Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7613330" data-attributes="member: 29398">Internal consistency is far more important to me than getting the rules bang-on right every time.What this means in play is that ideally once a DM makes a ruling, then as far as possible that ruling becomes baked in for the rest of that campaign even if it's wrong (i.e. it becomes a house rule); particularly if that ruling had any significant impact on what happened in the fiction.&nbsp; Yes this puts more pressure on the DM to get it right, or at least get it right enough, as she has to (or certainly ought to!) look at the long-term implications as well as the here-and-now effect of whatever ruling she's got in mind.Sometimes an error is so bad or so potentially game-breaking that it has to be fixed - fair enough, but to me this somewhat invalidates the run of play in which the error occurred and sometimes whatever came after as well.&nbsp; In rare cases, say if the error occurred right at the end of a session, a retcon and-or replay using the correct ruling fixes it all.At a con game - well, who really cares? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; There are no long-term implications beyond the next few hours if that, and IME most con games I've ever been in have played fast and loose with the rules anyway, in order to streamline things such that we could get through the adventure content in the time allotted.EDIT TO ADD: That all said, the DM really ought to know the rules well enough that situations where she has to make potentially game-changing rulings don't happen very often. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7613330, member: 29398"] Internal consistency is far more important to me than getting the rules bang-on right every time. What this means in play is that ideally once a DM makes a ruling, then as far as possible that ruling becomes baked in for the rest of that campaign even if it's wrong (i.e. it becomes a house rule); particularly if that ruling had any significant impact on what happened in the fiction. Yes this puts more pressure on the DM to get it right, or at least get it right enough, as she has to (or certainly ought to!) look at the long-term implications as well as the here-and-now effect of whatever ruling she's got in mind. Sometimes an error is so bad or so potentially game-breaking that it has to be fixed - fair enough, but to me this somewhat invalidates the run of play in which the error occurred and sometimes whatever came after as well. In rare cases, say if the error occurred right at the end of a session, a retcon and-or replay using the correct ruling fixes it all. At a con game - well, who really cares? :) There are no long-term implications beyond the next few hours if that, and IME most con games I've ever been in have played fast and loose with the rules anyway, in order to streamline things such that we could get through the adventure content in the time allotted. EDIT TO ADD: That all said, the DM really ought to know the rules well enough that situations where she has to make potentially game-changing rulings don't happen very often. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification