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: 2240629" data-attributes="member: 4937">There is?  There is a general consensus to use the D&D rules even though there is no general concensus over what they are?  The 'D&D rules' is a broad category that covers all sorts of variations, house rules, and expansions many of which are contridict each other.   If I say, "Hey, do you play D&D?", you are completely within your rights to answer, "Yes", even if your only exposure is Monte Cook's "Iron Lore".   You can pretend that 'D&D rules' are a monolithic institution all you want, but it doesn't make it so.   All that playing D&D implies is that the rules will be at some level recognizably D&D, and that's a really broad ground.No it isn't.  It's part of the implied social contract that the DM will inform the players of things that they should know as part of thier IC knowledge when such things come.   The rules are not part of that.  There is no implied social contract that a DM will inform the players of the rules, and there is no implied contract that the DM must lay out all of his house rules explicitly before they come into effect.   Just think for a second what you are actually demanding.  If we are to take you at thier word that this is some contractual agrement on the part of DM's to tell the players what house rules are in use before the game starts, you are claiming that the players have every right to overrule the DM unless he first has them read his whole list of house rules, and sign some sort of consent form that they were appraised of the rules and agree to play under them.   Do you actually go into some new play group with that sort of attitude, or is the problem here that almost your entire gaming career has been confined to one or two play groups with a long history together?  Except that when I say rule 0, I mean "The DM makes the rules." or any other expression that means the same thing.  I am not refering to your version of rule 0, which I'm not even sure what is, but the version of 'rule 0' most commonly used when people refer to rule 0.   I have no idea where you got the idea that you had the right to over turn rule 0, but I perfectly agree that rule zero isn't carte blanche for the DM to jerk the chains of his players willy-nilly.  It is however carte blanche to alter any rule at any time he feels is a appropriate.   If the players feel like they are having thier chains jerked, it might (or might not) have been a bad decision but he was well within his rights to make it.Let's actually put your version of the rules into practice and see just how well they work.  Imagine the following situation.The PC's are fighting a minotaur in the outskirts of a circular hedge row labyrinth.   The DM looks down and has the minotaur charge around the curve of the labyrinth, smashing into a player and doing terrible goring damage.   The PC looks up and says, "You can't do that?"  The DM says, "Huh?  What do you mean?"   He then picks up the player's handbook, and says, "Look, it says right here on page XX that you can only charge in straight lines."   The DM says, "Yes, I know what it says, but that rule doesn't apply here.   It's a gentle curving corridor.    It's no more difficult to charge around than an oval track."  The player says, "Yeah, but you didn't put that in the house rules.  I didn't know that we were playing that way.   You are breaking the implied social contract."    The DM thinks, "Implied social conract?  What about the implied social contract that I'm running this game?", but instead says, "Look, the situation has never come up before.  I'm sorry it didn't make it into the house rules but it was so obvious that it didn't mean perfectly straight and that it was obviously a judgement call that I never even thought to write it down."  The PC says, "Well, I think that since I wasn't informed about your house rule, that it shouldn't apply.  I thought we were playing D&D and not some game you just made up.  In D&D charges can only occur in straight lines.  It says so in the rules."   The DM says, "Look, this is a judgement call.  The rules can't cover every situation and there is no way that my house rules can cover every situation.   This is a straight enough line for the purposes."   The PC says, "Well, if I'd known that, I would have never taken that feat that let me make charges that weren't in a straight line.   This isn't fair, you are nerfing my ability."  The DM says, "No I'm not.  I'm still not going to let normal monsters and characters make radical changes in direction during a charge."  The PC says, "Still, my feat isn't worth as much as I thought it would, you should let me take a new one."  The DM sighs and says, "Look, you used that feat several times last session to charge around 90 degree corners.  I'm not letting you take back feat selections that you've already used."   The PC says, "Well, then you shouldn't change the rules on charging."   Another PC backs him up, "Well, I would have charged last round except I didn't think I could because the rules said only straight lines for charging."   The DM says, "I'm sorry you were confused, but you should have asked.  I've said before that you shouldn't rely on the rules to tell you what you should do because the rules don't cover everything that will come up in play.  Instead, rely on your own understanding about how the real world works.   In the real world, you can run flat out along a gentle curve without slowing down even if you aren't a remarkable athelete. "  The 1st PC says, "That's beside the point.  I agreed to play a game, and this is a game and in the rules of this game you can't run or charge except in a straight line..." And so on and so forth.   There is in my opinion no difference whatsoever between the above case and the case of ruling that magic missile has a small miss chance versus blink.In practice, the way of playing you are describing just doesn't work.  I suspect that the group dynamics you are in are very different than the above, but I doubt that its because your DM gives all his house rules down on paper before you play the game.  I expect that its because your DM is generally reasonable, and you respect him and you never think to question his rulings because they seem reasonable.   And that is what is actually at issue.   All this talk about implied social contracts about the rules is just nonsense.</blockquote>

Verification