Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 4614901" data-attributes="member: 9789">No:&nbsp; this isn't what I am saying, and I do not believe it's what others are saying.I am not advocating that just because something doesn't exist, it can't, or that you can't answer player questions, or any of that weird stuff that some folks seem to be reading into these responses.&nbsp; I'm not sure why it's getting folks thrown off, but honestly, we're really coming from the same perspective here:&nbsp; that not having an answer or telling someone &quot;you can't because I said so&quot; is doing a bad job of DMing.&nbsp; We all agree with that, yes?My point - and others have said it better, so sorry to just rehash - is NOT that you can only say &quot;no&quot; if there are no rules.&nbsp; It's that when there were more rules, it was easier to say yes.&nbsp; It was easier, because there was already a base to build off of - as opposed to having to build from scratch every time.&nbsp; And when the players knew the world they existed in had set rules that were not arbitrary, it was better for them -and- the story.&nbsp; (It's easier to trust a DM when you know they are also following the same rules you are.)In 4.0 you are MUCH more responsible for creating those &quot;world rules&quot; now.&nbsp; (And my own enigma:&nbsp; why they never mention this in the core books.)&nbsp; This is good for creativity and lack of boundaries, but bad for being completely on your own to decide balance, flavor, mechanics, etc.&nbsp; Which is why 4.0 is so weird, since the &quot;how combat works&quot; rules are SO detailed and SO restrictive - exactly the opposite of the &quot;how the world works&quot; rules, which basically don't exist.Does that make more sense?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evilbob, post: 4614901, member: 9789"] No: this isn't what I am saying, and I do not believe it's what others are saying. I am not advocating that just because something doesn't exist, it can't, or that you can't answer player questions, or any of that weird stuff that some folks seem to be reading into these responses. I'm not sure why it's getting folks thrown off, but honestly, we're really coming from the same perspective here: that not having an answer or telling someone "you can't because I said so" is doing a bad job of DMing. We all agree with that, yes? My point - and others have said it better, so sorry to just rehash - is NOT that you can only say "no" if there are no rules. It's that when there were more rules, it was easier to say yes. It was easier, because there was already a base to build off of - as opposed to having to build from scratch every time. And when the players knew the world they existed in had set rules that were not arbitrary, it was better for them -and- the story. (It's easier to trust a DM when you know they are also following the same rules you are.) In 4.0 you are MUCH more responsible for creating those "world rules" now. (And my own enigma: why they never mention this in the core books.) This is good for creativity and lack of boundaries, but bad for being completely on your own to decide balance, flavor, mechanics, etc. Which is why 4.0 is so weird, since the "how combat works" rules are SO detailed and SO restrictive - exactly the opposite of the "how the world works" rules, which basically don't exist. Does that make more sense? [/QUOTE]

Verification