NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 8151528" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!This is mostly for [USER=87792]@Neonchameleon[/USER] ..."Rulings not Rules". Yes, perhaps I should have said "Rulings over Rules" to be more specific. To me, they both mean the same thing; a ruling is favoured over a rule.I think the contention we are having is each of us talking about what is "good DM'ing practice", and using our own experience as the basis. For me, none of the things you mention about the player having to "guess" what the DM wants, or "ask and hope" for the DM to allow something, etc., make much sense. It doesn't make sense to me because my experience has always been with a long-term group of people and friends whom I have gamed with for years or decades. So everyone at the table "knows" one another and doesn't have any real contentious hang-ups in regards to play style preference; we are all "on the same page", so to speak. Ergo, when some situation comes up and a Player is thinking about what to do, he/she simply decides what to do based on the years or decades of playing with all of us. For example, PvP is very much disliked by our group as a whole. Because of that, it is usually pretty obvious as to where various rulings and reactions are going to go if a Player starts trying to plot the demise of another Players PC. We all have the 'feeling' of what should/shouldn't be easy to accomplish (via rules/rulings) in order to discourage PvP as a whole. Just substitute other situations and it's the same thing; we all know what "cold" effects have on a person...as we all live in the Yukon Territory way up in northern Canada. So when the rules say "Suffer -1 on all Physical Checks when in 0C to -10C [32F to 14F]"...we all know that's total BS and we will happily ignore it; they 'know' that I'm not going to enforce that unless they are running around naked or just climbed out of the river they swam across.In short, the 'rules' may say something, but because we all are on the 'same page', any chosen decisions they make, they have a very good idea of exactly how I'm going to choose a Ruling over a Rule.Now...if you mostly play online with strangers, or at the local game club, or frequently start new groups of players every few months. Ok, THEN I can see the favour of Rulings over Rules being, perhaps, less desirable. Alas...that is no my situation and it's never been my situation...so my bias towards seeing Rulings over Rules as a significant boon was blinding me.Yes.. Fudge was what I was thinking of. Thanks for clearing that up for me! <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I hate the word 'toxic' refering to anything non-chemical. It's a word that has no distinct meaning, that other people can interpret however they want to fit their own desire. So I'm going to re-word your sentence and reply to that re-worded sentence as it will be more specific to what I think you mean when you say 'toxic'.....Original: "I just consider the "Rulings not rules" mantra to be toxic and at best a response to poor game design..."..Re-Worded: "I just consider the 'Ruleings not Rules' mantra to cause more resentment/dissatisfaction at a table, and at best a response to poor game design..."To which I would reply: Group familiarity is probably the key issue for such a stance; with strangers or people you don't know very well, I can see it being a bit of a hurdle, initially, but once everyone starts to get a feel for the group and it balances out into something everyone at the table likes...I think 'Rulings not Rules' is far superior to RAW for the sake of RAW. A game designed with rules first, but rules that are meant to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis from the GM is a FAR superior game design than one that has everything so codified, worded, labeled and defined so as to actually hinder a GM making a different ruling over the rule for some unusual case.For 5e, for example, soooo many people are 'confused' by the term and rules for "Stealth" and "Hidden". I think this is because the people who don't like them don't like the fact that they can't point to the book and say "I did X, succeeded at Y and made my roll for Z; therefore, I am undetectable". When they can't do that, and in stead point to the rules, say that, and the GM replies with "Well, normally, sure, but in THIS case...". That's when the RAW becomes a problem; when it gives Players a false sense of "superiority" (?...is that it...maybe a false sense of "entitlement"?..."authority"?) OVER the GM. I'd say a simple sentence or two saying "...stealth is tricky and the GM will adjudicate the actual success/failure chance based on some simple GUIDLINES, as follows...", and then list some common 'mechanic effects for situations'. When a game makes a blanket statement ("DC 15"), and then provides a chart with modifiers...that's when we run into trouble.Oh, and I agree. I don't think we are TOO far away from each other now. Just a bit...and likely just due to preference and experiences. <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification