Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Thasmodious]

1e:

PC: I strike.....7 points of damage!
DM: You hear your sword strike with a clang against the gargoyle's stone hide, but sadly can see no sign of damage whatsoever.

3e:

PC: I strike.....7 points of damage!
DM: Sadly, the monster's damage resistance can take 10 points from the weapon you are using........

Yes. Very good. We've already covered that there are many legitimate reasons why damage could be reduced or ignored. "Cause I'm the DM" is not one of them. But by all means, keep amusing yourself with irrelevancies.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You are arguing something other people aren't. Final does not mean sole. No one has said the DM isn't final arbiter. What we are saying is it would be bad form for the DM to overrule a player with a reasonable explanation and to only account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences.

You are arguing something other people aren't. No one has said the DM should overrule a player with a reasonable explanation and to only account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences.

HOWEVER, insofar as the bigger picture is the province of the DM, rather than the players, the DM should keep the big picture in mind. Also, insofar as the DM must enjoy the game in order to run it well (or at all), he should not move so far from his preferences as to ruin the game for all.

Really?! Any game with action points, fate chips, or some other mechanic specifically designed to give players "veto" power.

Yup. No argument there.



RC

 

[Fifth Element]

PC: I strike.....7 points of damage!
DM: Sadly, the monster's damage resistance can take 10 points from the weapon you are using........

Aboslutely. If the monster's stat block says "cannot be knocked prone" or what have you (analagous to the damage reduction here), then he's simply applying the rules, not vetoing a rule.

 

[Thasmodious]

That is very simply and obviously false. A player can do N O T H I N G in the DM's world without the DM's leave. The player's persona does not exist in the DM's world except as the DM wills.

Oh come on. Now your just being facetious. I've lost any interest in continuing discussing this with you in particular.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes. Very good. We've already covered that there are many legitimate reasons why damage could be reduced or ignored. "Cause I'm the DM" is not one of them. But by all means, keep amusing yourself with irrelevancies.

I repeat: You are arguing something other people aren't. No one has said the DM should overrule a player with a reasonable explanation and to only account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences. No one has said "Cause I'm the DM" is a legitimate reason why damage should be reduced or ignored.

If that's your actual point, then AFAICT, no one disagrees with you.

HOWEVER, I do disagree with the assertation that anyone is, in fact, saying that DM overruling a player is ipso facto only taking into account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences, even if the player believes his explanation to be reasonable, or that reducing damage somehow ipso facto becomes "Cause I'm the DM".


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

You are arguing something other people aren't. No one has said the DM should overrule a player with a reasonable explanation and to only account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences.

Wait, so if the player proposes a reasonable explanation of how knocking a snake prone happens, the DM should allow it even if it makes no sense to him? Hasn't this proposition been rebutted in this thread? I thought it was you doing the rebutting, I could be wrong about that though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Aboslutely. If the monster's stat block says "cannot be knocked prone" or what have you (analagous to the damage reduction here), then he's simply applying the rules, not vetoing a rule.

Out of curiosity, how do you, as a player, know what the creature's stat block says? How do you know that it is not modified? Stat block modifications have existed since 1e or earlier.

Moreover, the rules state clearly in many instances that you roll the dice and apply the results. Yet, in your case, I know as a fact that you veto that on occasion because it doesn't produce the result you want. How do you explain the disconnect here?


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Any game with action points, fate chips...

I was going to mention those as things you might try -- but they really are not to the point.

You already have the Power, which is a 'rule' just as much as a "fate chip"!

In fact, it is the very specificity and limitation of Powers, the prohibition against using given abilities if one has not 'bought' them with game currency, that makes the game so appealing. What could be simpler than to toss all those persnickety rules and replace them with "DO ANYTHING" entitlements?

Of course, the actual fact in most games is that the referee does indeed retain the power to say, "You can't do that!" over any use of "fate points" or the like. In the remainder, why should there be a referee in the first place?

Again, if you want to play such a thoroughly different game then suit yourself. Complaining that D & D is not it seems a bit silly.

 

[Fifth Element]

In Savage Worlds, for example, the use of a fate chip (called bennies) actually rewrites the results of an already resolved damage roll. So the DM may state "you take 4 wounds from that." But the player can respond with "I spend a benny, make a soak roll, and... actually take no wounds!"

4E has something similar in immediate interrupts. Some of them are triggered when you are hit by an attack, and allow you to avoid damage or reduce damage or teleport or what have you. Not when you're attacked, mind you; you wait until you know whether you're hit or not before triggering the power. The DM says your character is hit by an attack, you say "no, actually my PC teleported out of the way just in the nick of time." This sort of thing is built into the system.


Oh, and I use my new power to speak for you wisely sir. Won't abuse it at all, not at all...

 

[Ariosto]

double post