The Trouble With Rules Discussions

[Retros_x]

I know the rules of 5e pretty well and IMO its necessary to know the rules before you break them. Newbie DMs I always advice to homebrew as little as possible to learn the rules first and play the game as intented, than you have a better understanding when to break and what to break.

As a player I try to shut up and not engage in rules discussions at the table. In our last ToA-session I was really tested. Our DM interpreted Charmed effect as mind control which made the Beholder fight much harder and lead to a retreat with 3 dead player characters. I stomached it (the phantastic roleplay that resulted out of it made it easier) but I couldn't resist to mumble "That is DAMN strong charm effect to turn allies into enemies for 1 hour without any saving throw to get out of it" and he was just "jup, thats ToA for you".

 

[billd91]

It can be frustrating discussing rules with people who are die hard fans of a game they've been playing for years. Very often they have so much experience with the rules they no longer see the flaws because they have workarounds. I asked for some advice for Call of Cthulhu years ago because investigations would sometimes come to a screeching halt because all the PCs failed their relevant investigatory skill rolls.

The advice I got from long time Cthlhu players was to just give the players whatever clue they needed to continue with the scenario. Not bad advice, and it's actually printed in the 7th edition CoC rules, but at the time it wasn't a part of the rules. I pointed out this was a flaw in the rules and it was like a Monty Python sketch.

CoC Fan: It's not a flaw in the rules.
Me: You literally have a workaround to the problem.
CoC Fan: That doesn't mean the rules are flawed.
Me: You don't make a workaround for something that works.

The problem with labeling this the Oberoni Fallacy is that when the issue comes up, is it really a deficiency in the rules or is it in scenario design? If an investigation comes to a halt because of a single missed clue, that's a potential problem because there are almost always ways to miss it even if there's a rule that allows a clue to be found even if everyone present fails their spot hidden check.

 

[payn]

The problem with labeling this the Oberoni Fallacy is that when the issue comes up, is it really a deficiency in the rules or is it in scenario design? If an investigation comes to a halt because of a single missed clue, that's a potential problem because there are almost always ways to miss it even if there's a rule that allows a clue to be found even if everyone present fails their spot hidden check.

Its a good call out. Like making a D&D adventure that just stops if a door cant be bypassed. Though, I think the intention for the discussion is that if the rules did lack a "just give them what they need" option to move forward, folks dont see it as a rules deficiency because the keeper can just handwave it.

Although, its interesting to note, that this came up often enough on CoC that Trail of Cthulhu came about using gumshoe rule set designed to prevent it specifically from happening.

 

[TiQuinn]

The GM didn't make the call they made just to be random. There were almost certainly good reasons for the health of the game leading to why they felt the need to make that call.

Were you the DM? You know all this for a fact?

You cannot get to the fluff (gravity) used to justify the in fiction justification until either A:assuming that a reasonable GM is not capable of having any reasons for making a call to limit shooting while moving on walls & ceilings

You keep bringing up “shooting while moving”. I don’t know if you know 2e rules, but you’re allowed to move half your movement and make an attack. So within the rules, it’s not clear why the DM would think this is a problem. The DM should know what the slippers of spider climbing do.

or B:accepting that the reasons might be sound but the implementation could have been better with examples of a better way

What reasons? The only reason that has been offered is that the item would unbalance the game in some way, but clearly I disagree with the way the DM approached it.

You went with C: where you used an unconvincing no true scottsman style claim about how a GM should never give out such an item to dismiss the idea that any reasonable GM could feel a need to make such a call while condemning the implementation based on the fluff of gravity/physics used.

First, I gave an opinion. Second, you brought up this “No True Scotsman” argument, which I absolutely did not say. At no point did I make a disparaging comment to say anyone who ruled differently wasn’t a true DM. I gave my opinion of the scenario and why.

Yes but It speaks volumes that when you voice those opinions talk up your foresight in avoiding such a problem and jumps straight to the implied assumption that no reasonable GM could gave reasons to make a call to limit shooting from the walls & ceilings while moving,

You are making this assumption and taking umbrage for it but that, frankly, is your problem. I haven’t said one word about the way you play but because my style of DMing obviously clashes with yours and I have an opinion about a game scenario, you are assuming that I am taking you, personally, to task, and that has not happened.

Again, it seems that no matter how many times I say “IMO” or “In my opinion”, you’re choosing to disregard that.

 

[MGibster]

The problem with labeling this the Oberoni Fallacy is that when the issue comes up, is it really a deficiency in the rules or is it in scenario design? If an investigation comes to a halt because of a single missed clue, that's a potential problem because there are almost always ways to miss it even if there's a rule that allows a clue to be found even if everyone present fails their spot hidden check.

For the Call of Cthulhu scenario, "The Haunting" is a flagship scenario that almost everyone who has played the game as run through. While I don't think missing clues ground the scenario to a halt, it made it less enjoyable because nobody knew what was happening. i.e. They didn't understand the history of the house, Mr. Corbitt, or some other things which just made the scenario less enjoyable. I was a new Keeper and the players rolled extremely poorly throughout the evening. At the time, the rules as written did not say "give the players a core clue so the game can continue."

 

[tetrasodium]

Were you the DM? You know all this for a fact?

Were you? It seems that you are suggesting something that excluded you from offering an opinion as well. Why do you feel that you are somehow exempt from this?

Even without being there it's entirely possible to assess the described situation and come up with possible problems why a reasonable gm might feel a need to make the call they did for the health of their game overall simply by assuming that the possibility exists rather than assuming that the GM could not possibly have a reasonable goal in making that call. We can do that by placing the call and described scenario in the context of the game itself.

You keep bringing up “shooting while moving”. I don’t know if you know 2e rules, but you’re allowed to move half your movement and make an attack. So within the rules, it’s not clear why the DM would think this is a problem. The DM should know what the slippers of spider climbing do.

It was literally the initial claim back in post 12 shooting while walking sideways. Walking sideways would be moving.

What reasons? The only reason that has been offered is that the item would unbalance the game in some way, but clearly I disagree with the way the DM approached it.

Please see the last couple times I explained them to you.

First, I gave an opinion. Second, you brought up this “No True Scotsman” argument, which I absolutely did not say. At no point did I make a disparaging comment to say anyone who ruled differently wasn’t a true DM. I gave my opinion of the scenario and why.

"Again, I wouldn’t want to give a player an item like that and then have to tell the player your arrows fall out, your sling bullets drop as you try to load them, anything in your pockets falls out, your spell components drop from your hand, etc, etc, etc."
And other posts of yours. Apparently the GM in question does not meet your standards to be a real GM's but that doesn't make it a bad or unreasonable call

You are making this assumption and taking umbrage for it but that, frankly, is your problem. I haven’t said one word about the way you play but because my style of DMing obviously clashes with yours and I have an opinion about a game scenario, you are assuming that I am taking you, personally, to task, and that has not happened.

It's easy to make enough assumptions about how a player walking along walls and ceilings while shooting a ranged weapon with extremely high ammo capacity can negatively impact a game if you assume that it was possible for a reasonable GM to have made the call.

Again, it seems that no matter how many times I say “IMO” or “In my opinion”, you’re choosing to disregard that.

You are ignoring the problem on your position with so much for e that you have repeatedly asked what reasons a gm might make the call and done so each time as if it were the first.

 

[TiQuinn]

Were you? It seems that you are suggesting something that excluded you from offering an opinion as well. Why do you feel that you are somehow exempt from this?

I have the player’s version of events. I don’t have to argue for someone who isn’t in this thread. If you want to, go ahead.

Even without being there it's entirely possible to assess the described situation and come up with possible problems why a reasonable gm might feel a need to make the call they did for the health of their game overall simply by assuming that the possibility exists rather than assuming that the GM could not possibly have a reasonable goal in making that call. We can do that by placing the call and described scenario in the context of the game itself.

Then by all means, do so. You can do it without challenging my opinion. You haven’t actually presented a different POV, you’ve simply disagreed with mine and supposed the DM must have had a good reason. So go ahead. What’s that good reason?

It was literally the initial claim back in post 12 shooting while walking sideways. Walking sideways would be moving.

Do you know the rules of AD&D 2nd Edition? I believe you are misinterpreting this statement entirely.

Please see the last couple times I explained them to you.

"Again, I wouldn’t want to give a player an item like that and then have to tell the player your arrows fall out, your sling bullets drop as you try to load them, anything in your pockets falls out, your spell components drop from your hand, etc, etc, etc."
And other posts of yours. Apparently the GM in question does not meet your standards to be a real GM's but that doesn't make it a bad or unreasonable call

I don’t think you understand what the “No True Scotsman” fallacy is if you believe those statements are indicative of it.

It's easy to make enough assumptions about how a player walking along walls and ceilings while shooting a ranged weapon with extremely high ammo capacity can negatively impact a game if you assume that it was possible for a reasonable GM to have made the call.

Increasingly, I don’t think you understand the rules of the edition they were playing.

You are ignoring the problem on your position with so much for e that you have repeatedly asked what reasons a gm might make the call and done so each time as if it were the first.

I believe my opinion is well-founded because I have experience with the game as both a DM and a player, have encountered DMs who have treated magic items as something to give out but then restrict usage of, and I have also encountered DMs who were much less restrictive in this regard, so I’ve seen the difference in game play. All this with 2nd edition AD&D.

If you have a different opinion, once again, instead of simply attacking mine, feel free to present your opinion of how the DM could’ve been justified. It will be equally valid as my opinion. I’ve yet to actually see that from you.

 

[Pedantic]

The problem with labeling this the Oberoni Fallacy is that when the issue comes up, is it really a deficiency in the rules or is it in scenario design? If an investigation comes to a halt because of a single missed clue, that's a potential problem because there are almost always ways to miss it even if there's a rule that allows a clue to be found even if everyone present fails their spot hidden check.

That's another consistent problem in RPGs though. Scenario and rules design are rarely clearly separated and called out. If anything, this has gotten more muddled in the 5e era. It would be pretty normal for a GM to come up with say a custom skill challenge ruleset for a set piece encounter on a moving stairway, for example, which conflates the two.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm going to guess that the 2nd ed version was pretty similar to the 1st ed version:

This ring enables the wearer to move and attack freely and normally whether attacked by a web, hold, or slow spell, or even while under water. In the former case the spells have no effect, while in the latter the individual moves at normal (surface) speed and does full damage even with such cutting weapons as axes and scimitars and with such smashing weapons as flails, hammers, and maces, insofar as the weapon used is held rather than hurled. This will not, however, enable water breathing without the further appropriate magic. (DMG p 130)​

Because it's AD&D, it's very unclear how it is supposed to generalise. Are web, hold and slow spells illustrative examples, or an exhaustive list? Does this ring negate the effects of ghoul paralysis?

A PC in the first AD&D game I GMed had one of these rings, but I can't recall now how we ruled it. It's possible we didn't even notice its effects beyond the water movement stuff.

In Shadowdark (and lots of other games, I know, but I play Shadowdark) it would have a description like "Wearer is immune to effects to inhibit movement." The GM would determine what that means, and everybody would just accept that ruling.

It's sad that D&D 5e was launched with the phrase "Rulings over Rules" but still D&D players parse the language of the rules as if they are carved on stone tablets.

 

[TiQuinn]

In Shadowdark (and lots of other games, I know, but I play Shadowdark) it would have a description like "Wearer is immune to effects to inhibit movement." The GM would determine what that means, and everybody would just accept that ruling.

It's sad that D&D 5e was launched with the phrase "Rulings over Rules" but still D&D players parse the language of the rules as if they are carved on stone tablets.

The thing I’ve realized with Shadowdark, and occasionally 5e, is that less words often leads to clearer intent. Not all the time, but the example you give above is pretty clear to me, and I can’t really think of an edge case where it wouldn’t apply. The more words added into a specific rule, the more people see exceptions and muddled intent.