Search results

Yeah, I agree with this part, except that most of the games I have played have it as an unstated premise already. At least, if there's any "Rule 0" text in, um, AD&D 2nd edition, MERP, Shadowrun, GURPS, or Dungeon Fantasy RPG I haven't noticed it[1]. IIRC only 5E bothers to explicitly state Rule...

I can't speak for 3E (never played it except for IWD2 and ToEE, both CRPGs), but AD&D 2nd edition does a great job at having rules or optional rules for most important PC-relevant activities, and Dungeon Fantasy RPG does too. When you use optional rules it's generally clear both what the rule is...

(A) [emphasis added] Yes! That's exactly the point being made. RPGs need GMs because their rulesets are not "complete" in the same sense chess is. Can we move along now? (B) I disagree. You can change the rules of chess to make it your own, but no one talks about Rule 0 in chess because in the...

No really, the game doesn't give rules for it. The DMG gives guidance for making rules for creating a hobgoblin character from whole cloth, but doesn't say for example what % of hobgoblins have magical talent, how long the training period is, how likely a given hobgoblin is to become a sorcerer...

Since I'm positive that you've played with DMs who make up random encounter tables when they're not built into the modules already, and who fill in rules for jumping when the distance you can jump is unclear (see above), I'm certain that you must simply be in a semantic argument with someone...

FWIW, I couldn't imagine being comfortable with the situation until I read your post. Now I can imagine it. Thank you for helping my imagination expand a little.

Hmmm, it's possible I use "ruling" in that way too. As in, if someone asks me whether Inured To Undeath lets you keep temporary increases to your HP via Magic Jar/Shapechange/Aid because yada yada, "my ruling is no" might come out of my mouth. It's not a specific game situation but it's ruling...

Not really--we don't calculate costs and divide them up per-person, if that's what you mean. But then, for my primary friend group we don't do that when we go out to eat either, because nobody cares that much about money. Somebody (whoever is fastest) just asks the waiter for the check and pays...

There's also GM as Game Scheduler, Host, Pizza Provider, Adjudicator Of OOC Player Friction, and so on. One reason I like blorby play is because it clearly distinguishes prep (GM as Worldbuilder) from running (GM as Adjudicator, GM-or-player as Cast) and even facilitates offloading...

Then you get to have arguments over whether the DM is "breaking the rules" when he refuses to let Necromancers permanently increase their HP by shapechanging into a Dragon Turtle, or having Aid cast on them, because "the rules say that Necromancers can't have their max HP reduced, and losing an...

FWIW I use it the latter way: rulings are inherently case-by-case. Rules produce rulings, hopefully consistent ones. "Bob has disadvantage on this attack" is a ruling. "Attacking uphill on a slope of more than 45 degrees gives you disadvantage" is a rule.

Well, then I think you're wrong to call it a "misplaced fixation", as in: You acknowledge here that the rule doesn't care "who" rolls the dice ("I can't say this would 'break a rule'"), and though you don't acknowledge it, it doesn't matter who dictates the result ("Bob loses 3d8 HP"). The GM...

You are missing the point--in this example, play continued long past the point where there was a disagreement. The point is that it would be really nice if it genuinely was impossible for play to continue without detecting and resolving all disagreements. Any further questions?

Are you then abandoning the formulation that says rules are about determining who gets to say what when? That's what I'm pushing back on. If you're willing to concede that only a minority of rules are about who says what (a metagame concern), and a majority are merely about what happens, then we...

How long did it take before the lack of agreement was discovered? What might have happened differently if the lack of agreement had been discovered sooner? Some disagreements luckily turn out not to matter or are never discovered (player doesn't know the GM thinks he took 6d6 damage from evil...

For the most part we agree on the above point, although I reiterate that predictability is important, not merely so the GM can avoid social opprobrium but so players can make informed decisions about issues their characters would understand without having to play Mother May I, which breaks flow...

If only this were true! Many difficulties arise when it turns out that parties have not agreed on the game state, without realizing it. GM: twelve screaming cannibals are still chasing you through the castle yard. What do you do? Player: I hop over the edge of the cliff, eat the 6d6 falling...

I think this puts too much emphasis on the metagame (actual players) at the expense of the gameworld. You're emphasizing "who" is "saying" something, which often isn't important compared to what happens. There is no rule in D&D 5E that says for example that saving throws must be rolled by the...

Yes, it basically frees up one attack, while costing you the other benefits of imposing prone (restricting enemy movement and imposing disadvantage). It's worth maybe half an attack. You have to consider whether that's worth it to you compared to e.g. having one of the Shepherd Druid's wolves do...

Wolf is a bit redundant in a melee heavy group since shoving an enemy prone also grants advantage, and raging Barbs shove with advantage already.