Jackinthegreen
Explorer
So long as the inconsistency doesn't lead to absurdities in the game, I agree. Perhaps the DMG should then define what would likely be absurd and/or game-breaking relevant to how the designers have built the game?
Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)
- Thread starter cross ofth carpenter
- Start date
So long as the inconsistency doesn't lead to absurdities in the game, I agree. Perhaps the DMG should then define what would likely be absurd and/or game-breaking relevant to how the designers have built the game?
Ranes
Adventurer
To what end? Would you refuse to sit at a table until I had satisfied you with every possible PAO ruling? If I did, would you then cross that off your list and move to the next item, and so on, before our game could begin?
No thanks.
Dandu
First Post
There is no need to be so hostile. I am simply illustrating a point, that there are many spells in the PHB that require adjudication, and which can be interpreted in different ways, and as a player who enjoys playing spellcasters, I would be playing under different rules for each DM depending on how they interpret the spells. And the more ambiguous rules there are in the game, the more permutations can exist. (I assume you are familiar with basic probability theory.)
Your refusal raises an interesting question: What would you do if I was gaming under you and my character needed clarification on various rules that were poorly written? Would you provide them? Refuse to game with me for asking questions about rulings relevant to my character? Ignore the issue until it came up in game instead of resolving it ahead of time?
Last edited:
Manbearcat
Legend
This is precisely the issue I've been aiming at with much of my commentary. I'm quite sure that Dandu isn't an "entitled Wizard" player. However, if GM-force (in various vectors from adversarial setting presumptions to abatement via high frequency of questionable "fair play" rulings/adjudications) is consistently applied to his character's deployment of his stock suite of resources to resolve conflicts, and he responds with semi-consternation, it seems that labeling him "entitled" is the default. I don't find that fair at all. Worse than unfair, I just don't find it an accurate assessment of the situation when he is beholden to a deep variance of outcomes dependent on GM.
Ranes
Adventurer
I apologise if my disinterest in engaging you on a bulletin board about about issues you consider - and which I might agree - problematic or vague appeared hostile.
If you were gaming under me, in the first instance I would ask that you didn't; I prefer a chair. I would be happy to discuss my interpretations of rules you considered problematic or vague if you thought they would inhibit or influence your choice of class, race, skills, feats, games, spells, items and so forth. Preferably, we could attend to this before the game.
If you disagreed with any of my interpretations and gave me a reasonable alternative, I would accept it with thanks and made sure all the other players present were made aware of it. I doubt that we would reasonably cover off all the possible rulings because some situations - I'm sure you would agree - would serve to highlight concerns neither of us had considered beforehand. That's why we have GMs.
In the event of your disagreement with me during a game, if you could swiftly point out my error (and here for the sake of argument I'm assuming I am in error), I will correct my mistake there and then - rewinding time in the game if the error applies to that instant or otherwise compensating for it as soon as possible.
If my subsequent ruling fails to satisfy you, I will nevertheless proceed for the sake of the game not getting bogged down. I will, however, point out to you that I'm willing to seriously listen to and attempt to address your concerns, in good faith, after the session. If at that point, I feel I have erred to the disadvantage of any player in the group, I will seek to make suitable amends to all concerned thereafter. If we nevertheless end with an impasse in which we both feel that our ruling is the - shall we say - more correct, I would hope that you would nevertheless accept that I am attempting to rule fairly and that we can proceed on that basis. If we cannot see eye to eye at that point, it might be for the best if we shake hands on it and part company, at least as far as the game is concerned, and leave it at that.
I have never found myself in that situation and I hope I never do. I also hope this addresses your magnificently fluorescent question.
Given you gain 2 spells when you gain a level, it doesn't seem that hard to spell out major questions as you proceed to that level and are considering which spells to select.
Hero System is considered to suffer the opposite problem - 2 volumes of core rules in 6th Ed because more and more permutations, combinations and corner cases simply had to be addressed in the rules. And yet the FAQ continued to grow (and many questions are answered "talk to the GM"). Hero has been curtailed back to a single book with a genre/setting component, so we'll see how that works out.
[BTW, you can find me in the forward to both 6e and Champions Complete, though I lay no claim to the top notch standards of those publications, since we're citing vague credentials.]
One reason we need a GM is to interpret the rules because the rule books do not have infinite capacity to do so.
Hero System is considered to suffer the opposite problem - 2 volumes of core rules in 6th Ed because more and more permutations, combinations and corner cases simply had to be addressed in the rules. And yet the FAQ continued to grow (and many questions are answered "talk to the GM"). Hero has been curtailed back to a single book with a genre/setting component, so we'll see how that works out.
[BTW, you can find me in the forward to both 6e and Champions Complete, though I lay no claim to the top notch standards of those publications, since we're citing vague credentials.]
One reason we need a GM is to interpret the rules because the rule books do not have infinite capacity to do so.
Ahnehnois
First Post
In an odd development, I was playing instead of DMing this past week. I was playing a charismatic character, came upon a situation where I thought I should be able to talk my way out of a fight, but the DM decided not to roll the Diplomacy check and rule that the raging warrior in front of me wasn't interested in talking.
And even as a DM myself, I went with it without thinking twice, even though I disagreed and thought that my character's abilities should be used, because he was DMing and that's his business.
That's not force.
And even as a DM myself, I went with it without thinking twice, even though I disagreed and thought that my character's abilities should be used, because he was DMing and that's his business.
That's not force.
Last edited:
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
No, but it isn't indie. Is this whole thing because you consider force some kind of pejorative?
Ahnehnois
First Post
Pejorative and presumptive. "Force" implies an active deviation from the norm, some conscious choice by the DM to impose in some way. The stuff I was talking about (dozens of pages ago) is simply DMing. Calling balls and strikes. Since we're not here talking about an indie game, every DM interprets the rules, including things like when this example of when Diplomacy is engaged.
