bah --
Celebrim said:
I feel that someone should tell you that randomly putting words in all caps does nothing to strengthen your point.
And being rude does, somehow? I love your rationale. Another self-indulgent rude comment, I'll file appropriately. *flush*
Anyway, my supposition was not that players can have a good time playing without knowing the rules. I've run many "freeform" games over the years. Strange, they have rules too, some may call them "guidelines"... But, that's not the issue I was discussing. My issue was that it's not fair play to change the rules "willy-nilly" mid-game on your players and not tell them. But hey, it's my opinion, and apparently not yours.
Celebrim said:
Straight up. My assertion is that it is not absolutely necessary for the players to know the rules. That isn't an opinion. That's provable using a proof by contrapositive. All I have to do is present one player that played the game and enjoyed it without knowing the rules - we have several examples in this thread alone - and my assertion ceases to be an opinion. 'Not necessary' is a whole lot easier to prove than necessary because necessary requires a proof reducto ad absurdum and you cannot provide that because I have the counter example.
Now, you may argue however you like that your way is more fun than my way. That is an opinion. You may argue for the moral superiority of your way compared to mine, and that is an opinion. You may even be right, because just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it isn't true. But you may also be wrong, and I don't see alot of people backing up thier opinion with anything like logic.
Logic eh? Ludicrous at best. You're playing a game of semantics and changing the subject I was even talking about. You aren't even arguing the same point I am, and haven't realized it, so if that's logic, count me out. 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. Unlike mathematics, experience is subjective. The same holds true for 100 gamers or 1000 gamers, because as long as the same number of people don't agree with you, it becomes subjective. Just because you say 1+1=4 and your friend says "Aye" doesn't make a proof.
Celebrim said:
Let me ask you this - suppose the PC had been the one with the blink spell and the DM had the magic missiles. Suppose the PC goes, "Oh crap. Look, this rule doesn't make sense. I've got total concealment through at least part of the round. It's only fair that there be at least some miss chance against those magic missiles." Does that sort of appeal by a PC sound like something that you've had happen in the last 20 years of gaming? Now suppose the DM buys the argument as being reasonable, and/or wants to avoid a lengthy debate over something trivial, and/or wants to give the PC a chance to stay alive and says, "Ok, sure. 20% miss chance on the missiles." Do you have any problems with this scenario?
If you don't, and you argue, "No of course not. Everyone agreed to the rule change through a democratic process.", then my question is how often in the 20 year history of your gaming have you seen a DM say to the PC's, "Oh crap. Look, this rule doesn't make sense. I've got total concealment through at least part of the round. It's only fair that there be at least some miss chance against those magic missiles.", when an NPC is the one suffering from the ruling? How often have you done that? How often have you ever seen PC's cut the NPC's some slack, and say, you know that rule just isn't fair? How often have you ever seen the party overturn a ruling as being too harsh on the NPC's? It seems to me that what are argueing by of 'democracy' for a game that is in fact actually controlled by the PC's, and that the purpose of the DM in such games is merely wish fulfillment. You arguing for a game in which the only characters that have a chance at fair break when the rules don't seem quite right are the PC's, and that to me suggests a game which encourages rules lawyering and metagaming.
This is where I think you keep getting confused. First off, I *have* had rulings go both ways, often times because the group sees an NPC getting shafted and thinks "Hey, that could happen to us sometime, and it doesn't seem fair to us, so let's fix it." 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." 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. 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?
As far as wish fulfillment, I disagree. I think we consider the DM to be another player in the group, albeit one who provides a rich scenery and a host of other things. It's an interactive story, involving several main actors, and a director who runs the rest.
IMO, really, we're all playing a game together. I've run sessions that have turned out amazing, and the one I'm playing in now leaves us hungry for more every time. Sometimes the DM says "Crap, I can't remember how this works" and we all research for 2-3 mins and come up with it. We take smoke breaks and a dinner break to discuss any issues that came up and how we can avoid them in the future. Someone always takes notes, and I always add them to our house list. We haven't had a rules argument in I can't count how many years, and it's great. But, we enjoy using the rules. They're fun for us to learn, poke at, modify, and play with. Do I play RAW D&D? Hell no. But I also let everyone know when something's changed, and if there's a flaw in the thinking, my players let me know, and we make it work. It's sure not a courthouse or anything so judicial at our games.
Celebrim said:
On the other, if you do think that there is something wrong with that, and argue something like, "Heck, no. I don't put up with that sort of metagaming in my game, the rules are the rules and we stick by the rules no matter what because that's what we all implicitly agreed to when we set down.", then I put forward that I'm not the one running the game with a heavy hand.
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. This may work in your group, but assuming it does everywhere is short-sighted.
Celebrim said:
You can pretend that there is an easy answer to this paradox and that disputes between the DM and player are never over anything substantial because the rules are always clear. I suggest the best answer is to cut the DM some slack, try to enjoy the game, and not waste time in arguments. The DM puts in more work than anyone else. The DM has more responcibility than anyone else. If a player doesn't show up, the game goes on, but if the DM doesn't show up we go rent a movie. The DM is in charge of any game that he's running and we're going to show some respect. And, if it turns out Joe isn't a good DM, then we'll have Bob run the next session. Then, when Joe is a PC in Bob's game, Joe shows Bob the same level of respect partly because he respects Bob and partly because its the right thing to do.
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. He doesn't mention this until his BBEG Fighter flies in on his horse and ignores all damage effects, for the "feel" it produces. 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...
Good DMing or poor? 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.
Roleplaying and Roll-playing are 2 different things, yes - but there's an honest mixture of both in D&D. Because you choose to focus on story and ignore the rules at will works for you - but it doesn't , and won't, work for many other people , especially if people are just learning the concept of games, or like to know the "rules" they can work within. I've played many many "Roleplaying" based characters, and the current PC I run is frankly, a combat , roll-playing machine. Others in the group are all the personality, my job is to kill. Efficiently. And by knowing the framework of the rules, and what options, choices, feats, skills, and paths I can take that will work in the way I expect them to later, is important to me. Again, that's my opinion.
Celebrim said:
I just don't think that the game works as well when the players - who can't help but at some level be biased toward protecting the irreplacible things in the game world that belong to them - are granted the same or higher authority to arbritrate the rules as the DM. I think as the many threads on this forum show, there are always going to be cases that are unclear, unbalanced, uninteresting, or simply aren't covered. In every one of those cases there are any number of ways to rule that are perfectly valid and people's opinions will differ, and the game just don't work well in those cases by commitee. Sure some DM's will make better easier to swallow rulings than others, some will be impartial, some will be tactful, and some will be immature, but ultimately it's DM's call and its always the DM's call. And that's true whether its my table, or I'm a PC at some other DM's table.
Key words: "I just don't think" --> This is an opinion statement. I agree with the "ultimately DM's call"... Never didn't. 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.
Celebrim said:
You see, for all the loud cries that I'm being rude and nasty, ultimately actually I'm the one arguing for civility, and you guys are the ones defending a PC party having a cow over an incident of no consequence. It doesn't really matter whether the DM made the right call or not. Being a DM is a tough and it takes alot of work, and any PC that gets in a DM's face over some petty rules issue hasn't spent enough time being a DM and hasn't got alot of manners. And that goes for no matter how immature the DM has acted. If he's a real grade A jerk, you still smile and say thanks for the game after its over and you still politely accept the calls even if he gets it wrong, and if you can't IMO the DM isn't the only one with an ego problem. If you go back to the start, you'll find that was my point in the first place.
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?
Celebrim said:
There was a point right? I realize that its too much to ask for a flame to contain a logical train of thought, but it would be nice if it had a thought.
Refer back to your comment about how you're the one trying to be arguing for civility. Puh-leez. Don't embarass yourself by being openly contradictory, at least.
Celebrim said:
You can go right ahead and shout and pretend you are clairvoyant enough to know what my game sessions are like if that makes you feel better. I'm not sure that it actually reassures everyone of your level headedness, but that is just me. Or perhaps you would like to join your voices to those that claim that you aren't playing D&D if you have house rule, but if that is the case we are going to have to admit that D&D is one of the least popular RPG's of all time - certainly almost no one was playing it. What I would really like to hear you prove though is this assertion that it is always implicit in the social contract of every gamer group that the DM and players have pre-agreed to follow a set certain rules, and in that light would you explain to me what you think a 'rules lawyer' is?
Well, I'm certainly not attempting to should, or be clairvoyant, and I don't have to "prove any assertations" to you, regardless of how much you like to flex your vocabulary. If I did, your own hypothesis of the lone gamer who agrees with me should be enough, so no need to be redundant there, right?
I'm not really concerned about your sessions - you and yours have a good time, that's fantastic, that's what gaming and RPG is all about. The fact that you do it in your own manner is great, I'm completely with that program as well, power to the people. I don't have to be psychic to see that you're conceited and rude, and being as how those are undesirable traits in a DM to me, the rest is easy to add up. 1+1=2 and all that. It's working for you though, apparently, so what do I care?
IMO, a "Rules Lawyer".
Rules Lawyer: Noun : An individual who memorizes the rules to a contest or game and then utilizes that knowledge at every point it would become primarily beneficial to their standpoint within the game. A rules lawyer is also known for attempting to exploit loopholes or find broken rules specifically in an attempt to exploit them for personal gain.
A player who takes the time to learn the rules is simply a good player, IMO. And one who can contribute more to a session where something does come up. Leaving everything to the DM is fine... Assuming DM's never make mistakes, use personal bias, or screw up. Which of course, never happens. :\
