While technically true, it doesn't change the fact that such rule inconsistency is a not a good way to run a game.
D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans
- Thread starter ManBagel
- Start date
While technically true, it doesn't change the fact that such rule inconsistency is a not a good way to run a game.
FlyingChihuahua
Hero
What you see as "potential rule inconsistency" I see as "wanted to know how to exploit the system."
Arial Black
Adventurer
Of course referees can cheat! Have you never heard of a referee accepting bribes to-and I use this term advisedly-cheat?
FlyingChihuahua
Hero
I think we're about to enter a realm of causality here, because I'd say the people paying the refs off are the people cheating.
Then you address the problem rule in session 0 and let players know the change.
If the problem was unknown until the occurrence came up - I favor ruling in favor of the player and after the session addressing the problem.
Have to say though, if you see players trying to "exploit the system" around every corner - it will become a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.
Fanaelialae
Legend
The DM changing the rules isn't an example of cheating. The rules explicitly state that the DM is allowed to change the rules. Hence, the DM changing the rules is not an instance of the DM cheating but rather the DM exercising the authority granted to them by the rules.
In soccer, players are not allowed to touch the ball with their hands while playing. The goalie is allowed to touch the ball with his hands. The goal is not cheating when he or she catches the ball.
That's not to suggest that a DM should exercise that authority arbitrarily. Of course not! However, that's bad DMing, not cheating. A DM making rulings at the table that override the existing rules in order to enforce the themes and such of the game isn't cheating. They're performing their role, the authority which is granted by the rules themselves. If we're playing a realistic fantasy game (kind of an oxymoron, but everyone ought to comprehend the intended meaning) and someone does something that would be guaranteed to kill them, then it is not unreasonable for the DM to declare that they die.
Edit:
A DM who overrides the rules arbitrarily is abusing their authority.
In soccer, players are not allowed to touch the ball with their hands while playing. The goalie is allowed to touch the ball with his hands. The goal is not cheating when he or she catches the ball.
That's not to suggest that a DM should exercise that authority arbitrarily. Of course not! However, that's bad DMing, not cheating. A DM making rulings at the table that override the existing rules in order to enforce the themes and such of the game isn't cheating. They're performing their role, the authority which is granted by the rules themselves. If we're playing a realistic fantasy game (kind of an oxymoron, but everyone ought to comprehend the intended meaning) and someone does something that would be guaranteed to kill them, then it is not unreasonable for the DM to declare that they die.
Edit:
A DM who overrides the rules arbitrarily is abusing their authority.
You can temporize if you want, but the instant death ruling is outside the rules. I'm not judging one way or another, but lets not pretend you aren't making an in-the-moment ruling to kill a character when the rules would normally not. That's about as high stakes as rulings get, and it's not really a part of the DM prerogative the way you're describing (and with which I generally agree), nor is it simply the DM doing their job.
FlyingChihuahua
Hero
Here's what I think is going on, and I'm not trying to be disparaging.
We can all agree that the DM is a player in a session of D&D, correct? However, they aren't a Player (someone who plays a character in the game). This means that the DM is, in fact, on another team in the game that is D&D and therefore must be in competition with the Players in a game of D&D.
Basically: DM versus player style gaming, but the players are the instigators for the idea.
I was fully with you until this last bit.
"Guaranteed to kill them..." is a loaded statement. If the action was really guaranteed to result in death, the DM wouldn't have to interfere - the player would die by the rules set forth.
What your really saying is an action the DM believes should kill the player. But this is the DMs personal belief and often a bad metric to base a ruling on. For ex: people often survive very high falls, stabbing themselves, shooting themselves etc., especially in works of fiction and even more so in fantasy.
Similar Threads
