Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[Raloc]

Possibly, but the common advice (see above), all but insures abusive use of the privilege, IMO. I'd rather simply play a game where the technique wasn't (or at least mostly wasn't) necessary.

That isn't my Rule 0. I use it in the interpretation that the DM has authority to override the rules, where it benefits play. Also, I really don't think that this has to do with Rule 0, so much as it has to do with being or not being an abusive DM (who would be unfun to play with regardless of Rule 0). I don't really even think it's possible to construct an RPG that doesn't, at some point, need fiat by the arbiter.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

When I talk about "Rule 0"/"Golden Rule",

You are using the wrong term.

I'm not talking about the GM being creative; I'm talking about stuff like this:

Yeah, that's usually called "GM Fiat"

"Rule 0" means the GM Decides what the game rules are.

 

[Hussar]

I have to once again point out that by the RAW, death is a time and money sink in D&D, not something permanent.

In order to make death mean something, you have to fudge the rules - by the rules, death is (apart from TPKs) just a forced period of inactivity until your character gets raised or resurrected.

If death in your campaign is permanent, then you are already fudging the rules. By the book, D&D death is easy to recover from.

This is not always true. Death can very easily be permanent in D&D. It depends on the campaign. In my World's Largest Dungeon campaign, for example, there were no town clerics to cast raise dead. Thus, any death below 9th level was permanent. Also, depending on the state of the corpse, Raise Dead may be off the table anyways, making coming back from the dead much more difficult.

Take the Savage Tide Adventure Path as another example. In many of the modules, there's nowhere for the PC's to gain access to raise dead magics. From 5th to about 9th level, any PC death will almost certainly be permanent. Even after 9th, depending on where the PC's choose to go, death can very easily be permanent due to a lack of spell components, even assuming they can locate a cleric.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it can really depend on the campaign.

 

[Fenes]

This is not always true. Death can very easily be permanent in D&D. It depends on the campaign. In my World's Largest Dungeon campaign, for example, there were no town clerics to cast raise dead. Thus, any death below 9th level was permanent. Also, depending on the state of the corpse, Raise Dead may be off the table anyways, making coming back from the dead much more difficult.

Take the Savage Tide Adventure Path as another example. In many of the modules, there's nowhere for the PC's to gain access to raise dead magics. From 5th to about 9th level, any PC death will almost certainly be permanent. Even after 9th, depending on where the PC's choose to go, death can very easily be permanent due to a lack of spell components, even assuming they can locate a cleric.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it can really depend on the campaign.

Of course it varies. In my own campaign, Raise Dead does not exist. I am just tired of the way some people claim that playing a game where PCs won't die unless the players want them to is "bending the rules" or "not playing as it should be played" yet ignore that by making death permanent they are doing the same.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Damn, I hope I get to teach my RPG study class next year, because this thread is gold! Gold, I tell's ya!

From my perspective, the game and its acceptable rules and behaviour are a social construct by the gamers. This means that how much Gm Fiat and how much the GM gets to set the rules for particular circumstances is constructed by the group. However, this construction is not usually done through an explicit democratic process and even when that is involved, it is not usually completely democratic. The written rules form a kind of objective appeal that in some cases gives them more weight than they should have. This is why buzz's points are important to remember even though any GM can work around the rules. (This is the case even though I agree with many of the points of buzz's interlocutors.)

In the example of D&D, the rules are agnostic to intent, yet few games as they are played are agnostic to intent. Thus some mechanism to address intent is often required to guide the game according to the intent of the narrative, if not simply player desire for the narrative.

I see GM Fiat, Rule 0, action point mechanics, self-controlled healing reserves (Second Wind), and player cheating as ways to address these needs.

 

[apoptosis]

Damn, I hope I get to teach my RPG study class next year, because this thread is gold! Gold, I tell's ya!

From my perspective, the game and its acceptable rules and behaviour are a social construct by the gamers. This means that how much Gm Fiat and how much the GM gets to set the rules for particular circumstances is constructed by the group. However, this construction is not usually done through an explicit democratic process and even when that is involved, it is not usually completely democratic. The written rules form a kind of objective appeal that in some cases gives them more weight than they should have. This is why buzz's points are important to remember even though any GM can work around the rules. (This is the case even though I agree with many of the points of buzz's interlocutors.)

In the example of D&D, the rules are agnostic to intent, yet few games as they are played are agnostic to intent. Thus some mechanism to address intent is often required to guide the game according to the intent of the narrative, if not simply player desire for the narrative.

I see GM Fiat, Rule 0, action point mechanics, self-controlled healing reserves (Second Wind), and player cheating as ways to address these needs.

That was really one of the major points of the development of conflict resolution (vs task resolution), that intent was critically important.

 

[Hussar]

Of course it varies. In my own campaign, Raise Dead does not exist. I am just tired of the way some people claim that playing a game where PCs won't die unless the players want them to is "bending the rules" or "not playing as it should be played" yet ignore that by making death permanent they are doing the same.

No, they're not actually. There is NOTHING in the rules that state that raise dead should be easily available. The closest you get is the demographics tables which say that you should be able to find a high enough level cleric in a town of a certain size or larger. That's it.

The actual application of those rules is entirely up to the DM. If you're playing a campaign of wandering in the wilderness, nothing in the rules forces you to put towns within easy reach for raise dead.

However, the rules do specifically state that when you hit -10 hp, you die. Any attack which reduces your hp's that far kills the PC. If you institute a rule that takes death off the table, you are bending the rules. Or, houseruling anyway. You are deliberately changing an existing rule. Now, the "not playing as it should be played" is a wrongbadfun sort of thing and is just wrong.

That I do agree with.