Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6876041">Wow, this is still going on.&nbsp; I wish I could stay away but I feel like I've abandoned pemerton, who is like that Navy SEAL sniper in Mogadishu holding out against hundreds of (fortunately) poorly trained militiamen.Seems like this conversation has forked into two separate debates:The first is the definition of &quot;house rule&quot;, which seems like a pointless debate because it's an argument about opinion regarding a non-technical term.&nbsp; But there seem to be two separate points of contention within this debate:1) Whether or not a &quot;ruling&quot; is distinct from a &quot;rule&quot; (and thus also distinct from a &quot;house rule&quot;.)2) A philosophical difference that ultimately reduces to &quot;anything not prohibited is allowed&quot; or &quot;anything not allowed is prohibited.&quot;&nbsp; (With the understanding all around that the DM overruling the rules is ok and even expected; it's just a question of what counts as overruling the rules). In both cases the language can be taken to an ad absurdum extreme as a way of discrediting it, of course (&quot;Well the rules don't say you can't have a nuclear weapon, so does that mean you can?&quot; sort of moronic arguments.)&nbsp; But the distinction is valid nonetheless.On question #1 my view...my opinion...is that the difference between a &quot;ruling&quot; and a &quot;rule&quot; is that the former is subject to the whim of the DM, and the latter is objective and can be counted on by the players.&nbsp; So to have a fireball ignite the curtains this time is merely a ruling.&nbsp; To say that &quot;combustible objects always burst into flame&quot; would be a rule, and thus a house rule (of the sort that is in addition to rather than in contradiction of RAW.) On #2 I'm firmly in the &quot;anything not prohibited is allowed&quot; camp.&nbsp; I think some on the other side of the debate may contest that their viewpoint is &quot;anything not allowed is prohibited&quot; but that's essentially what is being argued.&nbsp; The second debate is about this hypothetical case of Eloelle.&nbsp; Pemerton has been perfectly reiterating my argument on this, and honestly I'm struggling to see how others are disagreeing without contradicting themselves.&nbsp; It seems the core difference is that pemerton and I are distinguishing narration from mechanics, as opposed to letting narration determine mechanics and/or set a precedent for mechanics.&nbsp; If a player says &quot;I do a triple flip and then stab the ogre in the head&quot; to narrate a critical hit I'm fine with it, as long as he doesn't expect that he can also do a triple flip to change the outcome of a roll in the future.&nbsp; The only reason to not &quot;allow&quot; the player to say that out loud is that it would somehow grants the player a new Triple Flip ability.&nbsp; Which it doesn't.But doing so dictates what players are allowed to say at the table, which for me is beyond the purview of the &quot;rules&quot;, and is purely a matter of basic social skills: if one player's version of the fiction doesn't fit with the collaborative fiction of the table, sort it out. If it really bugs you that Eloelle's player narrates this way, sort it out.&nbsp; This scenario is no different from playing alignments in a way that disrupts the fun for others at the table: it's not against the rules to do so, it's just...immature and antisocial.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 6876041"] Wow, this is still going on. I wish I could stay away but I feel like I've abandoned pemerton, who is like that Navy SEAL sniper in Mogadishu holding out against hundreds of (fortunately) poorly trained militiamen. Seems like this conversation has forked into two separate debates: The first is the definition of "house rule", which seems like a pointless debate because it's an argument about opinion regarding a non-technical term. But there seem to be two separate points of contention within this debate: 1) Whether or not a "ruling" is distinct from a "rule" (and thus also distinct from a "house rule".) 2) A philosophical difference that ultimately reduces to "anything not prohibited is allowed" or "anything not allowed is prohibited." (With the understanding all around that the DM overruling the rules is ok and even expected; it's just a question of what counts as overruling the rules). In both cases the language can be taken to an [I]ad absurdum[/I] extreme as a way of discrediting it, of course ("Well the rules don't say you can't have a nuclear weapon, so does that mean you can?" sort of moronic arguments.) But the distinction is valid nonetheless. On question #1 my view...my [I]opinion[/I]...is that the difference between a "ruling" and a "rule" is that the former is subject to the whim of the DM, and the latter is objective and can be counted on by the players. So to have a fireball ignite the curtains [I]this time[/I] is merely a ruling. To say that "combustible objects always burst into flame" would be a rule, and thus a house rule (of the sort that is in addition to rather than in contradiction of RAW.) On #2 I'm firmly in the "anything not prohibited is allowed" camp. I think some on the other side of the debate may contest that their viewpoint is "anything not allowed is prohibited" but that's essentially what is being argued. The second debate is about this hypothetical case of Eloelle. Pemerton has been perfectly reiterating my argument on this, and honestly I'm struggling to see how others are disagreeing without contradicting themselves. It seems the core difference is that pemerton and I are distinguishing narration from mechanics, as opposed to letting narration determine mechanics and/or set a precedent for mechanics. If a player says "I do a triple flip and then stab the ogre in the head" to narrate a critical hit I'm fine with it, as long as he doesn't expect that he can also do a triple flip to change the outcome of a roll in the future. The only reason to not "allow" the player to say that out loud is that it would somehow grants the player a new Triple Flip ability. Which it doesn't. But doing so dictates what players are [I]allowed to say at the table[/I], which for me is beyond the purview of the "rules", and is purely a matter of basic social skills: if one player's version of the fiction doesn't fit with the collaborative fiction of the table, sort it out. If it really bugs you that Eloelle's player narrates this way, sort it out. This scenario is no different from playing alignments in a way that disrupts the fun for others at the table: it's not against the [I]rules[/I] to do so, it's just...immature and antisocial. [/QUOTE]

Verification