Goblin Picador

[Mistwell]

Recently in a game (that we posted about here) a new player wanted to try something different in a game. We were fighting some kind of big ungainly thing, and there was a rope and grappling hook around. The player wanted to try and hook the monster's leg with the hook, and make a long range trip with it.

The most experienced players (myself included) had an initial reaction of "you cannot do that, it's not in the rules".

It took a moment to stop and think "wait...who cares if it's in the rules - in this situation, it makes sense that he should be able to try, at least at a penalty".

Sometimes it's easy to get bogged down in the rules and lose track of the fact that the game really does call for a lot of ad hoc ruling if the players are allowed to be as creative as they should be allowed to be in a tabletop RPG.

And this harpoon is actually a bit similar to that grappling hook concept, and will likely involve similar ad hoc type rulings. If the DMG gives better guidelines for making ad hoc rulings, all the better!

 

[The Little Raven]

The Wizards boards? I would think that's where most of the fanboys congregate...

The 3e fanboys, not the 4e ones. As ENWorld has a better moderation policy AND gets the 4e news the fastest, most 4e fans flock here.

 

[Dausuul]

Recently in a game (that we posted about here) a new player wanted to try something different in a game. We were fighting some kind of big ungainly thing, and there was a rope and grappling hook around. The player wanted to try and hook the monster's leg with the hook, and make a long range trip with it.

The most experienced players (myself included) had an initial reaction of "you cannot do that, it's not in the rules".

It took a moment to stop and think "wait...who cares if it's in the rules - in this situation, it makes sense that he should be able to try, at least at a penalty".

Ever notice that it's always the newbie players who try these things? The experienced players have gotten used to thinking in terms of the rules, rather than the game world.

Funny thing is, if you move to a system where the rules aren't so comprehensive, the experienced players rediscover the possibilities implicit in the game world... and often feel tremendously liberated when they do.

This is the biggest reason why I think 3.5E's "a rule for everything" approach was a mistake.

 

[BryonD]

The most experienced players (myself included) had an initial reaction of "you cannot do that, it's not in the rules".

I find that jaw-dropping to the point of disbelief.
I mean, if you say so, then fine, it is true. But WOW!!!!

I think back over the debate after debate about ad-hoc DMing and the art of rulings and I can't recall anyone every claiming you can't do things for no better reason than a rule doesn't exist. And I can not recall every once having a single person, much less a group, at a table with me even hint that this type of restriction should exist.

If 4e services this kind of mindset, then that is a pretty backhanded compliment of 4e.

 

[BryonD]

This is the biggest reason why I think 3.5E's "a rule for everything" approach was a mistake.

Huh???? Since when did 3e have a "rule for everything"? (Note that much of this thread has been about it NOT having a rule for the situation at hand... )

It is very clear that the two games speak to vastly different groups, by and large.

 

[pukunui]

The 3e fanboys, not the 4e ones. As ENWorld has a better moderation policy AND gets the 4e news the fastest, most 4e fans flock here.

QFT.

Funnily enough, the Wizards boards are waaaay behind when it comes to news scoops and the like. Also, ENWorld posters are noticeably more mature and less taken to imbecilic trolling and baiting (or maybe that's just cos, as you say, these boards have better moderation).

 

[Dausuul]

Huh???? Since when did 3e have a "rule for everything"? (Note that much of this thread has been about it NOT having a rule for the situation at hand... )

It is very clear that the two games speak to vastly different groups, by and large.

It didn't have a rule for everything, no. But it tried to. That's my point; 3E's explicit goal (there's a column by Monte Cook where he talks about this) was that in any situation, DMs should feel that the rulebook and the game designers "had their backs"--in other words, that they could fall back on the rulebook if they didn't know how to handle a given situation.

(To be fair, Monte doesn't actually go so far as to say that they tried to create a rule for every possible circumstance--he surely knows the impossibility of that. But the implication is that whenever you as DM get in a weird situation, there's a rule to help you out of it. The title of the column, "An Occasion for Every Rule, and a Rule for Every Occasion," speaks volumes.)

The flaw in his reasoning, of course, was his idea that you could create such a ruleset and yet have it be "optional," that you can make a book full of rules and then expect DMs and players to treat those rules as disposable whenever they slow down the game or get in the way of roleplaying. In practice, of course, when people know there's a rule for X, they quickly develop a strong prejudice in favor of using it. Most DMs and players won't dispense with a rule unless it drags the game to a complete halt, and often not even then.

 

[Spatula]

I think back over the debate after debate about ad-hoc DMing and the art of rulings and I can't recall anyone every claiming you can't do things for no better reason than a rule doesn't exist. And I can not recall every once having a single person, much less a group, at a table with me even hint that this type of restriction should exist.

The funny thing is, during the run-up to 3e the same exact concept was touted as one of the improvements of the game (and it was) - a unified conflict resolution mechanic (d20 + mods vs DC) vs all the little subsystems or grey areas of 1 & 2e. Easier to adjucate player actions, etc. The 3e DMG has a lengthy section on how to deal with ad hoc circumstances on checks and provides a page of example DCs for situations not covered by the rules, to give new DMs guidance. Now we get the same exact hype, as if we were still using 2e as a baseline.

 

[Spatula]

The flaw in his reasoning, of course, was his idea that you could create such a ruleset and yet have it be "optional," that you can make a book full of rules and then expect DMs and players to treat those rules as disposable whenever they slow down the game or get in the way of roleplaying. In practice, of course, when people know there's a rule for X, they quickly develop a strong prejudice in favor of using it. Most DMs and players won't dispense with a rule unless it drags the game to a complete halt, and often not even then.

It goes both ways, of course. The lack of a ruling for obvious situations leads to its own problems. Anyway, the example of 1e goes against your thesis, as no one that I've ever heard of actually played it exactly as written, because many parts of it were too cumbersome.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The funny thing is, during the run-up to 3e the same exact concept was touted as one of the improvements of the game (and it was) - a unified conflict resolution mechanic (d20 + mods vs DC) vs all the little subsystems or grey areas of 1 & 2e. Easier to adjucate player actions, etc. The 3e DMG has a lengthy section on how to deal with ad hoc circumstances on checks and provides a page of example DCs for situations not covered by the rules, to give new DMs guidance. Now we get the same exact hype, as if we were still using 2e as a baseline.

But this time, they got it right!

(Please, let this be true... Please...)