Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Paralyzation rules tweak
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6878925" data-attributes="member: 6787650"><p>Ideally you proactively address issues <em>before</em> your players perceive and complain about them. That doesn't mean that everyone has to address issues in the same way. If you've established a precedent at your table that "common sense" trumps the PHB (e.g. you allow auto-hits against sleeping/paralyzed creatures as long as the attacker is not in melee or under fire at the time; shields don't boost your AC when you get shot in the back; small falling creatures take less damage than large falling creatures; etc.) then players are empowered in a different way; they can do what makes sense to them in real-life terms and if the DM rules in a way they didn't expect, they can have a conversation with the DM about "really?" As long as those conversations don't happen too often--as long as the DM has about the same sense of what is possible and appropriate in real life as the players do--the players will feel empowered and will experience agency.</p><p></p><p>I prefer to address things in a more explicit way, such as the Rule of Yes which specifies that the first time a player tries something crazy and unusual, it just works the way you envisioned it, no rules arguing required. (There may still be an attack roll, skill contest, or damage roll involved.) If you ever try that same stunt again, <u>then</u> the DM will come up with actual rules for it and integrate it into the system; but the very first time you try to manacle the Yeti in combat, you get to use your normal attack roll (or Athletics check, or whatever you were thinking).</p><p></p><p>My players appreciate the Rule of Yes, and it encourages them to try new things and be creative. Could I perhaps get the same effect by just saying "yes" a lot over time and letting them pick up on it? Maybe so. But that also turns it into a bit of a metagame, "Is [DM] going to let me get away with [X]?" whereas I'd like the focus to be strictly on the game itself. I see value in being up-front about [most of] the rules by which we are playing the game. By instituting the Rule of Yes I avoid becoming a bottleneck on their window into the game world--whatever they can imagine in their heads is at least potentially possible in the game world, at least this time. [If they want it to become a permanent part of the gameworld we then have a conversation offline about it, e.g. "what would happen if an Earth Elemental fell on you? how much damage would that do?"]</p><p></p><p>Obviously your group is having fun in your own style, too. More power to you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 6878925, member: 6787650"] Ideally you proactively address issues [I]before[/I] your players perceive and complain about them. That doesn't mean that everyone has to address issues in the same way. If you've established a precedent at your table that "common sense" trumps the PHB (e.g. you allow auto-hits against sleeping/paralyzed creatures as long as the attacker is not in melee or under fire at the time; shields don't boost your AC when you get shot in the back; small falling creatures take less damage than large falling creatures; etc.) then players are empowered in a different way; they can do what makes sense to them in real-life terms and if the DM rules in a way they didn't expect, they can have a conversation with the DM about "really?" As long as those conversations don't happen too often--as long as the DM has about the same sense of what is possible and appropriate in real life as the players do--the players will feel empowered and will experience agency. I prefer to address things in a more explicit way, such as the Rule of Yes which specifies that the first time a player tries something crazy and unusual, it just works the way you envisioned it, no rules arguing required. (There may still be an attack roll, skill contest, or damage roll involved.) If you ever try that same stunt again, [U]then[/U] the DM will come up with actual rules for it and integrate it into the system; but the very first time you try to manacle the Yeti in combat, you get to use your normal attack roll (or Athletics check, or whatever you were thinking). My players appreciate the Rule of Yes, and it encourages them to try new things and be creative. Could I perhaps get the same effect by just saying "yes" a lot over time and letting them pick up on it? Maybe so. But that also turns it into a bit of a metagame, "Is [DM] going to let me get away with [X]?" whereas I'd like the focus to be strictly on the game itself. I see value in being up-front about [most of] the rules by which we are playing the game. By instituting the Rule of Yes I avoid becoming a bottleneck on their window into the game world--whatever they can imagine in their heads is at least potentially possible in the game world, at least this time. [If they want it to become a permanent part of the gameworld we then have a conversation offline about it, e.g. "what would happen if an Earth Elemental fell on you? how much damage would that do?"] Obviously your group is having fun in your own style, too. More power to you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Paralyzation rules tweak
Top