Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8919458" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I don't have any. "House rules" are changes to the fundamental rules substrate which we all agree to abide by.If and when we discover that substrate is insufficient, we have a conversation, as human beings should. Generally, we don't need one (though that's partly because of the way Dungeon World is designed.) On the rare occasions we do need one, my mantra is: Always embrace genuine, non-coercive, non-exploitative player enthusiasm. Because enthusiasm is the most precious and delicate commodity. Lose it and it's extremely difficult to get it back.This, on the other hand, I cannot stand. At all. Ever. This attitude destroys the game aspect of a roleplaying game as surely as your convention against "if players can just alter reality at will." The rules have to be more than just suggestions, or else the whole thing is "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further." (There are other, pithier phrases I could use to describe my perception of this concept, but others find those phrases upsetting.) You're constantly on the lookout for how the rug will get pulled out from under you this time, even if you believe the DM is trying to be fair and consistent, because human beings are innately and unavoidably biased and inconsistent.If the player cannot alter the game at will, the DM cannot alter the game at will either. This is the fundamental agreement behind playing a written game as opposed to Calvinball.If we (the player and I) have agreed that the rules--the established substrate that we agreed to--has failed us, then we negotiate. As long as the player is coming in genuine good faith, seeking only to have a more fun and engaging experience, I will move heaven and earth for them to deliver a satisfactory outcome. That does not mean I will simply give them what they asked for, however; there are many times where the thing asked for as it is simply can't be done, for whatever reason. So I dig down into what the player is looking for, what their heart's desire is, and look for whatever ways are available to make that happen. I have never failed to achieve this with my group, and we're a few months out from five years of play.I have extremely few "bright line" limits I won't cross. One of them is that I don't run games for outright, actually evil PCs. PCs who suffer temptation, perhaps even give into it once in a while? Awesome. PCs who were evil and have begun a journey of recovery, full of pitfalls and backslides and the painful process of change? God in Heaven, give me ALL of that. But genuinely, no restrictions, no caveats, evil PCs? I can't run an entertaining game for them. It's not compatible with my interests and preferences as DM. It will be disappointing for both me and the player, so I don't do that. As noted above, the whole "player is being coercive or exploitative" is also a hard no. Apart from those things, though, it's very difficult to bring me an idea I simply can't tolerate.As for your more specific questions, generally I will accept something as establishing a precedent, but I may note that a particular action was incredibly unlikely or risky. I don't think I would allow a mundane mirror (which is generally made of metal) to reflect a lightning bolt in the first place, though I do find the idea interesting. Perhaps some kind of specially-treated glass? Or a thing the players can look for in the future? Or perhaps just allowing the mirror to "absorb" some of the damage, but still passing a good portion on to whoever is holding the mirror (because, y'know, electrical conductivity.)I tend to build into my world "outs" in case something unexpected happens. Not in the "and if they take action X, then Y will occur, so I can trigger plan Z" way. Rather, establishing that there is some kind of fictional support for something. The party has a gold dragon ally; he's busy and running incognito, so he can't just waltz around and do their work for them, but he has (at the players' prompting even!) promised to give them aid if they should find themselves in a desperate time of need. Likewise, I think about potential interactions, and when the players ask good questions, I include as much detail as possible (balanced against the need to be succinct, of course) so that there's usually something more they can dig into, more things they can declare or discover answers about.Essentially, if the player can sell me on the action, I'm almost certainly for it. I make certain allowances for naturalness/physical phenomena (like the conductivity thing above), but I am very motivated by the Rule of Cool and, to a lesser extent, the Rule of Drama. Something being cool or dramatic isn't a guarantee that it will work...but if you can get me to see how cool or dramatic it is, most of the time, you'll probably get me to agree to at least part of what you're looking for.</blockquote>

Verification