Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5314857" data-attributes="member: 82106">@Pemberton, the issue of who is 'in charge' of what rules are used and how is really largely irrelevant. A DM might decide on his own how he's going to run things, the players might decide, they all might decide together, etc. It simply isn't germane to the question at hand. In any game ultimately the players vote with their feet if nothing else. DM Fiat is simply not relevant to this discussion. We could all sit here and employ highly elaborate phraseology and talk about the application of the rules via whatever process is in place at the table or just talk about it in terms of being in the DM's sphere, etc. Most groups follow the DM's lead to varying degrees, so it makes more sense to simply refer to the whole thing in that context. It is fine if it is understood to be more broad than that, but also remember that the DM is uniquely in the position to know what game elements are likely to be important and often wants to present them in specific ways. Players don't. This makes the type of rules questions we're talking about here more likely to be meaningfully relevant to the DM.[MENTION=78116]Aegeri[/MENTION], sure you can devise an example of a situation where you don't find it advantageous to make a specific ruling in a specific way, but I'd also point out that in your particular situation ALL melee weapon users are going to be at a disadvantage. So are ranged single-target power users for that matter. Characters with a good dose of area and close powers OTOH are going to have a significant advantage. Odd that you don't find that to be a problem... As P1NBACK and eamon have tried to allude to with varying degrees of success the game has always entailed an element of the unknown and of variability in effectiveness of specific tactics in given situations. This IS an aspect of the game that creates variety and adds interest. Sure, we can argue about what the very most effective general ways to do that are, whether it is resistances/vulnerabilities/immunities or other mechanics but any of these things can be used judiciously to both create variety and give a sense of interacting with a complex world that you explore and interact with instead of a formulaic and limited set of universal rules that always work the same way. Personally I find that the players I DM for DEMAND that kind of approach to the game. Maybe if I ran an LFR game I'd consider a different approach, but frankly rigid adherence to the rules for the sake of the hobgoblin of consistency just doesn't cut it in the circles I game in. YMMV.The rules are a set of tools, one of several tools in the DM's box of tools. Going back to Pemberton's favorite blog post what I get out of it is that all of that is secondary to the structure of the story and the functioning of the game world within it's own set of parameters. Sure, you want to use a system that matches what you want to do since that will be the best tool, but it is only ONE tool amongst many. I'm all for players being active equal participants in deciding how the game works. Again I don't think that is the issue here. The question is about whether or not a degree of flexibility in applying the rules serves the game. I think it does. Sure, you can make slippery slope arguments and player entitlement arguments etc all you want, but I think they're largely overblown. Players can adapt to unusual circumstances. The DM can decide in flexible ways how and when fluff can be adjusted to best work out any given situation and when making a few minor tweaks to the rules is the better approach. The rulespocalypse you guys allude to is simply IMHO a boogeyman. It hasn't shown hide nor hair of itself in decades of play IME. I go by the play of the game at the table and what I've found is that overall players are happier with a less rigid approach to the rules which have lower precedence than how the actual specific game is playing at the table. OK, someone can't grab a swarm. Really just isn't that big a deal, they can use some other tactics or rely on their allies to deal with that problem. If they see it as a persistent issue they can equip themselves to handle it in some fashion. If no existing way seems to exist within the rules to do that and they desire one then we'll come up with an option they can employ. I find that much more entertaining than the alternatives. Apparently so do the players I DM for. If anything they ask for it. Again YMMV and you can do whatever works for your group but I'm pretty sure your approach is not always the one I'd choose.Overall it is an interesting discussion, but I sense that there's really not much more that can be said on either side that hasn't been already.</blockquote>

Verification