You aren't even arguing the same point I am, and haven't realized it, so if that's logic, count me out.
Well, my apologies then. In my defense, in your big rush to flame me earlier (I read it before you took it down) it really wasn't clear what your point was, and as far as I could tell you were joining in the chorus of voices arguing for various silly undefinsible things. If however your point is much more limited, then we're probably alot more in agreement than you think.
Contrary to how much you'd really like to convince yourself, you are indeed stating an opinion. Providing a single gamer that fits your hypothesis isn't a proof of anything, anymore than one person saying that they saw a UFO makes it proof either.
No, I'm not just stating an opinion because I have very carefully limited what I'm trying to prove. If someone says, "I wish to prove that UFO's exist.", and offers as a proof someone that claims to have seen a UFO, you are quite correct that it doesn't prove anything. But, if someone says, "I wish to prove that people claim to have seen UFO's", then offer as proof someone that claims to have seen a UFO I have proved my assertion.
Now go back and read what I said again. People I am arguing with hold the position that when people sat down to play an RPG that there is always an implicit social agreement on the rules. Now, if I can find one counter example in which it is obvious that there is not an implicit social agreement on the rules, then I've sufficiantly disproved that claim. I'm chosing to prove that you the player don't need to know the rules in order to play and enjoy and RPG as proof that at least in one case there cannot be an implicit agreement over the rules between the players and the DM because obviously the player doesn't have in that case a preconcieved notion about what the rules should be. Furthermore, I could probably prove that an RPG can be played even if noone at the table knows the rules but the DM, and use that to prove that the rules belong to the DM in at least one case.
But none of that is apparantly what you are trying to assert. Which is good, because if you were trying to argue against that you would be wrong. So, I apologize for bring it up, because its really irrelevant to the discussion that you and I are having. I merely wish to explain why I've seeming gone off topic.
Maybe it comes from our time together house-ruling many different RPGs and not just D&D. One thing about my group is that since we've been playing together over 10+ years now as a whole group, we understand the equation of fairness - "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
As someone who regularly holds RP sessions for complete strangers as well as friends, let me say that such wonderful lack of bias on the part of the players is only a product of long association between players. You can't count on it when running a session. Heck, I've been close friends with players that were rules lawyers, so you really can't always count on having a group of PC's that thinks that way.
Your example is totally different from what was presented, as well, I feel. In the original post, it wasn't that , it was "Suddenly Blink doesn't work that way, so sorry, because it's not what I wanted to happen." Well, what about what the PC's wanted to happen? What about the experienced Wizard knowing what would happen, and then it didn't? If that's the play feel you want, great. I'm no babe in the woods tho, and by the "rules" of the game, any PC level 1 or higher is considered to be above the "regular class" and have experience above and beyond the norm.
The PC's can never count on what they want to happen happening. Now, that is very different than saying that PC's can't have a reasonable expectation that when they do something, something very like thier intention happens. But the PC's can never demand of a DM that what they expect to happen does in fact happen. Nor does the DM need to explain why the unexpected has happened, and certainly never needs to give an OOC explanation for himself. For one thing, an OOC explanation for something often lets the cat out of the bag. The DM has a right to hide any knowledge whatsoever until the PC's get an IC reason to know that knowledge. So I suggest that the PC's in this case had no right to expect anything, and properly should have accepted the DM's explanation that some of the missiles missed as being what happened - even if they had good reason to suspect that the DM was just being a jerk. The fact of the matter is that the player who originally recounted the incident has just not given enough information to condemn the event. It certainly makes me suspicious of the DM's motives, but that IMO doesn't justify the behavior of the PC's.
And that's how I like to play, so good for me! But, the debate wasn't over house-rules, it was over the DM arbitrarily changing them mid-game in a way that effected not just the PC's , but the global use of the Blur and MM spells within the game to be specific. That's a big discrepancy over house-ruling, don't you think?
First, no I don't. And second, it wasn't the Blur spell, it was the Blink spell. And third, here is where I think you are getting confused. I didn't say that I approved of the DM's behavior. I never said that the DM made the right call or that I would have done something similar. I said that the player's acted like jerks.
It's an interactive story, involving several main actors, and a director who runs the rest.
Yeah, but we don't really disagree on that. What we disagree over apparantly is that I believe that the DM actually does run the rest. I agree that it is a consensual game, but I don't agree that it is a consensual reality. I don't believe that the DM has to negotiate with the players over what the consequences of thier actions are. I don't believe that the books ever overrule the DM. I have hard time imagining that anyone that is arguing with me actually believes that the resolution of events occurs by committee or that the DM has to give an OOC explanation to the players everytime - or anytime - something strange happens. I think it far more likely that successful groups out there do as your group does, and air thier greivances away from the table in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
Clearly the group that started this whole debate had a problem with mutual respect all the way around the table.
I don't disagree at all here, but again, that's because you're not seeing what my point was. In those examples, the key was that the decision involved the players input. The original post did not, and the players were hit with it willy-nilly, with a bad explanation.
But I don't disagree at all with that either.
Right, but then here comes Bill, and when he runs his session, he decides that all Plate Mail blocks magical effects, and horses can fly.
Ok, Bill has the right to do that. Maybe horses are gifts - like North American aboriginal tribes believed - from some over arching creator sky god, and magic in this world cannot pass through iron because iron has anti-magical properties.
Here's the main point. Bill doesn't have to get player approval to do this.
He doesn't mention this until his BBEG Fighter flies in on his horse and ignores all damage effects, for the "feel" it produces.
Ok, great. Bill is a creative DM. I'm the player going, "By the gods, I've got to get one of those horse things, and one of those suits of iron. "
And then on the next night Bill runs, he decides that horses have suffered a magical disease, and now none can fly, and all are too weak to carry anything more than their own weight. In addition, this disease brought about the return of a Dead God whose very presence on their plane reduces all magic spells to level one spells only. Too bad for the PC's who thought they bought flying horses after last session! Sucks for the mages! But mmm, the flavor...
"Oh dear, gods have mercy on us! We must do something to drive the Dead God back into the underworld!"
The DM doesn't need permission to do that either. Now may argue that it isn't your cup of tea, but if your that DM's PC and you say, "#%$!@%! it!!! You should have told us about your plans to return the Dead God from the underworld. I wouldn't have bought horses and suits of iron had I known what you were going to do in the future", you don't have a leg to stand on in my opinion. And if you bring a book to that DM and say, "See here, in this book it says that horses can do this and plate mail doesn't block magical effects", you go beyond being merely annoying to being an ass.
I can't say. What I can say is that in an attempt to show me poor DMing, you've created the beginnings of a bloody interesting campaign - or else you've got an immature DM that is just winging it. But that's not necessarily unenjoyable either.
If they players feel cheated by it, it's poor. Giving the PC's something that they expect - reliability in the way the world they live in functions - is essential.
No, it isn't. At least not in the case your raise. I can envision giving the players something on occassion
precisely so that I can take it away, because I desire to let the players get a taste of how things could be before things went bad. As you point out, the only real problem is that the players may feel 'cheated' by it. Now, if the player's approached the table with my attitude, you would have that problem. But, yes, if your players start losing trust in you, you should as a DM try to at least understand why they are losing trust in the DM and hopefully work to restore it.
Key words: "I just don't think" --> This is an opinion statement.
I didn't say it wasn't. And its precisely because I knew it to be an unprovable opinion that I flagged it with 'I just don't think..."
I agree with the "ultimately DM's call"... Never didn't.
Oh, good. I'm beginning to wonder what you in fact disagree with that caused you to flame away at me, or to go off on a tirade about how if you change the rules its no longer D&D.
But again, you miss the point: Changing rules on the fly without warning the players before the session isn't arbitration, it's poor DMing, IMO.
No, changing the rules on the fly isn't poor DMing. Making the game so uninteresting that the players care, is poor DMing. Changing the rules on the fly isn't poor DMing. Chaning the rules on the fly simply because your NPC isn't getting his way is poor DMing. But we dont' really know for sure what was going on thier. All we can really be sure of is that the players were jerks. I suspect the DM was a jerk too, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt probably because my sympathies generally lie with the DM.
LOL. You're probably right, but that doesn't happen in my group. Again, with mutual respect and the "social contract" that everyone's there to have a good time works out well. It may very well be that in your group, with your players, in your setting, that it works out for you to just take the calls, no matter how wrong, and smile and whatnot. As a group, my players are mature enough to handle having someone say "Hey, are you sure that's how it works?" or "DM, the book says something different, is this right?" - Our DM either says "Oh, let me see that" , looks at the rule and says "ok, that doesn't effect this" , or "trust me", or "I'll explain later" - in which case we know to trust him , and shut up. Often times, he'll say 'Oh, I'm glad you caught that, because I wasn't sure if I was doing this right." and then he appreciates the input. Sometimes, it's caused us to get our asses kicked as a party, but who cares? It's FUN, we get along. What else is there?
What exactly are you disagreeing with me over then? If both agree that the fun is more important than the rules, and that the DM can overrule the book without giving any more of an explanation than "Ok, that doesn't effect this." and that the players are then supposed to "shut up", what actually are you saying?
