Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4040162" data-attributes="member: 32164">Celebrim, let's try this again. I believe I said the following:&nbsp; You called that statement a &quot;false dichotomy.&quot; Moreover, you argued &quot;that the above statements aren't sufficiently dissimilar to distinguish one type of play from the other.&quot; And yet, here we are, less than a dozen posts later, arguing about whether &quot;events in the gameworld should be constrained by a literal interpretation of the D&amp;D rules as written.&quot; So I'm calling BULL on your &quot;false dichotomy&quot; claim.You, and those who agree with you, seem to believe that the only acceptable way to have an outcome occur which contravenes those rules is for the DM to rewrite them. I, and those who agree with me, regard that as completely unnecessary. As the DM, we have the authority to ignore those rules without rewriting them. As long as it doesn't touch the PCs, it doesn't even count as a houserule.The aforementioned &quot;High-level NPC fighter who dies from a circumstance that could never kill a PC&quot; involves just such a rules exemption. It's well within the DM's authority to disregard the rules that make it impossible, as long as he's fair (to the players, that is), and he's got a good reason. And, to us, a good plot hook is a sufficiently good reason.We don't think that has any bearing on how consistent the game is. We don't think it affects anything other than the suspension of disbelief of people who believe NPCs and PCs should live by the same rules. But that's mostly a matter of personal preference.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 4040162, member: 32164"] Celebrim, let's try this again. I believe I said the following: You called that statement a "false dichotomy." Moreover, you argued "that the above statements aren't sufficiently dissimilar to distinguish one type of play from the other." And yet, here we are, less than a dozen posts later, arguing about whether "events in the gameworld should be constrained by a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written." So I'm calling BULL on your "false dichotomy" claim. You, and those who agree with you, seem to believe that the only acceptable way to have an outcome occur which contravenes those rules is [i]for the DM to rewrite them.[/i] I, and those who agree with me, regard that as [i]completely unnecessary.[/i] As the DM, we have the authority to ignore those rules without rewriting them. As long as it doesn't touch the PCs, it doesn't even count as a houserule. The aforementioned "High-level NPC fighter who dies from a circumstance that could never kill a PC" involves just such a rules exemption. It's well within the DM's authority to disregard the rules that make it impossible, as long as he's fair (to the players, that is), and he's got a good reason. And, to us, a good plot hook is a sufficiently good reason. We don't think that has any bearing on how consistent the game is. We don't think it affects anything other than the suspension of disbelief of people who believe NPCs and PCs should live by the same rules. But that's mostly a matter of personal preference. [/QUOTE]

Verification