Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2573054" data-attributes="member: 26473">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.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...."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.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.</blockquote>

Verification