Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6116426" data-attributes="member: 6669384">The &quot;retroactive no&quot; is always a bad idea.The &quot;Corrective no&quot;, on the other hand, is another matter.&quot;Okay guys, last session Bob one punched the Big Bad with a surprise combo.&nbsp; I've looked it over and, while it's technically legal, I'm thinking it sets a bad precedent.&nbsp; It unbalances things.&nbsp; So let's all take a step back from the brink.&nbsp; The gods must have been on your side, but don't count on that in the future.&nbsp; I think a more fair way to approach that is...&quot;, followed by a more balanced explanation.As an example, my Bard used the spell G'Elsewhere Chant to remove the draw bridge from a castle.&nbsp; It was &quot;technically legal&quot; because the spell allows the teleportation of objects, but places no explicit limits on how large or massive an &quot;object&quot; can be.I got away with that once.&nbsp; Afterwards we came to an agreement on what the limits on spells like that should be. If I tried something like that again, it wouldn't work.So &quot;surprise&quot; combos that are at least arguably legal but end up being over the top are one of the reasons that &quot;house rules&quot; occur:&nbsp; To fill in the fiddly bits in the rules that the designers didn't include.Now I've played with players who saw that as an adversarial situation, as a personal challenge.&nbsp; In their minds, &quot;no&quot; never set a precedent, and they would keep trying.&nbsp; If the DM ever let it slip through, however, if ever that &quot;no&quot; failed to appear, that set a precedent (or so they would argue).In my early days as a DM, whenever I encountered such players I found myself caught up in the contest of wills, obsessing with each adventure plan about how to contain my resident loose cannon.Once I understood the true eloquence of &quot;no&quot;, however, I lost that obsession.&nbsp; As soon as such a contest starts to become evident I pull the player aside and simply use my magic word:&nbsp; &quot;No, you can't do that.&nbsp; It doesn't work that way.&nbsp; Stop asking.&nbsp; If you can't stop trying to break the game, then stop coming to it.&quot;It's not that I'm a control freak.&nbsp; It's that those contests end up dominating the game, and robbing everyone (myself and the problem player included) of any fun.&nbsp; And if it isn't fun, why do it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 6116426, member: 6669384"] The "retroactive no" is always a bad idea. The "Corrective no", on the other hand, is another matter. "Okay guys, last session Bob one punched the Big Bad with a surprise combo. I've looked it over and, while it's technically legal, I'm thinking it sets a bad precedent. It unbalances things. So let's all take a step back from the brink. The gods must have been on your side, but don't count on that in the future. I think a more fair way to approach that is...", followed by a more balanced explanation. As an example, my Bard used the spell [I]G'Elsewhere Chant [/I]to remove the draw bridge from a castle. It was "technically legal" because the spell allows the teleportation of objects, but places no explicit limits on how large or massive an "object" can be. I got away with that once. Afterwards we came to an agreement on what the limits on spells like that should be. If I tried something like that again, it wouldn't work. So "surprise" combos that are at least arguably legal but end up being over the top are one of the reasons that "house rules" occur: To fill in the fiddly bits in the rules that the designers didn't include. Now I've played with players who saw that as an adversarial situation, as a personal challenge. In their minds, "no" never set a precedent, and they would keep trying. If the DM ever let it slip through, however, if ever that "no" failed to appear, [B]that[/B] set a precedent (or so they would argue). In my early days as a DM, whenever I encountered such players I found myself caught up in the contest of wills, obsessing with each adventure plan about how to contain my resident loose cannon. Once I understood the true eloquence of "no", however, I lost that obsession. As soon as such a contest starts to become evident I pull the player aside and simply use my magic word: "No, you can't do that. It doesn't work that way. Stop asking. If you can't stop trying to break the game, then stop coming to it." It's not that I'm a control freak. It's that those contests end up dominating the game, and robbing everyone (myself and the problem player included) of any fun. And if it isn't fun, why do it? [/QUOTE]

Verification