3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[The Shaman]

Still, from ther other side, as I've said earlier, if I'm not given enough detail about WHY I fail or why an enemy is changed, I feel like the DM is out to get me.

My earlier question still stands: who decides what is "enough detail?"

My experience tells me that rules lawyers/"gurus" are often disatisfied no matter what the answer is - the game is a competition to them, and anytime they 'lose a move', it's because the GM 'didn't play right'.

Has the increased rules-transparency of 3e made this worse?

As far as giving DCs, I will for standard checks straight from the RAW where the character has a reasonable chance of knowing whether or not s/he is successful, or to give the player a chance to spend an action point or not. Checks where there is a degree of success attached (such as Knowledge or Gather Information checks), rather than a straight chance of making the DC or not (such as a Treat Injury check) are made without knowing the DCs in advance, as are Spot, Listen, Hide, and similar checks.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My earlier question still stands: who decides what is "enough detail?"

My experience tells me that rules lawyers/"gurus" are often disatisfied no matter what the answer is - the game is a competition to them, and anytime they 'lose a move', it's because the GM 'didn't play right'.

Has the increased rules-transparency of 3e made this worse?

I don't know about Majoru, but I would say that the DM decides what is "enough detail" when describing what happens, and if the players feel that they are consistently not receiving the details that their PCs should reasonably know they will, sooner or later, seek out a new DM or start a new game.

Which is not so say that the players cannot or should not seek to remedy the problem within that DM's game. Quite often, I think, new DMs are not certain what information the PCs should reasonably know, and are not sure how to impart that information to the players.

In many cases, rules transparency means that, when something varies from what is expected, the players ought to prick up their ears. Something is obviously happening. It is either in the real world (the DM is new/doesn't fully understand the rules/is a dink) or in the game world (some unknown factor is working against the PCs). The players relationship with the DM is going to be the primary factor in determining whether or not the players suspect that the reason is in-game or out-of-game.

Me, I love to say: "You don't know, do you?" This is my catch-all, meaning, "There is an in-game effect which is affecting what you preceive, but the cause of the effect is not apparent." If the DM acknowledges that the PC expectation normally should be different than what the PCs are actually experiencing, most players IME will accept that the DM knows what s/he is doing and the game will not dissolve into an argument.

But, again, we are now in the area of "what constitutes good DMing" rather than "who has the authority to determine how much information is enough". The DM has the authority. Abuse of that authority has its own consequences.


RC

 

[The Shaman]

Quite often, I think, new DMs are not certain what information the PCs should reasonably know, and are not sure how to impart that information to the players.

This is why I would love to see more emphasis on teaching GMs how to run games, rather than substituting book after book of new rules.

In many cases, rules transparency means that, when something varies from what is expected, the players ought to prick up their ears. Something is obviously happening.

Which is the very best reason to add layers of difficulty to a challenge, or modify a monster's abilities, and so on.

As to the causes of these unexpected variances...

It is either in the real world (the DM is new/doesn't fully understand the rules/is a dink)...

Again, teaching GMs is so important.

...or in the game world (some unknown factor is working against the PCs).

Which is the GM's province to decide, and should not necessarily be immediately transparent to the players in many cases.

The players relationship with the DM is going to be the primary factor in determining whether or not the players suspect that the reason is in-game or out-of-game.

Once again, the social contract.

But, again, we are now in the area of "what constitutes good DMing" rather than "who has the authority to determine how much information is enough".

I'm not so sure that those two concepts are so easy to split: the GM's authority to make calls and the GM's ability are both framed differently in the minds of those who believe the RAW, rather than the GM, is the final arbiter. A "good GM" is a 'strict constructionist' in the eyes of the rules lawyers, who would to varying degrees limit the GM's authority to make calls that vary from the RAW: "That's a DC 25 Climb check! It says so in the rules! I can take 10 to make that!"

The DM has the authority. Abuse of that authority has its own consequences.

Yep.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A "good GM" is a 'strict constructionist' in the eyes of the rules lawyers, who would to varying degrees limit the GM's authority to make calls that vary from the RAW: "That's a DC 25 Climb check! It says so in the rules! I can take 10 to make that!"

Teaching GMs to run games is fine. But what you are advocating is teaching them "whatever you say it right, don't worry about the RAW if it gets in your way and if the players try to hold you to the rules in the game tell them that you won't stand for any uppity players undermining your authority. Boot them out of your game if they keep complaining and just find players that agree with you."

If it is a DC 25 Climb check, then it is, regardless of what you want to say about it. If you say "It's slippery, that seems like a -2 modifier to your roll, it's a DC 27 now". Fine, that's within the rules, and I have no problem with a DM telling me that. I think we need to teach DMs how to use the rules to do what they want. Then those rules lawers/gurus will be perfectly happy AND they get to run the game they way they want.

As I've said before, there is almost no situation I can think of that I can't model with the rules or at least a good extension of the rules. What people need to learn is that the rules are not their enemy. They aren't something to be thrown out whenever they become the slightest bit inconvenient. Instead, you find out how to model what you want using the rules and make them work FOR you.

 

[The Shaman]

Teaching GMs to run games is fine. But what you are advocating is teaching them "whatever you say it right, don't worry about the RAW if it gets in your way and if the players try to hold you to the rules in the game tell them that you won't stand for any uppity players undermining your authority. Boot them out of your game if they keep complaining and just find players that agree with you."

Majoru Oakheart, in one sense you're right and yet at the same time you're very, very wrong.

What I'm saying is that the rules are a starting point and can be modified to suit the GM's campaign, that the rules do not cover every circumstance that arises in the course of play, and that (per the rules of the game) it is entirely within the purview of the GM to extend or change the rules if it improves the play of the game.

Earlier in this thread I offered a couple of scenarios (Tumbling from a table and Jumping over a wall) to test the idea that the rules cover most things that arise in the course of the game - I deliberately chose examples that hewed very close to the existing rules but were not covered explictly, in order to see just how much variance would arise. With respect to the second scenario, jumping over a more than half the height of the character to land in the adjacent square, I figured the differences would be slight but that there would be differences, and that was borne out by the responses - it also confimed that this is not explicitly covered in the rules (Jump on to something half the character's height is DC 10, but there is no DC nor explicit application of the skill covering of the scenario I proposed, one that was taken directly from a Modern game that I'm running here on ENWorld).

On the first question, the Tumble check, I selected a scenario that was pretty marginal - are there modifiers or additional skill checks required for a Tumble from a table? The rules-lawyer crowd said, "Of course not - it's not covered in the rules as written therefore there is no additional modifier, nor is there a Jump check since there is no chance of damage from jumping down from a table." That response is again what I expected as it adheres to the RAW. (You did mention applying a modifier to the Tumble check to reflect the greater difficulty represented by Tumbling off an elevated surface.)

Suppose I said that, instead of a table, it is was an eight-foot wall. Again the RAW answer is, "No change," but a number of GMs might balk at that - now we're talking about dropping a distance higher than the character (in most cases) is tall, while at the same time tumbling past an opponent to take up a flanking position in melee. According to the RAW, there is no difference between that scenario, the table scenario, or Tumbling across flat ground, yet many GMs would look at a scenario like that and think, "Now we're talking about a different breed of animal altogether."

What I am suggesting, Majoru Oakheart, is that it is possible, and even at time advisible, to extend the rules in the interest of making the game more challenging, or to add verisimilitude, or to cover grey areas. Could the Tumble from an eight-foot wall be covered by a circumstance penalty, or a second Tumble check at DC 8, or a Jump check at DC 5 with failure resulting in a lost action for the round? The first is the most likely and stays closest to the rules as written, but are the other ideas so far out of left field as to represent ignoring the RAW? They each take the same basic mechanics into consideration.

I could understand a player getting upset if the GM said, "You have to make a Reflex save to avoid an AoO for Tumbling off the wall," or, "Okay, make a Strength check to stick the landing," or "You can't do that 'cause I said so!" All of these represent a further departure from the rules (or ignore them completely in the last case), but not all deviations from the RAW are as thoughtless as these examples.

Extending or modifying the rules to blur the sharp edges once in awhile adds to the challenges the game presents to the players and their characters and adds verisimilitude, IMHX.

I used another example, that of the Demolitions check, of requiring multiple checks to render an explosive device inert. The straight rules-as-written don't mention that, and I've no doubt that a sharp rules-lawyer might complain about it to me someday. I don't feel unjustified in playing it the way I do - for example, one check to disarm a trip wire, another to defuse the device completely, and possibly a third if the device is booby-trapped - given that one of the designers of the game included an almost identical example in a WotC-published adventure.

Majoru Oakheart, please forgive me for repeating myself, but you cannot reasonably say that the rules as written with respect to skill checks, combat resolution, and so on are more valid or carry greater weight than the rules-as-written that say the GM can modify those rules to suit the game s/he wants to run.

If it is a DC 25 Climb check, then it is, regardless of what you want to say about it. If you say "It's slippery, that seems like a -2 modifier to your roll, it's a DC 27 now". Fine, that's within the rules, and I have no problem with a DM telling me that. I think we need to teach DMs how to use the rules to do what they want. Then those rules lawers/gurus will be perfectly happy AND they get to run the game they way they want.

I agree with you to some extent - I do believe teaching GMs how to extend the rules appropriately is a good idea.

Coming back to my example of the "living wall" earth elemental, as noted I gave the thief's player a description of what was happening before the character fell - I also gave them a 5% chance to see that it wasn't a normal wall (and if that seems low to you, note that I took that directly from the description of the trapper in the 1e MM).

I absolutely agree that teaching GMs how to use the RAW as a basis for making sound, consistent judgements is essential, and I don't think many of the books published do that very well. Where I disagree is that a rules-lawyer will be satisfied with that.

I notice only one person touched my question regarding mechanical traps - the highest DC shown in the books to disable a mechanical trap is DC 25, so can there be a DC 28 or DC 30 mechanical trap? I'm willing to be there are rules-lawyers out there that wouldn't hesitate to challenge that - at the same time, published WotC supplements include Disable Device DCs of 28 and 30.

As I've said before, there is almost no situation I can think of that I can't model with the rules or at least a good extension of the rules. What people need to learn is that the rules are not their enemy. They aren't something to be thrown out whenever they become the slightest bit inconvenient. Instead, you find out how to model what you want using the rules and make them work FOR you.

For the most part I agree with you, Majoru Oakheart - while I don't think the rules are as complete as you've expressed you do, I do think that one can make reasonable inferences from existing mechanics in many cases - I also feel that this is something that needs to be taught to GMs more than it is. I've also attempted to use examples of this in my posts throughout this thread.

That's why I'm a bit puzzled by your comment suggesting that I'm advocating "whatever you say it (sic) right, don't worry about the RAW if it gets in your way" - I'd like you back that up with an example or two, please. So far I think my scenarios have all shown an extension of the existing rules to cover grey or blank areas - if I'm mistaken, please let me know.

Where I do agree with you in that same passage is this: "...and if the players try to hold you to the rules in the game tell them that you won't stand for any uppity players undermining your authority. Boot them out of your game if they keep complaining and just find players that agree with you."

Yes, Majoru Oakheart, I do expect my rulings to be accepted by the players, and if they don't like them they are welcome to play with someone else. Yes, I do look for players that agree with that stance, and no, I don't care to play with someone who feels the need to complain about the rulings after the fact.

I also provide all the players in the game with a list of allowed materials (core rules, original and third-party supplements, web-enhancements), any race or class restrictions from within those materials, and a list of house rules before character generation begins. I will change and expand the house rules as the game progresses, indicating to players when the changes will take effect and soliciting their input before the changes are final - in some cases I'll discuss proposed changes before they're drafted (and have decided to keep with things as they are based on those discussions), and I am always happy to offer the rationale behind a change or a ruling.

I'm always happy to listen to critiques of my GMing style - I solicit them so that I can get better at running games. However, once I've said no, the answer is no - move on, or get up and walk away. I'm sorry if that makes you or anyone else uncomfortable, but that's simply how it is.

It's also the rules of the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I will change and expand the house rules as the game progresses, indicating to players when the changes will take effect and soliciting their input before the changes are final - in some cases I'll discuss proposed changes before they're drafted (and have decided to keep with things as they are based on those discussions), and I am always happy to offer the rationale behind a change or a ruling.

Shaman,

You're lucky. In the massive, massive undertaking that I am doing, I continually solict player involvement, and so far (with a couple of exceptions) all I've gotten is "We trust you; give us the complete document when it's ready."

(On the other hand, that "we trust you" is darn skippy! )


RC

 

[Hussar]

I notice only one person touched my question regarding mechanical traps - the highest DC shown in the books to disable a mechanical trap is DC 25, so can there be a DC 28 or DC 30 mechanical trap? I'm willing to be there are rules-lawyers out there that wouldn't hesitate to challenge that - at the same time, published WotC supplements include Disable Device DCs of 28 and 30.

Well, considering I'm the one who answered that, I think that I gave a pretty solid rules lawyer answer. Although, I like Henry's Rules Guru better. Standard practice in 3.5 is that anything which is not specifically limited or mentioned by the rules doesn't exist. Since there is absolutely no mention anywhere of a mechanical trap being limited to a DC of 25, then that limit doesn't exist.

That assumption that you don't have to add to the rules to make them work, is one of the basic assumptions of 3e. I remember one of the biggest problems in the magic creation rules was the assumption that a caster HAD to be the caster level listed in the DMG, despite the fact that caster level is NOT a pre-req. Yet, DM after Dm argued that it was. It took WOTC to officially errata that to solve the issue and it STILL comes up five years later.

I agree that the DM will have to make rules sometimes. A recent example from my game is, could a harpy that has fallen into water above her head, take off from the water? I ruled no. Wet feathers makes flight difficult and a harpy has claws, not webbed feet like a duck. It can't take off from water. Is that covered in the RAW? Nope. Not even a little. So, I made a ruling BECAUSE it is not covered in the RAW. Where the malfunctions usually (not always, but many times) come in, is when DM's decide that their pet idea is automatically better than the RAW even when definitive proof is shown to the contrary.

Primitive Screwhead - yeah, I could see dervishes in a pirate community. Unfortunately, like I said, the PC was an officer on a merchant ship, owned a large home, had never travelled further than the city he grew up in until he joined the crew of a ship and never bothered to include any details of a dervish nature in his depiction of his character. To me, that adds up to not being a dervish. He could have been a dervish had he bothered to play it up before trying to take the PrC, but, the background of the character just did not support being one.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Where the malfunctions usually (not always, but many times) come in, is when DM's decide that their pet idea is automatically better than the RAW even when definitive proof is shown to the contrary.

One cannot offer definitive proof of a subjective concept. "Better" and "worse" are not objective traits, except as defined related to a specific desirable state or outcome.


RC


P.S.: Whether or not Primitive Screwhead could work a dervish into a naval campaign has no bearing on whether a dervish would fit into your naval campaign, my naval campaign, or even someone else's desert campaign.

From a corporate standpoint, options are there to sell books. From a game standpoint, options are there because some will enjoy them, and they can be used to differentiate parts of the campaign world (those parts including, but not limited to, cultures, regions, adventure locations, and player or nonplayer character concepts). Neither one of these standpoints creates a situation where the mere availability of an option makes it either mandatory nor necessarily desirable to use it.


RC

 

[Hussar]

P.S.: Whether or not Primitive Screwhead could work a dervish into a naval campaign has no bearing on whether a dervish would fit into your naval campaign, my naval campaign, or even someone else's desert campaign.

From a corporate standpoint, options are there to sell books. From a game standpoint, options are there because some will enjoy them, and they can be used to differentiate parts of the campaign world (those parts including, but not limited to, cultures, regions, adventure locations, and player or nonplayer character concepts). Neither one of these standpoints creates a situation where the mere availability of an option makes it either mandatory nor necessarily desirable to use it.


RC

Quoted for truth.

And, in all honesty, I believe that the majority of players out there understand that. Sure, I've bumped into a bit of "Well, why not?" from my players from time to time, but, that's understandable. It's just human nature to wonder why an idea is getting shot down in flames.

 

[The Shaman]

Standard practice in 3.5 is that anything which is not specifically limited or mentioned by the rules doesn't exist. Since there is absolutely no mention anywhere of a mechanical trap being limited to a DC of 25, then that limit doesn't exist.

Conversely there's no mention of mechanical traps with a disable DC > 25 in the core rules, so following your example, those don't exist either.

Where the malfunctions usually (not always, but many times) come in, is when DM's decide that their pet idea is automatically better than the RAW even when definitive proof is shown to the contrary.

What would constitue "definitive proof" in this instance?

I think you may be overstating things a bit here.