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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 2596216" data-attributes="member: 336">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.</blockquote>

Verification