(Discussion) General Part VI

[Kahuna Burger]

Is officiate even a word?

yes, but as far as I know it means to preside over an event as opposed to something you do to a specific proposal.

Appologies to all my players for my bad response times lately. marathon work days (with multiple pts's) and a nesting hubby trying to engage me in his cleaning/moving frenzy have me pretty short on comperter time, but I'm trying to make up for it.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Aranan]

I'm new to this whole thing (haven't made a character yet) and I was wondering about something. If I'm on an adventure that one of the DMs is running, do I play by the actual D&D rules or am I at the mercy of the DM if they don't fully understand how the rules work? I've seen a few situations where DMs have done things against the rules, which would bother me a little if I were playing. I'm a stickler for the rules, in most situations.

Just curious, thanks

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I'm new to this whole thing (haven't made a character yet) and I was wondering about something. If I'm on an adventure that one of the DMs is running, do I play by the actual D&D rules or am I at the mercy of the DM if they don't fully understand how the rules work? I've seen a few situations where DMs have done things against the rules, which would bother me a little if I were playing. I'm a stickler for the rules, in most situations.

Just curious, thanks

First of all, without knowing exact situations, I have no idea if you are talking about Dms who actually "don't fully understand" or those who just implement ambiguous rules in a way you disagree with. No offense meant, but I know many players and posters who say one thing when its really the other.

IMO, if a DM on your adventure makes a ruling you feel is actually incorrect, you are free to point it up quickly in an ooc (out of character/campaign) comment, preferably with a quote from the SRD. If its a rules interpretation/application issue, the DM wins. If you make a correction and the DM says "We'll stick with how it happened for now, but thanks" or "I'm going based off of this section which indicates otherwise." again, the DM wins. if this would really annoy you, I suggest that you lurk a few current adventures and get a feel for which DMs you are compatable with, or consider doing more DMing than playing.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Manzanita]

Yes. I would say the DM is always right. In LEW, if you didn't like it you could, perhaps, say 'I'm out of here. Back to the tavern.' & find a different DM. So LEW might be a good bet for you. Personally, as a DM, I try to put common sense before the rules; I'm no stickler.

 

[RillianPA]

Yes. I would say the DM is always right. In LEW, if you didn't like it you could, perhaps, say 'I'm out of here. Back to the tavern.' & find a different DM. So LEW might be a good bet for you. Personally, as a DM, I try to put common sense before the rules; I'm no stickler.

Changing rules (or even just changing how they are applied) based on common sense is a very dangerous thing to do, especially in a common world like LEW. To begin with, characters may (and probably will) have multiple DMs over the course of their life. If each DM changes the rules based on his/her idea of common sense, the world will lose continuity, and players will become upset and frustrated. The whole reason for using the SRD and only carefully approved additions, is to provide a consistent world for everyone.

Worse, what some may see as common sense, others may see totally differently. My first 3.0 DM immediately ruled that Sneak Attack could only be performed when the defender was unaware of the attacker. Based on the name of the ability, this seemed like common sense to him. Of course it is a massive, unbalancing change, and was inappropriate, but it was still a "common sense" decision.

Obviously, there are rules which are vague and/or unclear, and the DM will be forced to make a ruling on them (maybe we should track these rulings so they can be consistently applied as well?). And sometimes a DM will alter things for story roleplaying purposes, which is also fine (though he probably ought to let the players know that he is doing it on purpose).

 

[Creamsteak]

Rillian, can you give a couple examples?

If a DM doesn't use an actual rule correctly, you can just bring it up with them. If, for instance, the DM doesn't give you an attack of opportunity you should have gotten, point it out and I'm fairly certain they will be ameniable to it or explain why it doesn't happen.

If you honestly need to see ALL the dice rolls (at least all those your character makes), your going to have a restricted list of those DMs that could run you. I know that not everyone posts all of that, and often they don't even give you a round by round out of character set of actions (most would say, "he runs at you and brings his staff around to strike, dealing 4 points of damage", without adding the OOC notes 20 feet moved to G1 and attacks with quarterstaff, 22 to hit, 5 damage reduced by 1 due to damage reduction). I'd be able to, as I do roll all the dice, I just don't always post them. But most DMs in our Play by Post community tend to limit posting results of dice to combat and perhaps called checks like diplomacy or appraise.

I leave it up to you to decide what your going to think of that. You do have a choice of DMs in LEW, but the majority are more free-form than technical. I trust them all the same, as I like both and can play and run both ways. At least with this community, if you don't like how one game is going, you can keep the character and go on a different adventure.

 

[Creamsteak]

yes, but as far as I know it means to preside over an event as opposed to something you do to a specific proposal.

Appologies to all my players for my bad response times lately. marathon work days (with multiple pts's) and a nesting hubby trying to engage me in his cleaning/moving frenzy have me pretty short on comperter time, but I'm trying to make up for it.

Kahuna Burger

Huh... I think I just figured out a way to make my sentence so it makes sense! Hurrah! When I said I would officiate the concept, I meant to say I will "preside over the proposal in a judgely fashion!"

Accidents happen, but mistakes are made

 

[RillianPA]

I'm sorry Creamsteak, I didnt mean to imply that I had any problems with any DMs. I dont. In fact, I am quite enjoying my first game so far. I was just responding to the suggestion that DMs be allowed to explicitly and obviously change rules based on "common sense" (as opposed to bending the rules for story continuity, and doing mechanics in the background, as you suggest). If a DM alters rules behind the scenes, and I dont know it, I guess its a situation of "what I dont see doesnt matter"...hmmm that's not quite right but you understand.

 

[Dungannon]

I don't know if this has been answered before, but is it alright for non-judges to make comments in proposal threads that are being currently debated by the judges?

 

[Creamsteak]

I don't know if this has been answered before, but is it alright for non-judges to make comments in proposal threads that are being currently debated by the judges?

Comments, yes, though I probably should clarify for new people to the discussions that unless they are judges they don't need to state any kind of "vote" on the matter.