3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[The 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! )

Remember, saying, "We're fine with what you bring to the table," is feedback.

But yes, it's great when there's a dialog as well. I'm fortunate to play with some good gamers.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Hussar.. I was not saying you had to let the option in, I was replying to the post that a PrC should not be allowed because the fluff does not match the setting. I completely agree with your refusal to let that character translate over.

I just wanted to point out that in most cases the fluff of a given mechanic can be altered to better fit the campaign.... and IMO a GM who outright rejects an idea because the fluff doesn't fit isn't working with thier players.

Rejecting the change/class/whatever after looking at both 'does the crunch fit' and 'how can the fluff fit' is the DM's right.

 

[fusangite]

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.

Ah... so love doesn't exist in D&D because the rules don't mention it and it's clear that neither Bluff nor Diplomacy cover it. This is wooly logic.

That assumption that you don't have to add to the rules to make them work, is one of the basic assumptions of 3e.

However, it is equally clear that another basic assumption is that a DM must extrapolate from them in order to make the game work, as you yourself suggest.

I agree that the DM will have to make rules sometimes.

I agree with you here but question whether this is consistent with the overall theme of your post.

 

[Hussar]

Ah... so love doesn't exist in D&D because the rules don't mention it and it's clear that neither Bluff nor Diplomacy cover it. This is wooly logic.

However, it is equally clear that another basic assumption is that a DM must extrapolate from them in order to make the game work, as you yourself suggest.

I agree with you here but question whether this is consistent with the overall theme of your post.

It also never says that a PC has to breath either. Taking something to the extreme is not a logic answer. The question was, can a mechanical trap have a DC higher than 25. There is nothing in the rules which prevents it, so, yes, you can have a trap of higher than DC 25. If there was a ceiling, the rules would state it. 3.5 rules have been very, very careful about this sort of thing. The only way for a DC ceiling to exist would be for a DM to add rules. If the DM doesn't add any rules, then there is no ceiling.

Since the rules do not specifically disallow love to exist, then it does. That's actually very much in keeping with my original post. Unless the rules specifically disallow or limit something, then there are no limits. ((Heh, d02- Know no limits.)) You don't need to say that the higher DC's exist. By not saying that they don't exist, the standard 3e assumption is that they do.

Extrapolation and creating new rules are separate issues. I can extrapolate from the rules that a DC 30 mechanical trap exists since mechanical traps of lower DC's exist in a progression. However, no extrapolation of existing rules places a cap on those DC's. To place that cap, I need to create a new rule which states that mechanical traps can only have DC's of X.

Although, to be fair, my original point should be ammended somewhat to read:

The standard practice in 3.5 is that if something is not specifically limited by the rules, then no limitations exist.

There is no theoretical cap to ability scores since the RAW does not place one. There is no theoretical cap to levels (assuming epic rules are in play) since the rules do not have one. If epic rules are not in play, then characters are limited to 20th level by the RAW.

No, I do not think I am overstating things when I say that the malfunctions around the gaming table frequently stem from poor rules understanding. Pretty much every arguement, with some notable exceptions true, that I see in games come from one or both parties not having a solid grasp on mechanics. This is really my biggest reason for playing 3e. Now whenever a player starts questioning my decisions, 99% of the time I can take a look at the HTML SRD and cut and paste him the answer. Poof, end of discussion.

To me, that's precisely what rules should do.

 

[D'karr]

Ah... so love doesn't exist in D&D because the rules don't mention it and it's clear that neither Bluff nor Diplomacy cover it. This is wooly logic.However, it is equally clear that another basic assumption is that a DM must extrapolate from them in order to make the game work, as you yourself suggest.I agree with you here but question whether this is consistent with the overall theme of your post.

I think I understood his post as meaning that anything not specifically "limited" by the rules could exist. Even though he did not state that properly and I could have misinterpreted his point.

That is how I've always ruled it. If the rules do not specifically state that you can not do something then it is, at least, a possibility.

Here is the problem with strict adherence to rules, they mutually restrict the DM and the players.

For example, my group had a fight inside a huge temple. Part of the party was on the second story balcony and part of the party was on the lower level. They fought a creature ,that because of its size, could fight them on both levels simultaneously. One of the party members, a dwarf, asked, "can I jump on the creatures back and attack it as I ride it?" He's got a dwarven waraxe as a weapon.

According to a strict interpretation of the rules, he can't... He would have had to make a grapple, to occupy the same space as the creature and he could not attack it with his weapon because it does not fit the size restrictions for grappling. So I threw the rules out the window. and MADE UP rulings as appropriate to the situation. That is my philosophy of DMing. I'm there to adjudicate the unadjuducatable.

I see the rules as guidelines that provide a somewhat level playing field. But in this specific case they restricted unnecessarily. So I changed the rules (guidelines) to fit the situation and the game was much more fun for it.

That is why I believe the DM has to have complete control of rules adjudication and interpretation. This responsibility does not fall on the shoulders of the players, no matter what the marketing arm of Hasbro might lead them to believe.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It also never says that a PC has to breath either.

Actually, I believe the rules do, when discussing drowning and suffocation.

Since the rules do not specifically disallow love to exist, then it does. That's actually very much in keeping with my original post. Unless the rules specifically disallow or limit something, then there are no limits.

[QUOTE-Hussar]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. [/QUOTE]


I think that the interplay between these posts might be confusing your position. As I understand it, you are not saying that a thing not mentioned specifically in the rules does not exist in the game world. Rather, you are trying to say that a thing not specifically mentioned in the rules does not exist in the rules, and is therefore fully open to DM interpretation/house rules without said interpretation/house rules being considered an actual variation from the RAW.

Is this correct?


RC

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No, I do not think I am overstating things when I say that the malfunctions around the gaming table frequently stem from poor rules understanding. Pretty much every arguement, with some notable exceptions true, that I see in games come from one or both parties not having a solid grasp on mechanics. This is really my biggest reason for playing 3e. Now whenever a player starts questioning my decisions, 99% of the time I can take a look at the HTML SRD and cut and paste him the answer. Poof, end of discussion.

To me, that's precisely what rules should do.

I agree. For example, the situation where we were discussing someone jumping down off a table. There is no rule in the RAW whatsoever that says you need a jump check to jump down 3 or 4 feet. You just do it, I've reread the jump description twice to be sure there wasn't something I was missing.

Adding a jump check is either poor understanding of the rules or needlessly complicating the situation and adding more die rolls than you need to have (What's the penalty for failing? Do you fall over? Why? It's not far enough to take damage, according to a new FAQ ruling, it pretty much assumes if you don't take damage, you are still standing).

It's when you think too far that starts confusing things. Can almost anyone step off a table without falling over? Yes, no roll. Jumping over a 4 foot wall? How high do you need to jump, find the DC, and you are done. You could figure out the physics of the situation and say they need to jump so much earlier, etc. Or just leave it simple.

The rules are there to cover any situation where the result is in question. If the result isn't in question, you don't need to use them. Which is why the rules need common sense applied to them. You are right, without common sense, dying doesn't mean anything because the book never says what penalties you get for dying. You could still cast spells and walk around for all the book says. However, when you use the rules only in situations where someone (who isn't an idiot) actually thinks something is in question, and then only the minimum rules to figure out the results. Otherwise every action someone attempts slows the game to a crawl.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Rather, you are trying to say that a thing not specifically mentioned in the rules does not exist in the rules, and is therefore fully open to DM interpretation/house rules without said interpretation/house rules being considered an actual variation from the RAW.

Is this correct?

I agree with this statement. Yes, use the rules when they apply, when they don't apply (fairly rare circumstance) make something up that seems to be close to the rules.

In a case mentioned above: Creature falls into water, can it fly out? Maybe not, it has wet wings and need some air to take off. Maybe it can because it's a magical creature or because it can leap a couple feet out of the water in order to take off. Does this ruling matter in the grand scheme of things? Unlikely, except maybe the next time that specific creature falls into water and it is important for them to get out again quickly (i.e. unlikely to come up in the same game ever again). So you accept the on the spot ruling not covered by the rules and move onwards.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In a case mentioned above: Creature falls into water, can it fly out? Maybe not, it has wet wings and need some air to take off. Maybe it can because it's a magical creature or because it can leap a couple feet out of the water in order to take off. Does this ruling matter in the grand scheme of things? Unlikely, except maybe the next time that specific creature falls into water and it is important for them to get out again quickly (i.e. unlikely to come up in the same game ever again). So you accept the on the spot ruling not covered by the rules and move onwards.

However, one could easily say that there is no rule in the RAW whatsoever that says you need a cannot fly with wet wings. You just do it. Adding a condition to flight is either poor understanding of the rules or needlessly complicating the situation and adding more complication than you need to have (What's the penalty to flying? Can you simply not fly? How wet is wet? The rules pretty much assume that if you have movement of a given type, you can use it). It's when you think too far that starts confusing things. You could figure out the physics of the situation, etc. Or just leave it simple.

My point is that the word "needlessly" is extremely subjective.

RC

 

[Voadam]

What rules are people saying were hidden from players in 2e that are open to them in 3e?

In 1e the character attacks and saves were in the DMG and so not available to PCs.

This changed in 2e, not from 2e to 3e, when they were put in the PH. The DMG in 2e had magic items and xp and DM advice, just like in 3e. Combat, classes, spells, races, and nonmagical equipment were in the PH in 2e as well as in 3e.

I'm not seeing the argument for change from 2e to 3e.