Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2234699" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, fine.  Look at it this way.  The reason we as game referees adopt a particular set of rules in the first place is because we have a particular vision of how the world should work.  That vision is largely informed by some other experience, whether its having a world that works internally like the Star Wars movies, or having a world that feels 'realistic' to some degree.  We choose which game system to play according to what we feel best fits the vision we have for the story.  We make tradeoffs between complexity and ease of play for the sake of implementing that vision.  Consider, for the moment, the Jump skill.If the rules for the jump skill don't give the numbers that we desire for our vision, usually because for some range of 'normal' numbers they don't give results that agree with are expectations about what is 'realistic', then we adopt a new jump resolution system or we adopt a whole new game system is jump is important enough to us.Is an assumption about how the world should work.  If the jump rules generate really odd results for average guys jumping (too far, too short, too random) then we are probably going to dump that rule and try to find a better.And again, that is the assumption about how you want your world to work.  If the rules set indicates that the world's greatest jumper can only clear 4 feet, or they indicate that a non-super character can jump 200 ft., or worse yet that some of the time he jumps 4 feet and other times 200 ft and its far too random to predict, then you are probably going to think that they aren't very good rules and find different ones.  You do that because the world dictates the rules.  You have some idea about what the rules are supposed to be doing for you.  I dare say that there are very few DM's that just say, 'Well the rules are the rules.  They don't make any sense to me but I'm going to use them anyway.'   I dare say that for all your protesting that the rules determine the world, you don't act that way.  You don't say to your players, "Well, it says here that the worlds best long distance runner can only go 3 miles in 24 hours, so there is no way you can get away from the volcano in time."  You don't say that because you aren't a slave to the rules.Therefore the rules are slaved to you.  Sure.  And he does.  Even if you the player don't.  And you the player only need to ask once.  Whether I say, "Page 70 of the player's handbook", or "I use D20 Modern for jump rules" or whether I say, "The official rules are crap, take a look at these." is entirely up to me.You know, I actually did play once with a DM that didn't let the player's see their character sheets.  It was a pretty interesting experience.  But, I think you are missing the point.I'm not saying that its absolutely bad for the players to know the rules, nor am I saying that it is good for a DM to just overturn the rules on a whim.  Players that know the rules can share the work load better.  Players that know the rules can convey thier desires more precisely in the language of the rules.   What I am saying is that it is not an absolute necessity to know the rules.  In fact, it's not only not a necessity to know the rules, but at times it can be for some players a trap in that they only think within what they believe is possible within the rules.  Rules are great.  They give DM's power to arbitrate situations cleanly, speedily, consistantly, and fairly.  A DM is generally better off sticking to the rules whenever he can, because especially by now, the rules to D&D are getting pretty solid.  But rules also can be a big hinderance to the imagination, and ultimately the DM has to recognize that the rules are just tools to help and that if they are getting in the way of enjoyment of the game he needs to find better rules.</blockquote>

Verification