Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoutonRustique" data-source="post: 6658535" data-attributes="member: 22362">Personally this is the bit that really rankles when playing. This becomes a sort of "outwit the DM" which is always irritating to me - seeing as the education and knowledge levels vary wildly from person to person in the people I know, "talking physics" gets really old, really fast.Its the same reaction when I see most instances of "out-of-the-box thinking" with spells or "original" use and such... ugh... like spiders on my back (the big hairy kind that walk slowly making sure you feel them being all creepy and crawly).As something completely OT, I get the same reaction when I see "originality" in correction guidelines (I'm a high school level teacher) - I HATE that. HATE. IT. What is it supposed to mean? Original for whom? The student? Of course it is! She/He composed it! (If not, it falls under plagiarism - which is something completely different.) The teacher? How stupid is that? It makes the test harder and harder as the teacher gains experience (since he sees so many copies, it gets harder and harder to be "original"). Ugh! SO. STUPID. [/rant] [/pant]Back on topic : While the distaste for the words is very understandable - and, of course, it has been used to belittle and has thus become an insult for many (were it meant as an insult initially is of little relevance in this regard), it is the accepted phrasing/phrase/code for this kind of situation. As such, and with all respect, it may be something you have to bear. Sort of like my enduring all the RPG manuals spell honour "honor" and armour "armor" (but I do acknowledge that yours is the heavier cross <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=":)" /> )I'd also argue that the "ruling not rules" phrase doesn't convey the same concepts - they are analogue in many respects, but not equivalent. Each has its place.As an attempt at explanation: - Ruling not rules refers more to a state of game where some situations (ideally, IMO,  corner cases) are left for each table to define. - Mother may I? usually has an element of "recurrence" or "frequency" to it - it is a situation where the "permission" must be asked for success.Let's say, the stealth rules don't explain clearly what are the requirements to hide but give broad guidelines about appropriate situations. This is more of a ruling not rules issue as once the typical conditions are met, the question the player will ask is more along the lines of "are the conditions acceptable to try and hide?" Since the fiction is usually fairly vague and most probably a bit different for each person at the table, this is quite reasonable and expected. It depends upon what people imagine the situation to be - and the DM is usually considered final arbiter of this.On the flip side, if you get stealth guidelines that are very vague and such things as armour (yes! there is a "u" in there you hellion-damned yankee!) are not mentioned, etc. And players have to ask "permission" to attempt to have a real chance at stealth or try and use "physics" (such as "I pad the plates of my armour with cloth") to get a better chance at success, then this becomes a mother may I?.One is where there is room for tables to set their preferences, the other entails trying to manipulate the DM into favorable rulings.Others will probably explain it better, but that's my attempt for now.Also, just so it is crystal clear, if your group is having fun, please go on as you were! Your style is as valid as mine. <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