Reconcile This - A DM Question

[Water Bob]

First, I just want to say, Welcome back ENWORLD!

Thanks, man! I really didn't go anywhere--just busy with other things.

Again, I'm willing to concede that the rules back him up if I find any of these "broad, discretionary DM powers" being referred to are actually there.

Does page 6 of the 3.5 DMG do it for you, where is says under the section on Adjudicating, "Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rule book."

 

[Light Knight]

1. Was there any bluffs or insights rolled to gain a surprise round by anyone?
2. The thief saw what was about to go down, and covered the distance before anyone was actually throwing any punches. The fighter may have taken a more aggressive stance or whatever, but the punch was simply not thrown, yet. If the rogue were reacting to the punch, then obviously he would have to wait for the punch regardless what his initiative was.



However you want to?



Surprise round.



Who cares if the rules are especially believable? Dudes got into a fight. Technically, there is not fight until the first attack role is made, though. If it's the punch the rogue is reacting to, then he can't act until after the punch... though he may be waiting for it with a held action, or something.

Well, is the rogue used to the ranger and fighter arguing? If so, maybe he wasn't prepared, as he was used to their "love" fest.


What if what if what if.

In a normal situation, I think the ranger and rogue are flat footed and "unaware" of a combat starting.

He swings, then initiative occurs.

 

[CroBob]

Sure, if you want to ignore the relevant rules. Obviously the rogue was aware if he passed a sense motive and won 'nish. It's not like the rules are a big mystery, here.

 

[JustinAlexander]

I have not found to state that the DM should do anything to determine surprise except arbitrarily declare who is "aware" of whom. To defer that decision to dice rolls, ability checks or whatever is, I believe, in the DM's overarching job description, but it is NOT "in the rules" asI've read them.

This thread makes me sad. It's like a poster child of everything that's wrong with D&D right now: The mindless desire to reduce the game to some sort of mechanical conveyor belt coupled with the insatiable desire to take guidelines and treat them as ironclad rules even when common sense and experience tells you that it's not a good idea.

I'm simply amazed that anyone could read a passage like this: "When you [the DM] decide that it is possible for either side to be come aware of the other, use Spot checks, Listen checks, sight ranges, and so on to determine [awareness]..." And then say that you can't find anywhere in the rulebook which tells the DM to use dice rolls, ability checks, or whatever to determine awareness. Particularly when that particular paragraph closes with, "...ultimately it's up you [the DM] who decides when the first round begins and where each side is when it does." (DMG, pg. 22)

The rulebook literally and specifically gives the DM carte blanche to determine awareness. But you want to ignore that and pretend that the examples given as guidelines are, in fact, immutable and exclusive rules. Even when you admit that the result doesn't make sense.

It's an attitude I simply can't comprehend. Why go out of your way to ruin your game like this?

 

[Dozen]

This thread makes me sad. It's like a poster child of everything that's wrong with D&D right now: The mindless desire to reduce the game to some sort of mechanical conveyor belt coupled with the insatiable desire to take guidelines and treat them as ironclad rules even when common sense and experience tells you that it's not a good idea.

I'm simply amazed that anyone could read a passage like this: "When you [the DM] decide that it is possible for either side to be come aware of the other, use Spot checks, Listen checks, sight ranges, and so on to determine [awareness]..." And then say that you can't find anywhere in the rulebook which tells the DM to use dice rolls, ability checks, or whatever to determine awareness. Particularly when that particular paragraph closes with, "...ultimately it's up you [the DM] who decides when the first round begins and where each side is when it does." (DMG, pg. 22)

The rulebook literally and specifically gives the DM carte blanche to determine awareness. But you want to ignore that and pretend that the examples given as guidelines are, in fact, immutable and exclusive rules. Even when you admit that the result doesn't make sense.

It's an attitude I simply can't comprehend. Why go out of your way to ruin your game like this?

Gods be damned. Everything that is wrong with D&D, right now, is summed up in a thread, yet not only just some random shmuck noticed, but he has heroically gone out of his way to tell everyone about how are others playing a game wrong. Exquisite!

Heh. You don't need to open pleople's eyes on how to properly play a game, because you don't play a game properly. You play a game to have fun. And every single entity with an IQ at least equaling to that a handful of dried bloodfiend locusts will notice when they're bored. I don't think of the core books as holy texts, either. That I find boring, myself. But I realize that maybe, just maybe, the OP is not a consumer brainwashed by a Skinner box or a very unique kind of masochist and abiding by the guidelines like they were rules is his idea of fun. And who are we to hate on that?

Now, go crawl back to the rest of the whiners and let everyone play the way they want without having to scroll over, or the heavens forbid, read the opinion you spread on what everyone can decide for themselves. Some of us tries to have faith in humanity. The fact people who don't play in a way you can understand instantly turn into mindless zombies in your eyes is what sad, not that a few players don't like or don't have it in them to play without the books telling them how to.

 

[Water Bob]

This thread makes me sad. It's like a poster child of everything that's wrong with D&D right now: The mindless desire to reduce the game to some sort of mechanical conveyor belt coupled with the insatiable desire to take guidelines and treat them as ironclad rules...

Justin, you have a very strong point. One that I quite agree with.

At the same time, though, I like to learn the rules, as written, first, before I consider doing things my way. I think, too often, we rush off, changing things, before we understand exactly what the rules really do mean. Sometimes, a rule is crap, sure. But, sometimes, it also has many hours of thought behind it by several game designers. d20 3.0/3.5 in particular was in development for years and, from what I understand, was the most studied and developed set of rules ever to serve the D&D universe at the time they were printed.

So, what I'm saying is: There is great value in what you post above. Your point is strong. Many should listen to it.

But also: There is value in understanding the rules, as written, as applied to specific situations, if only to make your calls when you break those rules that much better.

It's an attitude I simply can't comprehend. Why go out of your way to ruin your game like this?

So, that's the reason. Not to ruin the game, but to improve it.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I'm simply amazed that anyone could read a passage like this: "When you [the DM] decide that it is possible for either side to be come aware of the other, use Spot checks, Listen checks, sight ranges, and so on to determine [awareness]..." And then say that you can't find anywhere in the rulebook which tells the DM to use dice rolls, ability checks, or whatever to determine awareness.

Actually I believe I said:

The DMG goes to lengths to delineate the 3 limited methods in its rules for beginning an encounter based strictly on "awareness", but no more than that.

Emphasis mine.

I was asking for a citation of the broad discretionary powers which it was asserted extended beyond that - in particular bearing upon the situation in the OP. Yes, the DM is given powers for determining whether surprise exists (and why would a DM bother to determine the existence of surprise except as a necessary initial part of combat?) My point, apparantly badly made, was that it did NOT give rules nor concern itself beyond starting things in those three ways, despite assertion that there were broad discrtionary powers SPECIFIED for doing precisely that. It suggested to me that there was a statement in the DMG somewhere that said something along the lines of, "The DM can determine that an encounter begins in OTHER ways than these three through the use of the following discretionary powers," but all I see is the DMG suggesting the DM to use a variety of means ONLY to determine surprise in those limited contexts.

Particularly when that particular paragraph closes with, "...ultimately it's up you [the DM] who decides when the first round begins and where each side is when it does." (DMG, pg. 22)

Which by context is STILL limiting those discretionary powers to dealing ONLY with starting encounters by the noted three possibilities, all concerning nothing more than 'awareness". Had the DMG wanted to specify broad discretionary powers to start combats in ways OTHER than by determining awareness it would have been simple to do so, and that would have been the place to do it. But it only goes on to deal with those three methods in detail. It is quite clear that the authors of 3E either did not anticipate the possibility of encounters starting in some other way, or they DID anticipate it but chose NOT to address them at all, preferring to deal only with the method of "awareness" which they'd come up with as the starting mechanism.

A situation as described in the OP is simply not adequately covered by those three possibilities. That's not a crime. It's not an insult to you or me. It is simply an omission or an oversight of the possibility of combats beginning in ways OTHER than just one side becoming aware of each other and the need to provide particular intiative rules for that. Situations like standoffs or arguments such as was being described are simply not covered by the rules. They must be covered by DM adjudication.

But you want to ignore that and pretend that the examples given as guidelines are, in fact, immutable and exclusive rules. Even when you admit that the result doesn't make sense.

See, this is actually kind of funny because I am a RABID champion of the DM telling the rules to get stuffed whenever and wherever he feels the rules are inadequate, incorrect, or simply inconvenient for the game he wants to run. If you say the DM should simply handle it in the way he thinks is right then I AGREE! I'm saying that the rules don't cover this. The 3.5 DMG is fallable. In this matter its fallability is exposed in that it cannot or will not provide rules for the possibility of beginning encounters in alternative ways except as noted.

It's an attitude I simply can't comprehend. Why go out of your way to ruin your game like this?

Who's trying to RUIN the game? I'm trying to improve it, or at least my own handling of it as a DM. That includes acknowledging failures, omissions, inadequacies of the rules, suggestions of how to handle things within the boundries given by the rules, but most of all emphasizing that the DM runs the game, the game does not run the DM, and that creation of new and better rules is not just a DM's privilege it's often a DM's JOB - and this is one of those areas. I often feel I'm making myself obnoxious by repeating this as often as I do, but back in 1979 in the preface to the 1E DMG Gary Gygax summed it up nicely - not just for AD&D but IMO for EVERY version of D&D that might also come after it:

Naturally, everything possible cannot be included in the whole of this work. As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign and how it must be handled; if so, why not play some game like chess? As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I didn't and devise things beyond my capability.

 

[JustinAlexander]

Seriously, though: The lengths people will go to in an effort to convince themselves that something explicitly and repeatedly labeled as a guideline should be treated as if it were an ironclad rule just makes me sad.

And the entire mindset that interprets a guideline as being inherently "fallible" and "inadequate" and "inconvenient" because it's not comprehensive is simply bizarre. It betrays a fundamental inability to even understand what a guideline is.

It's great that you think of yourself as being "RABID" about DM authority. But when your entire approach to the game is so deeply rooted inside the idea of rigid codification, that's really more akin to a center-right politician patting themselves on the back for being "RABID" in their socialism because they want to close some corporate tax loopholes.

 

[S'mon]

I would normally give the Fighter a surprise round. I would also award a surprise round against any player using the term 'nish'.

If the Rogue or Ranger had said they were suspicious then I'd allow Sense Motive checks to avoid being surprised, higher DC for the Rogue.

If the Rogue or Ranger said they were 'Readying' or similar then we would immediately go into Initiative.

 

[ImperatorK]

Ranger and Rogue are surprised, unless the fighter used Bluff to deliver a secret message to the Rogue that he's intending to attack and the Ranger didn't notice (failed his Sense Motive).