Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="J_D" data-source="post: 2330170" data-attributes="member: 20956">I've been lurking and reading this topic with interest, and decided I had to put my opinionated two-bits in.  I know absolutely nothing about C&C, so I'll stick to general gaming preferences — and my gaming preferences are probably more extreme than JohnSnow's (or perhaps he's just toning his words down below what he really things - I won't).  If your gaming style or preferences or values are different, you'll of course disagree and many of you would likely hate to play in a game with me.  All of my strong statements should be regarded in the context of my gaming values.I have to come down on JohnSnow's, Zappo's, and Majoru Oakheart's side in this, then go probably even farther.  You see, one thing I absolutely positively have to have in a game is consistency.  I demand and require consistency.  This is because I value verisimilitude and "world simulation", and consistency is a prerequisite and requirement of those.  If some situation X is handled by method A the first time it comes up but then the same situation comes up again a month later and is handled by method B, then comes up again six months later and is handled by method C, that utterly destroys the fun of the game for me.  To use a concrete example mentioned earlier on the thread, if a good lock is DC 30 to open, then it had damn well better DC 30 to open next session, next month or next year as well!  I have zero tolerance for any DM Fiat such that on his own whim he decides it's DC 30 now, but next session it's DC 35 and six months from now a good lock is DC 25 to open.  Once it's clear to me that I have no possible way of knowing ahead of time how a situation will be handled even though that situation has arisen before, it's no longer possible for me to have fun in a game — the game is ruined for me!I'll go so far as to say that in my own opinion and judging by my own gaming values, a DM that is either willfully or negligently inconsistent in his adjudicating of the game is by definition an incompetent DM.  DM's make mistakes, sure.  So do players, and so do I!  I understand and accept this and it doesn't bother me, so long as the DM is willing to acknowledge and correct the mistakes when pointed out to him.  By mistakes, I don't mean necessarily forgetting or misapplying the RAW; I have no problem with heavily house-ruled departures from the RAW so long as those house rules are consistently applied and make some sort of sense.  It's the momentary whim of DM Fiat that really gets to me.  When a DM ignores his own rulings of the past (whether regarding RAW or house rules) in favor of his current whim of the moment with a deliberate lack of regard for those past rulings, that's when he crosses the line from making a mistake to being incompetent.(And yes, I am the sort of person who will, when my DM makes an inconsistent ruling, throw back at him his exact words from two years ago and insist upon either following the precedent or an explanation of why the current situation is different, and I won't take "because I'm the DM and I say so" for an answer.  I won't make much fuss if he departs from RAW - instead just ask for clarification for future reference - but I will call him out over inconsistency with his own past rulings.)I'll even go further than this.  The incompetence of inconsistency can be applied to game system themselves.  When a game system deliberately encourages the momentary whim of DM Fiat — for example JohnSnow's quote from C&C: "Adjust the TN upwards by a number that feels right to you. After a while, you'll get used to picking numbers that work for you and your group. A good rule of thumb is to increase the number by 1 for the level of the characters." — over any sense of consistency or objective "world simulation" then that game system is incompetently designed.  JohnSnow is charitable when he says merely that it is "nebulous guidelines at best".  I'll go farther than that: it's incompetence at game design.  (Note here that I am not at this point condemning C&C in particular as incompetently designed; as I said before I have no personal knowledge of it and this is just one quote. I have no idea how prevalent this sort of thing is in C&C.)  A particular task that has a DC X for success should have the same DC next session, next month and next year - this is consistency.  A particular task that has a DC X for success should have that same DC regardless of the level of the person picking it because of the inherent nature of that task in itself - this is objective world simulation.  A game that is designed with an explicit and prevalent rejection of consistency and objective world simulation is a game that as far as I am concerned is incompetently designed.These issues of consistency and world simulation are largely independent of the issue of "rules-light" vs. "rules-heavy".  No game, whether "rules-light" or "rules-heavy", can have a rule for every conceivable situation and "rules-light" games don't suck on that basis alone.  (The issue of consistency is even independent of the level of detail (abstract vs. gritty), although world simulation does call for a more finely-detailed system and personally I do like more detail.)  It's a given that things are going to come up that haven't been covered in the rulebook in any game.  What makes or breaks a DM or game in my eyes is how those things are handled when they do come up.  The worst possible way to handle it is for the DM to come up with an off the top of his head ruling "just to keep the game flowing swiftly along" but not write it down or remember it and thus come up with a completely different ruling two months later when the same situation comes up.  I can live with DM Fiat in which the DM comes up with a quick rule then writes it down so it can be remembered and used again as needed in the future as this establishes consistency at least, although if the DM isn't good at this sort of thing such off-the-cuff rules without some time to think about them can suck.Ideally, I'd like to see such things handled cooperatively between the DM and the players as RFisher pointed out.  When some situation for which no rule currently exists comes up, the DM calls an immediate time-out on the game - regardless of whether the group was in the middle of some combat or dramatic role-play moment or not - and calls for a short discussion (say, 5-10 minutes, 15 if absolutely needed but try to go no longer than that) of the situation and what sort of rule will provide a reasonable and sensible resolution and blend well with the rest of the system.  Then, once the rule is agreed upon by DM and players, get it down in writing!!.  Then, resolve the situation that started the discussion and resume play.  When handled this way, the issue will never come up again and in the future when this situation pops up again the written rule will handle it and that "swiftly flowing game" can move right along.  I know that many people who put high value on the "swiftly flowing game" will absolutely hate this method of resolution, but for me at least, while a "swiftly flowing game" is important consistency and making sense within a world simulation context are even more important!Getting the rule down in writing is important - not just for consistency's sake but also for the simple fact that a player playing the game has a right (and responsibility) to know what the rules are before he has need to use them in the game (unless of course it's one of those new situations for which no rule exists yet).  Even if a DM is totally consistent over time applying rules that exist only in his own head, in practice from the player's perspective there is no meaningful difference at all between the whim of the moment DM Fiat and a consistently followed rule that only the DM knows.I don't have anything against "rules-light" games in and of themselves.  The only thing about such games is that if consistency is paid any heed they will inevitably become "rules-heavy" with the addition of house rules over time that handle situations not covered in the rulebooks.  The only way to keep a "rules-light" game light is to either let inconsistency run roughshod over the game or play in a very limited and abstract style which doesn't exceed what the rules do cover.  The former I can't tolerate and the latter isn't to my taste, so a game I'd enjoy might start off as rules-light but get heavier with time.</blockquote>

Verification