best way to make sense of anything is to discuss it...
TL;DR : having the rules making sense for the whole table is an ideal worth striving for.Having the rules making sense for the DM is an absolute requisite.

 

[pemerton]

pemerton: are you saying that you left a game because the kobold you spent so much effort to capture was not smart enough to conform to your plans ? Ouch. Maybe you should think harder about what it takes to be able to read a map (it is clearly something that we humans are capable of, after some training - why would a kobold red shirt be able to do the same ?), and see that any naturalistically-oriented DM has very good reasons to stat the kobold sentry, roll his INT, and play accordingly. Or maybe the DM was a jerk and derailed your plan purposefully. This is why having a DM screen is useful : in game events should not make you able to discern between these causes, so the players should assume the DM knows what he is doing.

I have never used a GM screen. I often have notes that I don't show the players, although as I get older I am more-and-more cavalier about letting them see my maps, and often in 4e I find the game is enhanced if they at least have an idea of the monster stats.

These days I do all my action-resolution rolling in the open.

In the case of the kobold, I didn't have to make any assumptions about what the GM was doing. I, and the other four players who walked with me, knew what he was doing: blocking our plan so that he would not have to deviate from the script of his adventure.

I don't need to reflect on what it takes to read a map; I have encountered people (in this and other countries) who cannot read maps. Likewise, I'm sure the world of kobolds includes those with limited intellects. But the default D&D kobold has average intelligence, and is therefore capable of explaining where his/her camp is located, or describing the nature of his/her fellows and leaders, etc. I would also suggest that the default D&D kobold can read a map, given the prevalence of maps (dungeon maps, treasure maps etc) as part of the game.

The GM had a choice as to how to have the captured kobold behave. He made the choice to block his players. He knew we were irritated at him blocking us - we weren't rude about it, but we didn't hide it either!

I've read at least one post in this thread saying that it's the GM's game, and players who don't like it should walk. (I can't remember who the poster was - maybe [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION]?) We didn't like it; the GM clearly regarded it as his game (he wasn't changing anything in his script to reflect the interests or desires of his players); and so we walked. I don't understand what reason you think I and my fellow players had to waste our time playing a silly game under a railroading GM when I am perfectly capable of running a decent game for them - and went on to do so.

I assume that you are not arguing that bad and inflexible GMs are owed some sort of moral duty of participation by the prospective players of the world.

(As I already indicated, we invited the GM in question to join our new game as a player - so we discharged our social duty as club members, and didn't just leave him stranded with nothing to do on his club evenings. He declined, and found new players. Win-win.)

 

[Sacrosanct]

TL;DR : having the rules making sense for the whole table is an ideal worth striving for.Having the rules making sense for the DM is an absolute requisite.

Which is what I was getting at in my often replied quote about the chart being for the DM, since the DM is the only one who needs to know the rules. I wasn't saying that it's a bad thing for players to know the rules. Seriously, what's up with this assumption that unless I explicitly include something as a good thing, I'm endorsing it as a bad thing? It means that the only person at the table required to know the rules is the DM.

And I'll note, if you think players are also required to know all the rules, how do you expect the game to grow with new players? I'm sure there are some out there, but I've never encountered a single player who wanted to learn all of the rules before playing. Screw that. The rules are a ton of pages. I'll also add that if you only want to play with players who know all the rules, you're missing out. IMO anyway. Ever DM a group of newbies? The stuff they come up with is awesomesauce. They aren't shackled by any preconceived notions of what their PCs can or can't do because they think of the game in the context of a box of rules. About 2 years ago I DM'd a group of 12 year olds (my son and his friends) who never played before. It was one of the best sessions ever, because they tried everything and came up with some really creative ideas.

 

[pemerton]

Which is what I was getting at in my often replied quote about the chart being for the DM, since the DM is the only one who needs to know the rules.

<snip>

And I'll note, if you think players are also required to know all the rules, how do you expect the game to grow with new players?

Why do you move from "knowing the rules" to "knowing all the rules"? No one at my 4e table knows all the rules. I don't know the rules for many of the players' PC build elements; I rely on the players to handle those. The players don't know the rules for measuring encounter difficulty - at least, not in detail. They rely on me to handle those.

Ever DM a group of newbies? The stuff they come up with is awesomesauce. They aren't shackled by any preconceived notions of what their PCs can or can't do because they think of the game in the context of a box of rules. About 2 years ago I DM'd a group of 12 year olds (my son and his friends) who never played before. It was one of the best sessions ever, because they tried everything and came up with some really creative ideas.

What rules did you use to adjudicate what they tried? What did you tell them about how you were doing that adjudication?

 

[Hussar]

I ve lost my SAN reading this thread. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] : are you seriously asking DMs to "adhere to D&D canon" ? After 20+ posts explaining (along with me !) why the Planescape Inquistion Squad hunting blasphemers to the Lady of Pain on these forums were a painful band of jerks ? Ouch. Are you seriously telling this totally inapropriate demand from a player to the DM to retcon an encounter because of some splat trivia should be met with nothing but happy steamrolling, when you have been advocating for 20+ posts (along with me !) that players demand are rarely self-serving and deserve consideration, for instance in the fairly benign cases of specifying a NPC has a beard or that there are crates in an alley waiting to be climbed upon ? Re ouch. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] : are you saying that you left a game because the kobold you spent so much effort to capture was not smart enough to conform to your plans ? Ouch. Maybe you should think harder about what it takes to be able to read a map (it is clearly something that we humans are capable of, after some training - why would a kobold red shirt be able to do the same ?), and see that any naturalistically-oriented DM has very good reasons to stat the kobold sentry, roll his INT, and play accordingly. Or maybe the DM was a jerk and derailed your plan purposefully. This is why having a DM screen is useful : in game events should not make you able to discern between these causes, so the players should assume the DM knows what he is doing.
Trust is earned by consent of the players, and can sometimes run thin. I also certainly agree that players and DM may have serious reasons to disagree, especially differing agendas... but it is impossible to DM without being at peace with the rules, so at the end of the day, I believe the rules have to make sense to the DM at least. Of course, the best way to make sense of anything is to discuss it...
TL;DR : having the rules making sense for the whole table is an ideal worth striving for.Having the rules making sense for the DM is an absolute requisite.

No, that's not what I asked.

I asked, "Is it reasonable for a player to question the DM on canon points"? Note, I didn't say that the DM must follow the player. I didn't say that any and all player requests must be absolutely adhered to.

What I asked is, if a player considers D&D canon important (whatever that canon is - maybe it's alignment restrictions for paladins, maybe it's planar stuff, maybe it's setting canon - Forgotten Realms does have several thousand pages of setting canon after all, someone has to think it's important), is it reasonable for a player to question (not demand, not be a PITA, not explode, not break social conventions or social contracts at the table, simply question the DM) the DM's changes to that canon?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Edit: Clarification to the below.

Having seen Hussar's latest post, defining questioning as not arguing, being a PITA, throwing a tantrum, etc... Okay, yes. If it's just an issue of, "Hey, doesn't [monster X] live in the desert?" then yes, I'm okay with that. As long as they're okay with an answer of "Not in this campaign."

But anything that goes beyond that triggers all of what I've said below.

Asking that DM's adhere to game canon isn't a hugely difficult thing is it?

Yes. Yes, it is. Because there's no such thing. There's setting canon. But everything in the core game that isn't mechanical--the personality traits of dwarves, the culture/government options of society, where certain monsters live--are starting point suggestions.

(And frankly, setting cannon and game core mechanics aren't binding, either, though in those cases, the DM should make it clear from the start that he's changing a lot of things.)

One of the primary responsibilities, and primary joys, of DMing is world-building and setting design. I consider it, frankly, unreasonable and unrealistic for a player to expect a DM to abide by any of that unless the campaign was described, from the word go, as adhering strictly to written canon. If a player doesn't like it, he's welcome to politely leave the game. And obviously, if a whole group doesn't like it, the DM can either change or can lose the group.

But yes, I do consider it unreasonable for a player to expect/demand that a DM go by exactly what's written in the flavor text. And I have to say, until this thread, it never even occurred to me that a rational player would strongly object to something like having a monster outside its favorite terrain. Obviously it happens, or this thread wouldn't exist, but I'm honestly taken aback. I've never, in 31 years of gaming, encountered it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

edit TL/DR: if you have a huge base of players, or players that always play no matter what, or players who always agree with your point of view you can do what ever you want... however if your player base is important that you want to keep them, and you all have different points of view, it is very much in the DMs best intrest to listen to the players and find a compromise that makes you all happy...

Edit: Clarification to the below.

Having seen Hussar's latest post, defining questioning as not arguing, being a PITA, throwing a tantrum, etc... Okay, yes. If it's just an issue of, "Hey, doesn't [monster X] live in the desert?" then yes, I'm okay with that. As long as they're okay with an answer of "Not in this campaign."

yea, not in this campaign is both a good and a bad answer...

1st, I love your work Mousefeatu, and hate being on a different side then you. I respecet a lot of your work and time in this community, and I hope what I have to say is taken knowing I do respect you even if I am about to disagree with you...

Yes. Yes, it is. Because there's no such thing. There's setting canon. But everything in the core game that isn't mechanical--the personality traits of dwarves, the culture/government options of society, where certain monsters live--are starting point suggestions.

(And frankly, setting cannon and game core mechanics aren't binding, either, though in those cases, the DM should make it clear from the start that he's changing a lot of things.)

the problem is what constitutes "a lot of things"

But yes, I do consider it unreasonable for a player to expect/demand that a DM go by exactly what's written in the flavor text. And I have to say, until this thread, it never even occurred to me that a rational player would strongly object to something like having a monster outside its favorite terrain. Obviously it happens, or this thread wouldn't exist, but I'm honestly taken aback. I've never, in 31 years of gaming, encountered it.

the closest I have ever encountered is when I throw dragons around willy nilly (Why yes my red dragon lives at the north pole) and even that lead to more eaised eyebrows then voices...

however there is a threashold for everyone, and I don't know why that player had his... so instead I will state ones I ran into.


1) If you are going to run a superhero game set in one of the two major comic book universes (DC and Marvel) you don't want me in your game... I will be miserable and so will you. I have tried a few times and "Not in this campaign." or similar wears thin after a while... Example: I expect that if we are in the DCU that Lois and CLark are world famus reporters. I expect that flash, green lantern, aquaman, and wonder woman are house hold names. being told that when I ask for a "Daily Planet" news paper that the DM would rather have it be the new York times rips me out of the story right away. Being told no one has ever heard of Green Lantern makes me ask "Wait, why?" Being told that there is no such thing as the speed force and that my character can't tap it as a orign leaves me kinda confused. If you wanted a world with no super history, why not make your own why set it in the DCU?
Same thing with Marvel, why run in a Marvel univers with no avenger mansion, no xaviar school, no genoshia, no mutants...

When I run a super hero game I start off with either it being my own universe, or an exsisting one, but if I say "DCU" I try to atleast keep the majority of the game that... the issues come up when someone really loves x part of that universe... and I don't

[sblock=both right]I ran a game in a future (batman beyond) world based half on the cartoons and half on the comics... it left a lot of open to interpretations stuff... I called it Titan's Beyond... and I got into an argument with a player game 1.

my game started in NYC and I described the old Titan tower sitting abandoned... and the first words out of his mouth where "Then we are in California not New York" now this was before any of us had smart phones (if they were a thing yet?) so this minor disagree ment got side lined but the next week we both had proof of our geek cred... me with an old issue right after zero hour and him with one right after graduation day... so I guess there are two titan towers. [/sblock]

2) Forgotten realms... I have discussed my failed FR games many times, I wont go through the whole thing again (inless you guys really want to hear it). the long and short of it is the opposite of the comic book one. I as the DM do not know enough about the FR cannon to make the game enjoyable to someone who is a hard core follower of the setting... if you want me to run a FR like campaign I can, but I didn't read more then a few novels, and only the core campaign guids (mostly skimmed) so I can't name all the chosen of the gods, or where they are, so no I can't run FR that way.

3) Dark sun... the odd ball. Know I have 30 years of comic history in my geek head, and almost nothing about Forgotten realms, but I only know the basic of Dark Sun, but some how I seem to know more then some DMs... and enough to make me have to now ask "How much do you know about the setting" before I can play. I already in this thread was told I threw a tantrum because I could not connect with this world once... but out of 7 experiences with the world (well 5 really, 1 was a spell jammer/planescape world jump thing and 1 was a 1 shot) 3 different DMs I had 2 that made me ask as above "Why are you calling this dark sun?"
a) the encounter with kobolds (by lore exctint, I only know this because they are my fav monster for low levels) then a gnome illusinist (my issue was the class but another player said gnomes got whipped out too I didn't even know that) that was not persurver or defiler... just illusionist. then the DM said he didn't track food and water just assume everyone has enough... I hit my head on the table. How can I be expected to make a darksun character and then be told everything I know about dark sun is wrong...
b) less sever, but still jarring was a guy who decided in darksun to have a flood... then tell us about his dragons that caused it (Not dragon kings, not the dragon, but normal D&D dragons).


this is why homebrew is far easier... everything you know comes from the DM, when you get info from books, or movies or just interpratations things get mangled...

now "Not in this campaign." works great, until it doesn't... when it hits the player threshold and ripps them out of the game and effects there enjoyment, it becomes an issue. Now you say "Or walk" (and lets be honest some people make that sound like your the villain for walking) but there is a lot of issues with that too.

people try to accept (most people yes there are jerks too) things the DM says. That is where my whole trust currency idea comes from... things build up.

I didn't say anything to the Dark Sun DM who started us in a very un darksun way (a caravan that doesn't work in the setting) but maybe I should have... if we had talked then at the begging we would both understand each other more... instead I went with it... then I should have asked more about the kobolds... but in game my character could not know they were whipped out long ago, so I went with it... I did make a big deal in game (but not out of game) about the gnome illusionist, but the DM thought I was weird in game... the final thing the whoel (DOn't worr there is plenty of water in the dessert world) made me hit my head on the table, and that triggered another player to start the out of game discussion... whitch ended up ending his game when 3 of the 4 players left (I was the only one left I didn't even leave then)

to explain, he was a new DM and picked darksun up then basicly just followed the DMG without thinking about adapting to the setting... he doesn't play with us anymore (this was many years ago) but my understandin last I knew he had a GURPS game running in another state, so he still roleplays

 

[Ranes]

In my home-brew campaign setting, I reworked the MM goblin. Instead of making the goblins good riders (with racial ride skill bonuses) à la the MM, my subterranean dwelling goblins were good climbers, enabling them to move with greater alacrity up, down and along stalactites, stalagmites, the balconies and bridges of dwarven ruins and so forth. There were other differences, too, that made them suited to their subterranean domain. Every facility I gave them was matched by something I took away, so they were no more or less of a challenge than their MM-dwelling counterparts. They were simply different.

Four of my five players were old hands at D&D. Two of them had been playing (on and off) since 1e. I did not tell the players in advance that I'd used the various monster-building guidelines and rules in the MM and DMG to create my goblins. I just sprung them on the party (when they were first level, at that). So, is this messing with 'D&D canon' (which, if indeed there were such a thing, we know just from this thread, would be subject to change with every edition)? If so, should I have forewarned the players of this deviation from official monster listings? Should I explain to players before introducing a new creature to the game how that creature works? If I don't, am I not diverging from 'canon'?

What does a first level PC know about 'canon', by the way?

 

[Mouseferatu]

If a DM says "We're playing in the DCU," then sure, it makes sense that you'd be taken out of the world if you find out there's no such person as Clark Kent.

But if a DM says "We're playing in an alternate version of the DCU that I've heavily modified," then... Well, then anything goes, frankly.

You say "'Not in this campaign' works until it doesn't." I say that, as long as it's not sprung on people--as long as the DM's made it clear in advance that this is his own version--then it was the player's choice to play in a modified "canon" at the beginning, and objecting to that later is inappropriate.

As far as having players to choose from... "No game" is better than "bad game." If my only options are "a game I won't enjoy" or "I can't game for a while," I'll go with the latter every time.

(As a brief aside, people keep saying "Well, we don't know why Hussar's player objected to the forest manticore, so we can't judge." I don't agree, because so far as I can tell, there is no good reason. It's not like my arachnophobia example, where there's a real-world emotional connection. It's not like he'd somehow based his entire character concept on the idea that manticores lived only in the desert. I cannot, for the life of me, think of any good reason, or even any adequate reason, for the complaint. "It says so in the book" is the only justification we've gotten, or that I can come up with. If Hussar wishes to chime in with a different theory, since he's the only one who knows the guy, I'll listen--but I would bet real money that it won't be a reason most of us would find compelling. And if it's not, if it's just a kneejerk "But it's not that way in the book!"... Well, I've already mentioned that I consider monster placement to fall into the "bare minimum" threshold of DM trust I'll offer, or accept, in a game.)