Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="P1NBACK" data-source="post: 5317785" data-attributes="member: 83768">Amusing because I agreed it isn't sufficient? I'm not ignoring the rules arbitrarily, just like I wouldn't be ignoring the rules &quot;arbitrarily&quot; if someone came up with fictional justification to push a swarm (it's against the rules to push a swarm you know?). If a player justified breaking a &quot;rule&quot; and it made sense, I'd let them. Why not? Rules are guidelines and benchmarks for the DM. If I want to create an undead creature that is not immune to poison, I should be able to. That's breaking the &quot;rules&quot; - but if it makes sense, then why not? The difference here is, one group of DMs prefer to stick to the rules (even when they misinterpret them, as Aegeri has done) and one group of DMs prefer to use the rules as guidelines supplemented by fiction and common sense. I don't care which you prefer, but the point of this thread is when houserules were appropriate, and when they weren't. Is it appropriate to houserule that a swarm can be pushed by forced movement? It depends on the fiction and common sense. Yet, someone like you or Aegeri wouldn't allow that because it &quot;breaks the rules&quot;. On the flip side, you would allow a single man (well, Aegeri would anyways) to grab hold and immobilize a gargantuan mob of humanoids to the detriment of common sense - because he misinterprets the rules. Which is worse for the game and the &quot;casual player&quot;? I'd argue the latter. Because then, the new player has to learn what rules YOU are using and how YOU interpret them, instead of relying on the common ground of common sense. When a new player comes to the game, they don't know the &quot;rules&quot; - they know what makes sense fictionally and within the framework of common sense. My players prefer to roleplay when they play D&amp;D. So, yeah. I guess so. To each his own, as they say.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="P1NBACK, post: 5317785, member: 83768"] Amusing because I agreed it isn't sufficient? I'm not ignoring the rules arbitrarily, just like I wouldn't be ignoring the rules "arbitrarily" if someone came up with fictional justification to push a swarm (it's against the rules to push a swarm you know?). If a player justified breaking a "rule" and it made sense, I'd let them. Why not? Rules are guidelines and benchmarks for the DM. If I want to create an undead creature that is not immune to poison, I should be able to. That's breaking the "rules" - but if it makes sense, then why not? The difference here is, one group of DMs prefer to stick to the rules (even when they misinterpret them, as Aegeri has done) and one group of DMs prefer to use the rules as guidelines supplemented by fiction and common sense. I don't care which you prefer, but the point of this thread is when houserules were appropriate, and when they weren't. Is it appropriate to houserule that a swarm can be pushed by forced movement? It depends on the fiction and common sense. Yet, someone like you or Aegeri wouldn't allow that because it "breaks the rules". On the flip side, you would allow a single man (well, Aegeri would anyways) to grab hold and immobilize a gargantuan mob of humanoids to the detriment of common sense - because he misinterprets the rules. Which is worse for the game and the "casual player"? I'd argue the latter. Because then, the new player has to learn what rules YOU are using and how YOU interpret them, instead of relying on the common ground of common sense. When a new player comes to the game, they don't know the "rules" - they know what makes sense fictionally and within the framework of common sense. My players prefer to roleplay when they play D&D. So, yeah. I guess so. To each his own, as they say. [/QUOTE]

Verification