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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2594643" data-attributes="member: 26473">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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification