Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rasyr" data-source="post: 2566803" data-attributes="member: 2855">"Core assumptions" is being bandied about a lot now. Just remember what happens when you "assume". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />The problem as I see it is not the rules themselves, but the fact that these "core assumptions" are worked so deeply into the rules that it is nigh impossible to change those assumptions without having to do a whole lot of work and practically rewriting the game in some respects.A good game should not have to make assumptions, it should provide the GM with a toolkit to use in creating his own game. Because of these "core assumptions", you are not playing YOUR game, you are playing WOTC's game.Caveat - some games, such as Star Wars, or Buffy, or Angel, or even Arcana Evolved all come with a specific setting. Those that do have a setting are EXPECTED to have "core assumptions" based on the setting.  Yes, "core assumptions" should be based upon the setting of the game, NOT upon the core rules of the game.This is where D&D fails. It is making many "core assumptions" and codifying them into the core rules, rather than the setting, yet trying to present itself as generic set of rules usable for any setting.Almost every instance of GM Fiat being described here can most likely be attributed to using a setting that does not match the "core assumptions" of the rules.Now there are two different kinds of GM Fiat being discussed as well. The first is where the GM is using a setting different from the one indicated by the "core assumptions", and the GM has to make decisions based upon the setting. Now it is highly probable that the players will not know everything about the setting in such cases and something that the GM makes a decision on may seem like whim when it actually isn't, but is based on something that the GM does not want to explain (as he feels that it would ruin aspects of the game for players if he told them rather than them finding out in the course of the game).The second type of GM Fiat is where the GM makes decisions based upon whims. This is something that I am totally against.Another major issue of D&D is that the rules are written in such a way that it encourages players to expect certain "core assumptions", no matter what the setting. This includes allowing any "official" PrC or Feat, certain Wealth levels, certain level of encounters at certain levels, etc..Encounters - I view an encounter as a sighting, either the PCs sight the object of the encounter (or traces of it such as tracks) or the object of the encounter sights the PCs. Anything after that should depend upon the nature of the object of the encounter and/or the actions of the PCs themselves. An Encounter does NOT, to me, mean combat automatically. The 1st level PCs spotting an ancient dragon (35th level or higher) flying overhead is an encounter in my book. If the PCs are stupid enough to want to try and fight it, that is their own fault (though I will attempt to warn them off without giving them any information about its stats).Well, enough of my ramblings for one day......<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification