3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Jackelope King]

Once again we have house rules being confused with poor GMing.

Actually, no. It's an example of a house rule being introduced as part of a bad GMing call, and this sort of thing is encouraged when you tell the GM to make such calls. The more guidance you give GMs in how and when to make such calls, the fewer of these you'll see, even from bad GMs. If the game does ask you to come up with a novel resolution system for every challenge, then this sort of thing runs rampant, and it takes a good GM to keep it under wraps. If the game minimizes the need for novel resolutions, then you'll see fewer bad call house rules. Can you run a game that demands many novel resolutions in the course of the game and have it be great? Absolutely. I've known many GMs who could probably pull an entire game system out on the fly and make the game wonderful. But I've known many, many, many more good GMs who would be hard-pressed to keep things consistent and fun for their players in such a situation.

The problem is that certain styles of play seem to necessitate the abundant use of novel house rules in order to achieve a functional experience, often with the GM using "common sense" as the yard stick for controversial calls (like the aforementioned gnome intimidating a dragon or an archer hitting his allies). For the GM, it's just common sense that a three-foot tall thing can't scare a giant dragon. But the player has seen Casino and Goodfellas and he knows not to judge someone based on their size, because there's a very good possibility that the shrimp is a psychopath who will pop your eyeball out in a vice given half a chance.

"Common sense" is anything but in many cases. Ideally, a game system (or a set of house rules) should put concrete rules in places where there could be a disagreement of "common sense". The intimidate rules are perfect for this... it might be against "common sense" for a gnome to intimidate a dragon, but it already reflects that with the modifiers for the check.

Ideally, a GM should have to rule and adjudicate as little as possible during a game and be given the opportunity to focus mainly on presenting the world of the game to the players. The rules should serve to facilitate the shared experience of that world, so that a player can hear the GM describe an area or situation, size it up, and be able to make the same predictions that we can make in real life because of a consistent ruleset underlying that environment. This is what a ruleset should strive towards.

 

[The Shaman]

It's an example of a house rule being introduced as part of a bad GMing call, and this sort of thing is encouraged when you tell the GM to make such calls.

While the rules encourage GMs to make house rules to fit their campaign, it doesn't say that they should be implemented unfairly - encouraging the GM to make judgement calls and suggesting that they do it to take away a player's choices after the fact are two different things.

The more guidance you give GMs in how and when to make such calls, the fewer of these you'll see, even from bad GMs.

I agree - that's why I think there should be more guidance for GMs on making good rulings, rather than an ever expanding canon of rules.

If the game does ask you to come up with a novel resolution system for every challenge, then this sort of thing runs rampant, and it takes a good GM to keep it under wraps. If the game minimizes the need for novel resolutions, then you'll see fewer bad call house rules.

In the case of this specific example (the archer and the obstructed field of fire), this is ruling that can be made once and applied each time the circumstance arises - it doesn't become a novel ruling each time the circumstance arises, but a consistent aspect of play.

Ideally, as others have noted, it would be best if this sort of thing can be delineated before the game in a house-rules document. However, ad hoc ruling will occur for those of us who simply cannot anticipate every circumstance that may arise during the game - if the ruling is then added to the exisiting list of house rules, it aids consistent application. To suggest that only those rules that are spelled out at the beginning of play handcuffs GMs from exercising the ability to adapt the rules to the game as situations arise that haven't been covered or which take away from the game the GM is attempting to run.

Moreover, I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should be a novel resolution system for every challenge, but that circumstances arise during play that the GM mus adjudicate, or existing rules don't suit the flavor and feel that the GM is trying to create. It's one thing to make a ruling here and there - it's another thing to say, "We're going to use d6 combat for this encounter, then flip coins next time, then...."

The problem is that certain styles of play seem to necessitate the abundant use of novel house rules in order to achieve a functional experience, often with the GM using "common sense" as the yard stick for controversial calls (like the aforementioned gnome intimidating a dragon or an archer hitting his allies). For the GM, it's just common sense that a three-foot tall thing can't scare a giant dragon. But the player has seen Casino and Goodfellas and he knows not to judge someone based on their size, because there's a very good possibility that the shrimp is a psychopath who will pop your eyeball out in a vice given half a chance.

I agree that common sense isn't.

I can't speak for other GMs, but when I make a ruling of this sort, it has everything to do with the feel of the game I want to create, not my own limited "common sense." For example, the 3e design principle that player actions should be as predictable as possible also sanitizes many of the risks that were once part of the game, either as rules or by custom - magic is safe and reliable with few (if any) harmful consequences, shooting into melee makes it more difficult to hit the target but poses no risk to the shooter's allies (or other targets in the field of fire for that matter) - and reduces some of the air of mystery that once surrounded adventuring. IMX it also leads to conflicts when players know the rules so well that they object to a challenge that seems to break those rules - "That's only a DC 20 check, so I should be able to make that by taking 10!" - without regard for the GM's power to change the rules (hopefully in a thoughtful, consistent way) to make the challenge more, well, challenging.

I like games in which the players are faced with risk versus reward choices, and when the rules sanitize some of those risks in the interest of predictability, then I will modify the rule accordingly to restore that feeling of uncertainty.

Ideally, a GM should have to rule and adjudicate as little as possible during a game and be given the opportunity to focus mainly on presenting the world of the game to the players. The rules should serve to facilitate the shared experience of that world, so that a player can hear the GM describe an area or situation, size it up, and be able to make the same predictions that we can make in real life because of a consistent ruleset underlying that environment. This is what a ruleset should strive towards.

First, I have yet to encounter the ruleset that can explicitly cover every circumstance that arises in the course of a game - I'm fortunate enough to play with very creative players for the most part. It is the GM's role, in addition to presenting the world, to adjudicate those rules in the course of play. That's straight from the RAW and shouldn't really be a source of contention.

Second, too many rules is cumbersome. Some folks have argued that it "only take a minute" to look up a rule and apply it, but IMX that's not where games bog down - it's how does the core rule interact with the rule from this supplement and that setting book? I'd rather make an ad hoc ruling and keep the game moving than stop play to search though three books to determine how these rules interact.

Third, I think consistency is important - teaching GMs to be consistent in their rulings so that if something does deviate from the RAW the players can reasonably anticipate a similar result in the future is a good idea.

Fourth and last, the rules exist to serve the game. If the RAW doesn't allow me to capture the feel of what I want to convey in presenting the world, then I adapt the rules so that they do.

 

[Mallus]

Yes. Because if there is a marketplace, I can commission someone to make me the super-rare magic item. Which is generally how people get super-rare items to begin with.

"How people get super-rare items to begin with" is a product of the setting, and how a given DM runs that setting.

My point was --and it still holds perfectly well-- that its equally contrived for a fighter to encounter a way to buy outright or commission a rare magic weapon than to find one in an opponents stock of treasure.

Unless crafty, crafting wizards are dime and dozen, and always willing to take time off from their study of How the Whole of Creation Works in order to invest a tomato-slicer with some of their precious lifeforce/mana/mojo in exchange for coinage, or a little fair trade...

In either case, the oppourtunity for Player X to acquire the item is a contrivance...

 

[Jackelope King]

While the rules encourage GMs to make house rules to fit their campaign, it doesn't say that they should be implemented unfairly - encouraging the GM to make judgement calls and suggesting that they do it to take away a player's choices after the fact are two different things. I agree - that's why I think there should be more guidance for GMs on making good rulings, rather than an ever expanding canon of rules. In the case of this specific example (the archer and the obstructed field of fire), this is ruling that can be made once and applied each time the circumstance arises - it doesn't become a novel ruling each time the circumstance arises, but a consistent aspect of play.

I agree that in principle, making judgement calls is fine. I also don't think the solution is to simply shovel more rules into the game. I do think, however, that the ideal system should minimize the amout of judgement calls a GM has to make, because for every GM making great, consistent calls, there's another half-dozen GMs running the worst sort of GM Fiat games, where the object of a challenge is to, "Figure out how the GM wants this to end."

Ideally, as others have noted, it would be best if this sort of thing can be delineated before the game in a house-rules document. However, ad hoc ruling will occur for those of us who simply cannot anticipate every circumstance that may arise during the game - if the ruling is then added to the exisiting list of house rules, it aids consistent application. To suggest that only those rules that are spelled out at the beginning of play handcuffs GMs from exercising the ability to adapt the rules to the game as situations arise that haven't been covered or which take away from the game the GM is attempting to run.

And I have no problem with a GM making rulings during play. I expect it. I expect that when I run a game, I will have to invent the mechanics for at least one type of challenge as I go. No problem there. What I dislike is when the system encourages this as the primary resolution system (i.e. one which demands novel solutions to be playable). I greatly prefer it when the GM and the players are on the same page. And I will agree that in many cases ad hoc rulings by GMs I've known are exactly what I would've done, and all we players agreed it was a good call. However, I feel that encouraging GMs to use this to the exclusion of a codified ruleset is to the detriment of the gaming experience. I don't mind if the GM invents rules for braciation on the fly for me when I'm playing at Tarzan chasing a dire ape through the jungle. I do mind if the GM tells me that my gnome can't intimidate a dragon because it's just silly.

Moreover, I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should be a novel resolution system for every challenge, but that circumstances arise during play that the GM mus adjudicate, or existing rules don't suit the flavor and feel that the GM is trying to create. It's one thing to make a ruling here and there - it's another thing to say, "We're going to use d6 combat for this encounter, then flip coins next time, then...."I agree that common sense isn't.

I agree. However, I think that the ideal system minimizes the need for this adjudication, or simplifies it with definite guidelines.

I can't speak for other GMs, but when I make a ruling of this sort, it has everything to do with the feel of the game I want to create, not my own limited "common sense." For example, the 3e design principle that player actions should be as predictable as possible also sanitizes many of the risks that were once part of the game, either as rules or by custom - magic is safe and reliable with few (if any) harmful consequences, shooting into melee makes it more difficult to hit the target but poses no risk to the shooter's allies (or other targets in the field of fire for that matter) - and reduces some of the air of mystery that once surrounded adventuring. IMX it also leads to conflicts when players know the rules so well that they object to a challenge that seems to break those rules - "That's only a DC 20 check, so I should be able to make that by taking 10!" - without regard for the GM's power to change the rules (hopefully in a thoughtful, consistent way) to make the challenge more, well, challenging.

I agree with the first part of your statement (how to make ad hoc rulings), but disagree that an "air of mystery" is needed for a game. I've never met players who have done as you described, and I couldn't disagree more that having knowledgable players is a bad thing. To the contrary, I'd love to have more knowledgeable players. When I do play with people who know the rules, I can generally spend more time running the game rather than telling them how to accomplish a given task. I honestly can't fathom why you wouldn't want a cooperative player who knows how the game works to take some of the burden of running the mechanics of the game sitting at your table, and I think this is the big disconnect between our points of view. Much to the contrary, I encourage my players to know exactly how the mechanics of their characters work. Thanks to a severe lack of PHBs from the early 3.0 days of our group, I encouraged players to copy and paste the rules for their feats, class abilities, skills, and racial abilities from the SRD into MS Word and print them out alongside their character sheets. It removes a lot of the burden of running the game for me when a player says, "Alright, I want to climb that wall. You said it's a pretty typical masonry wall? The DC for that should be around 25." Now all I have to do is come back and say, "Right. Since it rained last night, it might be a little trickier," and tack a +2 modifier onto the check. I don't need the mechanics of the game to present and "air of mystery" to my players... I can do that just fine with the world they interact with.

I like games in which the players are faced with risk versus reward choices, and when the rules sanitize some of those risks in the interest of predictability, then I will modify the rule accordingly to restore that feeling of uncertainty. First, I have yet to encounter the ruleset that can explicitly cover every circumstance that arises in the course of a game - I'm fortunate enough to play with very creative players for the most part. It is the GM's role, in addition to presenting the world, to adjudicate those rules in the course of play. That's straight from the RAW and shouldn't really be a source of contention.

No problem there, but I'll again point out that "ruling to restore a certain feeling of gameplay" can very, very easily silde into "ruling to restore how I feel the game should be". There's a fine line, and it takes a good GM to walk that line. If successful, the results can be marvelous. But I've seen many, many disasterous games where the GM tried to do just this and failed miserably.

Second, too many rules is cumbersome. Some folks have argued that it "only take a minute" to look up a rule and apply it, but IMX that's not where games bog down - it's how does the core rule interact with the rule from this supplement and that setting book? I'd rather make an ad hoc ruling and keep the game moving than stop play to search though three books to determine how these rules interact.

It'd certainly be helpful if you had a player there who knew the rules and who could tell you what they say in the situation, eh ? But seriously, I agree that too many rules is a bad thing, but I think we have a disagreement as to what constitutes "too many rules". I prefer a system where there is a simple and consistent resolution mechanic (in d20's case, d20 + modifier must beat DC) and a clear set of guidelines for the GM to determine the target (in this case, the DC). The less time I have to spend adjudicating how to climb a wall, the more time I can spend challenging my players with some good encounters.

Third, I think consistency is important - teaching GMs to be consistent in their rulings so that if something does deviate from the RAW the players can reasonably anticipate a similar result in the future is a good idea.

Absolutely, and that's where I think having a consistent resolution system as part of the system is essential.

Fourth and last, the rules exist to serve the game. If the RAW doesn't allow me to capture the feel of what I want to convey in presenting the world, then I adapt the rules so that they do.

No problem there either. The only way a problem arrises here is if you as the GM fail to get the players on the same page you're on. If you're seeking a grim & gritty game where even a low-damage attack can spell death for a character and your players think they're playing in a hack-fest where they can take all the hit point damage they want and never come out worse for it, then you've got a disconnect. And this is why a ruleset exists: to provide a shared interface for the world between all the players and the GM. No ruleset I know of can do it perfectly (which is why I refer to it as an "ideal"), but that should be the goal of any ruleset.

To clarify, when you change the rules to serve your game, you are doing do to help your players experience the game world in the same way you do. In the world you envision, let's say you don't see elves as graceful but frail, and instead see them as beautiful and charming but air-headed. You house rule elves to have a +2 charisma/-2 wisdom instead of a +2 dexterity/-2 consitution. A problem will not arrise here if you and the players all understand what elves are like in your game. A problem will rise, however, if you fail to communicate this change to players, or if the players fail to realize that you've changed elves. Now the guy who thought he was playing a nimble rogue finds out he's playing a ditz instead. The problem here is not that a change was made, but that there is a disconnect between how the player and the GM see the game world. As I've said, the ideal system minimizes this disconnect by providing a consistent (not necssarily overwhelming) ruleset. We'll probably never find that ideal system, but it should be the goal designers strive towards.

 

[The Shaman]

No fair, Jackelope King! How are we supposed to have a spirited flame war when we concur on so many points? This is the Internet, dagnabbit - no one is supposed to agree with anyone!

Here, I'll try picking at this...

I've never met players who have done as you described, and I couldn't disagree more that having knowledgable players is a bad thing. To the contrary, I'd love to have more knowledgeable players. When I do play with people who know the rules, I can generally spend more time running the game rather than telling them how to accomplish a given task. I honestly can't fathom why you wouldn't want a cooperative player who knows how the game works to take some of the burden of running the mechanics of the game sitting at your table, and I think this is the big disconnect between our points of view.

*sigh*

Actually, I do agree that knowledgeable players are a very good thing, and I didn't mean to imply that they aren't. The problem is that I have encountered players like that, mostly since playing 3e, players who won't allow for the fact that the GM may have changed a critter ability or created a unique challenge of some kind and insist that the DC is x, not y, because that's what it says on page abc. That's the opposite of a cooperative player, as I'm sure you would agree.

I guess the only thing I have to add at this point is that while a good framework is important, I do believe more effort should be invested in teaching GMs to make good calls using that framework. (That there may be a financial incentive not to is an intriguing motive as to why this isn't the case.)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The problem is that I have encountered players like that, mostly since playing 3e, players who won't allow for the fact that the GM may have changed a critter ability or created a unique challenge of some kind and insist that the DC is x, not y, because that's what it says on page abc. That's the opposite of a cooperative player, as I'm sure you would agree.

On the other hand, why wasn't the DC X?

To take an example, sure, you can change the DC to climb a normal masonry wall from 25 to arbitrarily large value Z, but what was the rationale behind it?

Is it to make this particular wall unclimbable because you don't have any details about what's at the top? Is it because you have an encounter planned somewhere down the street where an assassin attacks from the rooftops (and therefore would be spoiled by a character also on the roof)? Is it because this is the wall of an archmage's lab, and he's magically treated his walls to make them harder to climb (perhaps by placing a wall of force immediately outside the brick wall)? Is it because you're in a tropical wilderness, and the slimy fungus all over the wall makes it more slippery?

In other words, a PC with a climb bonus of +15 knows that, if he takes his time, he can climb up most brick walls without issue. In many cases, he should be able to look at a given wall and decide, based on his experiences, whether or not he's got a chance to make it up the wall. Arbitrarily changing DCs, among other things, means that the player can no longer act and react to the world based on his character's experience of the game world.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I agree that in principle, making judgement calls is fine. I also don't think the solution is to simply shovel more rules into the game. I do think, however, that the ideal system should minimize the amout of judgement calls a GM has to make, because for every GM making great, consistent calls, there's another half-dozen GMs running the worst sort of GM Fiat games, where the object of a challenge is to, "Figure out how the GM wants this to end."

Yes, this has pretty much been my point. My problem is that each of those half-dozen GMs believe they are the GM who is making great, consistant calls. This has jaded me to the point where as soon as a GM starts telling me he has house rules, I worry about having fun at the game.

I think I've lost faith that there IS the one who makes good, consistant rulings. It's beginning to look to me as if ALL DMs who are coming up with house rules are doing so to cover their lack of knowledge of the rules. I don't mean to be insulting, I'm sure there ARE DMs out there, I just haven't played with them.

No problem there either. The only way a problem arrises here is if you as the GM fail to get the players on the same page you're on. If you're seeking a grim & gritty game where even a low-damage attack can spell death for a character and your players think they're playing in a hack-fest where they can take all the hit point damage they want and never come out worse for it, then you've got a disconnect..

Yes, exactly. And, IMHO, the D&D rules promote one style of play. DMs need to understand this before choosing it as the ruleset. You have heavily modify it to promote a different style of play, but I see too many DMs who just expect the ruleset to work for whatever style they want to run without any changes. Then, when they find rules that don't fit their style, they change them, one by one.

D&D encourages entire role playing sessions to be resolved by a single die roll and each 6 seconds of combat to take 30 minutes of time in real life. If you want a role playing heavy game, you will likely have to create a lot of house rules.

 

[The Shaman]

On the other hand, why wasn't the DC X?

To take an example, sure, you can change the DC to climb a normal masonry wall from 25 to arbitrarily large value Z, but what was the rationale behind it?

There could be a number of reasons for it - here are a couple of examples that I would consider for a game that I'm running:

Is it because this is the wall of an archmage's lab, and he's magically treated his walls to make them harder to climb (perhaps by placing a wall of force immediately outside the brick wall)? Is it because you're in a tropical wilderness, and the slimy fungus all over the wall makes it more slippery?

Or because the wall is crumbling from age, or because the wall is rigged to fall, or because the wall is actually a variety of earth elemental that the players haven't encountered before...

And here are a couple that I would never use:

Is it to make this particular wall unclimbable because you don't have any details about what's at the top? Is it because you have an encounter planned somewhere down the street where an assassin attacks from the rooftops (and therefore would be spoiled by a character also on the roof)?

The second set of examples I would consider arbitrary and extremely poor GMing, but not the first. I agree that there are no excuses for arbitrary nerfing of a characters abilities, but not all changes are so - some (all in my games) are introduced to reflect specific circumstances.

In other words, a PC with a climb bonus of +15 knows that, if he takes his time, he can climb up most brick walls without issue. In many cases, he should be able to look at a given wall and decide, based on his experiences, whether or not he's got a chance to make it up the wall. Arbitrarily changing DCs, among other things, means that the player can no longer act and react to the world based on his character's experience of the game world.

Again, not all changes are arbitrary, nor do the characters necessarily know everything that is going on at the moment.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Oops. I see that I missed where Majoru qualified the statement regarding his assumption of DND as RAW Greyhawk without houserules as being unless told otherwise. I suppose unless told otherwise m does change eveything

Yes, I never said it was wrong to change the game...though, as I recently mentioned...I get...bad feelings when it happens.

This has a lot to do with being a rules lawyer. I admit it. I know the rules better than anyone else I know. I correct other DMs on a regular basis and it rubs me the wrong way when DMs forget the rules in exchange for whatever comes to mind.

I'm the one that says "Remember, the enemy gets +4 bonus to his grapple check due to size" and have DMs say "Oh, right...I forgot about that. You fail to grapple him." I generally get a sense early on if the DM is in 1 of 3 major categories:

1) Forgetful: These DMs will thank me for helping them as it's been a while since they've read through the book, they don't DM very often and it's nice to have someone around who remembers small bonuses since they can't.

2) Uncaring: These DMs never knew the rule to begin with, never actually read the book and are making things up as they go along. They get angry at me for "undermining their authority" and tend to be the ones that get the most angry at rules lawyers.

3) House Rules DM: These DMs have read the rules and didn't like something about them. They didn't think that hit points were realistic enough so they removed the ability to gain more as you go up levels, they think being able to cast defensively is stupid, etc. They get really mad at me for pointing out that all the problems they've created due to changing the rules until they get angry enough, so I never open my mouth while at the table again.

I'm sure there is a 4th category:

4) People who changed only the bare minimum rules to fit their campaign worlds and thought all the way through their changes so they rebalanced all the classes to make up for power lost due to changes they made.

Of course, I've never met anyone in the 4th category, but I keep reading about them.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Majoru Oakheart.. I soo much want to be GM Type #4.. but probably end up as a #1

TheShaman..Patryn's point.. and mine.. is that the climbing player can have one of two responses....based on how the GM has ruled on things in the past.

A> This is strange, I should be able to climb this wall.. but something about it is making it difficult. We should investigate to discover the reason I cannot easily climb this!

B> Damn. DM doesn't want me on the roof. Guess I will have to go along and get ambushed by his story.

Obviously, option A is preferable. This option is more likely when you have established that the rules work they way they are expected to under normal circumstances... expected *by the player*. Most of the reasons you mention would be easily detectable by touch or by look.
As a player, I would be annoyed if you told me after I failed a climb check that the wall was a higher difficulty because it is made of old, crumbly sandstone.