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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5929750" data-attributes="member: 42582">A different angle on this point.Some RPG mechanics are meant to simulate processes within the gameworld - for example, weapon vs armour in AD&D, or jumping in 3E. Which gives rise to at least two possible attitudes towards those rules - either (i) they are seen as constitutive of the gameworld, in which case if the GM changes them s/he is "baiting and switching", or (ii) they are seen as attempts to model reality, in which case changes that bring them more into line with reality would generally be acceptable. I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of RPG groups in each of these camps.Other RPG mechanics are not really meant, in the first instance, to simulate processes within the gameworld, but rather to drive play, support pacing, support theme, etc. (Which is not to say that, post hoc, an ingame account of what is going on can't be given.) An example of such a rule from classic D&D would be wandering monster rules. An example from 4e is the bundle of rules around unlocking and replenishing healing surges in and out of combat. If the GM is unilaterally changing these rules, s/he is changing the whole tone of the game. Whether this is acceptable or not depends, presumably, on what the group sees the overall purpose/logic of play as being.The overall point: until the rationale of particular rules is understood, and the way they connect to the expectations/purposes of the play groups, it's hard to say anything very specific about "rules vs rulings".</blockquote>

Verification