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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7169418" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Despite being labeled as a Big DM, I totally agree with this. Every decision that I have to make on the fly needs to be made within context of the rules, in addition to the characters, the narrative, etc. For me, the rules should provide a framework for a DM to make good decisions so that it doesn't alter the expectations of the players. That's why I've filled in holes in the rules, so it makes it easier for the players and the DM to know what a likely judgement will be if we run across something not covered in the rules. Really, any judgement I make shouldn't be much of a surprise if I'm being a good DM. Particularly if you know the rules well. Yes, I have my own style, and thoughts on specific rules, but I'm always happy to discuss those before the game, and if something arises in game, we'll address it however we need to then too. My preference is to go with it this time, and we can discuss it out of the session. But if we have to stop the session, then we will.A good example might be stealth and hiding. To me, it's nearly impossible to write a good rule for this. I'm not a fan of "you have to have x amount of cover to hide." Why? Because I know that humans are often extremely unobservant, and they are easy to misdirect and fool as well. I love the video where you're supposed to count how many times a basketball is passed between a group of moving people, and a majority of people never notice the guy in the gorilla suit walk into the middle of it and beat his chest. So you'll find I'm much more generous with your attempts to hide, provided there's a reasonable explanation as to why you'd be able to do so from a given target. The Help action by another to distract them can go a long way in this regard.My rules on flanking aren't based on a miniature you move into place while all the other miniatures are standing still. It's based on how real people flank others. In an open space, it's very difficult for two people to flank a third. You generally need 3 people to make it work. But if you're fighting somebody in a hallway, and the rogue wants to tumble past the opponent so the target is between them and you? That's a whole different story. And you gain a benefit from it.Does it require some adjudication? From time to time. And the answer won't always be in your favor. But I think you'd find they are pretty consistent. If you can provide a reasonable argument as to why something should work, then I will consider that. But it's not a social thing, it's a logic thing. No matter what, there are tons of things I don't know, and you might point out something that didn't even occur to me - or maybe I just missed it. Plus, once it gets to that point, it's really the table that makes the decision not me.I'll also point out, that other than a ruling that we later decide was not the right approach, anything that you've been able to do once, will work again in the future. Most actions have a chance of failure, so you won't always be successful, but the ruling will be the same. Consistency is very important, and I'm always updating my rules to account for things we didn't think of before. You have to be careful with that! Trust me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification