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="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6213044" data-attributes="member: 4937">I fully agree.Most rules arguments I've seen have to do with the player feeling that the rule or ruling is unfair because it produces what they don't think is a reasonable result.   The player then takes the stance that the GM is not adhering to either the spirit or letter of the rule, with the GM taking the opposite stance.   This usually occurs when the mechanics of the rule are blended in with the flavor of the thing the mechanics are supposed to represent, so that it is ambiguous where one ends and the other begins.  It also occurs where sloppy editing and limited time spent in imagination by the designer results in a situation where the rule is clear in one situation, but ambiguous in another equally applicable situation.Back in 1e, I remember the biggest source of rules arguments was over 'infravision', because the text (and players) just kinda assumed this worked in an obvious manner simply from the descriptor 'infravision'.  But of course, the mechanics of what was realistic for 'infravision' and the unexpected consequences of different perceptions of how it worked, weren't something easily agreed on.  Can you for instance track monsters from the heat of their footprints?  Is so, for how long afterwards?  Are zombies invisible with infravision?  And so forth.In fact, this problem of ambiguity between mechanics and what might have been flavor text came up last session with the text of the spell 'Message'.  The spell says you have to point at the recipient, but the text also makes it clear you don't need line of sight.   So how do you point at a target if you don't have line of sight to it?  How accurate does the pointing need to be?  Can it be just in the general direction, or does it have to be exactly accurate?   It didn't actually end up as an argument, because I have good players and personally I didn't mind it working, but that's a very typical example of where you end up with huge rules arguments.  As a DM, I wanted to know, was the pointing intended as mechanics or was it flavor.  If it was mechanics, how does it work?  No one was sure.  I made the PC do a skill check to point in the right direction, and then move on.Nonetheless, after the session I went back and rewrote the rules for clarity, replacing the problematic term 'point' with 'designate' and explaining exactly what conditions allowed you to designate a target.  This is the advantage of being master of your own rules.Occasionally, a player will offer that a rule is simply bad, and that it needs amendment because the results aren't illogical.  Usually this is the case of 'Realism vs. the Rules', which I admit is probably the most intractable rules argument you can have because you end up in an argument over what is 'realistic'.  Nonetheless, I've done this before as a player a couple of times I'm sure, but the clearest memory I have of it was with some newly adopted rules for ship to ship combat from Dragon Magazine, where in the middle I told the DM that these were clearly never playtested and why it was a problem.  He agreed, and we agreed on a solution after the session.   But in general, denouncing a rule like that on some grounds can get some GM's miffed (and often with cause).  On the other hand, announcing to the player that the rules aren't meant to be realistic is likely to get the player upset, because often 'realistic' is being used as a proxy for a lot of other criticisms of the rule.  Fundamentally what is going on is again, the claim is made that the rule or ruling isn't fair.</blockquote>

Verification