Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2236717" data-attributes="member: 4937">I disagree.  I've played too many games where I didn't know the rules or only knew the rules in part.  Knowing the rules is not necessary to evaluating what sort of game is being run.   It might can help, but it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition.I had to reread the whole thread when I saw that.  I'm still not at all convinced that the person you are having an argument with is me.   If you can show me where I said that, I'd appreciate it.   I really think you are hearing things that I'm not saying.No, I know what argument I'm making.  I believe its you that don't know what sort of argument I'm making.  You are focused on mechanistic attributes.   I'm point out that in so far as I want to run a simulation, I can if I want run trolls as 2HD monsters in the first age, and Balrogs as 8HD monsters, and run 1st age PC's in the same fashion as 3rd Age PC's.   And if you didn't get behind the screen to see that Balrogs where 8HD monsters in defiance of your expectations, you'd never know.   Latter I could run Balrogs as 24 HD monsters versus the 3rd age PC's, and if you didn't get behind the screen, you'd only know that your 1st age PC's where really poweful compared to your 3rd age PC's and seemed to move across a grander stage.   But you wouldn't need to know that to run a campaign in either the 1st age or the 3rd age, and you wouldn't need to know that I'd simply shrunk the stage.   What you'd really need to know to RP a 1st age Noldor lord or a halfling from the Shire has nothing to do with the mechanics, and they can both have 20 hit points and they can both move across a stage designed for them.In this case, if you are rules centered in your understanding, 8 HD balrogs seem unsatisfying.   If you aren't rules centered, you don't know that your 8th level fighter isn't 'epic' because you define character by what he does, and not by numbers on the page.Again, you don't understand what argument I'm making.  Go back and find where I said that the rules system doesn't matter at all.   Please go back and show me where I made that my first argument.   I'm not defeating my argument, you have invented what you think my argument should be.  I didn't say that the rules system didn't matter.   I said that the rules system belonged to the DM and was a tool of the DM to moderate the game, and further that the player did not need to know what the rules system was or how it worked in order to be a good player and enjoy the game.   Now note, because some other people misunderstood me to be saying that it is better for the player to not know the rules, that that is not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that it is not necessary for the player to know the rules, and that it is not a precondition of good role play for them to do so.  And further, I'm saying that it is not necessary for the player to see the magic behind the screen and that everything that goes on behind the screen is the perogative of the DM.   I'm not saying that it is impossible to be a bad DM.  I am saying that a DM has the right and authority to rule however he likes.   But please, go back and read where I said that I had less respect for DM's that break the rules all the time than I have for those that use them again, because that is one of the many things I've said that you did not hear.I disagree.  I disagree not only as a DM, but as a player who has played in games where I did not know the rules.  Furthermore, I remember a time when most game books advised that the various resolution systems and rules not related to character generation be kept secret from the players.   So I think I'm on pretty safe ground in saying that the PC's don't need to know the rules.No, it wasn't.  I don't know who you think said that, but it wasn't me.  I said that the rules system was less important than the story.  That is very different than saying that it isn't important, and in fact several times during this thread I've explicitly argued that its the job of the DM to craft a rules system that supports the story.The one I made, and not the one you keep trying to put in my mouth.  The DM can discard rules because he is the DM.  The DM can even do it willy-nilly, but to do so suggests that he should have had more foresight as a DM.   And the DM can discard rules because the story is more important than the rules are.   I never once said that the rules don't matter at all.   They certainly matter to the DM, because those are the tools he's going to use to arbritrate the game.I disagree.  I think that any game which recognizably is D&D is D&D.  If you pick up a character sheet and it looks like a D&D character sheet, then its probably D&D regardless of whether they are using AU, Iron Lore, Vitality Points, or whatever.The DM is always hiding the ball from the players.  That's part of the DM's job.  If the ball didn't need to be hid, you wouldn't need a DM.   But this is really silly.  I'm tired of fisking you.  As I said before, it was pretty obvious that you weren't going to listen.  Anyway, I hope you have fun with your implied social contract, but they have a name for players whose social contract implicitly includes a clause that demands all rules and rulings follow that of the books and be spelled out for them in documents ahead of time.   My social contract as a player is alot less demanding in that way.In summary, you and I have a very different notion of what a necessary 'framework to inform your decisions' is.   Put simply, you believe that the player primarily needs to know the crunch, where as I primarily believe that they need to know the fluff.   I do not believe that you believe that the 'fluff' is unimportant, but you seem to believe that I believe that the 'crunch' is unimportant.   As long as you continue to have this binary understanding of things, there isn't any point in continuing the discussion.</blockquote>

Verification