Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Fifth Element]

How do you explain the disconnect here?

The disconnect is the difference between a monster's traits, established before the encounter even begins, and the arbitrary "you can't knock a snake prone, that doesn't make any sense" vetoing of a PC's power after the fact.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wait, so if the player proposes a reasonable explanation of how knocking a snake prone happens, the DM should allow it even if it makes no sense to him? Hasn't this proposition been rebutted in this thread? I thought it was you doing the rebutting, I could be wrong about that though.

Let's rephrase that, shall we:

if the player proposes a reasonable explanation of how knocking a snake prone happens, the DM should allow it even if he does not believe it is reasonable​

and there you have, I think, the crux of the argument.

If the player offers a reasonable explanation, and the DM agrees that it is reasonable, he should allow it.

If the player offers an explanation that he believes is reasonable, but the DM does not, the DM should consider it carefully (or as carefully as can be without bogging the game down) and then make a ruling, one way or the other.

In either event, the player should accept the ruling, and the game should move on.....unless the ruling is so critical as to seriously swing the game in one direction or another. In this, and only in this, case, stopping to actually hash things out is of value.

If the ruling is not so critical, after the game, it may be raised again, hashed out, and either the player(s) convince the GM or not. If not, then the GM is final arbiter within the province of any game he or she runs.

The players, obviously, are the final arbiters of what games they are willing to play in.

This is simplicity itself:

1. The players cannot force the GM to accept any rule or ruling that he or she doesn't choose to accept.

2. The GM cannot force anyone to play in his or her games, and if his or her rulings are wonky enough, the GM will soon be left in the dark, alone, wondering where everyone else went.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

In the remainder, why should there be a referee in the first place?

At the very least, because there will always, always be things that are not covered directly by the rules. No ruleset can hope to cover every possible eventuality. No rules for something? You need an arbiter.

 

[Thasmodious]

You are arguing something other people aren't. No one has said the DM should overrule a player with a reasonable explanation and to only account for HIS imagination and HIS preferences.

You really want to go "nu-uh, you are" back and forth? In these three threads on this same thing, several people have argued just that.

HOWEVER, insofar as the bigger picture is the province of the DM, rather than the players, the DM should keep the big picture in mind. Also, insofar as the DM must enjoy the game in order to run it well (or at all), he should not move so far from his preferences as to ruin the game for all.

I agree with the first statement and only partly with the second. DMing has a big job description and, imo, a part of that is a certain level of sacrifice to his own preferences to create a game that is fun for all based on the group dynamics. A player likes what he likes. If he is a powergamer type, he wants to be awesome, a role-player wants to roleplay. The DM can indulge himself here and there but he pushes aside the preferences of his players at his own risk. A big part of DMing, imo, is finding a balance where the players get to indulge their preferences without the DM sacrificing all of his. He's the one with the responsibility to sacrifice, though. If he can't live with that, he shouldn't get behind the screen. GMing has a broad enough scope that you can play to the players and still find your fun, even if it isn't your optimal preference.

 

[Raven Crowking]

4E has something similar in immediate interrupts. Some of them are triggered when you are hit by an attack, and allow you to avoid damage or reduce damage or teleport or what have you. Not when you're attacked, mind you; you wait until you know whether you're hit or not being triggering the power. The DM says your character is hit by an attack, you say "no, actually my PC teleported out of the way just in the nick of time." This sort of thing is built into the system.

You might be amused to know, given my "side" in this argument, that RCFG also has things like that built into it.

The problem, IMHO, is how often the "powers" of a particular ruleset clash with the fiction. If you are ruleset-first, you apply the ruleset, and then determine how within the fiction the rules make sense. If you are fiction-first, you determine what makes sense within the fiction, and then apply or change the rules as need be.

All of us, I think, are somewhere along the spectrum between these two extremes. Where you lie along that spectrum depends, IMHO, on just what you want out of the game. I am farther toward "fiction-first" and you toward "ruleset-first", but that shouldn't imply that you ignore the fiction or that I ignore the rules. It implies only what is given primacy, in the majority of cases, when the ruleset and fiction clash.

Again, IMHO. YMMV.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

If the player offers an explanation that he believes is reasonable, but the DM does not, the DM should consider it carefully (or as carefully as can be without bogging the game down) and then make a ruling, one way or the other.

The key part you're missing here is that we're talking about effects that are explicit within the rules. We're not talking about AD&D-style stunts where the player wants to try something, describes what he's doing and the DM makes a decision on the effect, if any. We're talking about things that are explicitly written in the rules.

 

[Ariosto]

At the very least, because there will always, always be things that are not covered directly by the rules. No ruleset can hope to cover every possible eventuality. No rules for something? You need an arbiter.

So? Thasmodeus and Hussar are pleased to exercise the privilege of a GM with none of the responsibility. If you are against democracy, then you can always go for their libertarian "every man for himself" plan!

 

[Raven Crowking]

You really want to go "nu-uh, you are" back and forth? In these three threads on this same thing, several people have argued just that.

No. No one has argued that the GM should disallow something that the GM believes to be reasonable. What is "reasonable", and who has the final say as to what is "reasonable" is, AFAICT, the crux of the argument.

No one is saying that, given a belief that X is correct, the GM should do not-X.

People are, on the contrary, suggesting that the GM may not believe X is correct, and that the GM should/must (in many, but not all, forms of games) have the power to determine on that basis.

I agree with the first statement and only partly with the second. DMing has a big job description and, imo, a part of that is a certain level of sacrifice to his own preferences to create a game that is fun for all based on the group dynamics. A player likes what he likes. If he is a powergamer type, he wants to be awesome, a role-player wants to roleplay. The DM can indulge himself here and there but he pushes aside the preferences of his players at his own risk. A big part of DMing, imo, is finding a balance where the players get to indulge their preferences without the DM sacrificing all of his. He's the one with the responsibility to sacrifice, though. If he can't live with that, he shouldn't get behind the screen. GMing has a broad enough scope that you can play to the players and still find your fun, even if it isn't your optimal preference.

Everyone at the table has an equal responsibility to sacrifice, IMHO. Not just the one doing the most work.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The key part you're missing here is that we're talking about effects that are explicit within the rules. We're not talking about AD&D-style stunts where the player wants to try something, describes what he's doing and the DM makes a decision on the effect, if any. We're talking about things that are explicitly written in the rules.

So?

Again, 4e explicitly allows the DM to do this. This is explicitly also -- and just as much! -- a part of the rules.

And again, if you are ruleset-first, you apply the ruleset, and then determine how within the fiction the rules make sense. If you are fiction-first, you determine what makes sense within the fiction, and then apply or change the rules as need be.

All of us, I think, are somewhere along the spectrum between these two extremes. Where you lie along that spectrum depends, IMHO, on just what you want out of the game. I am farther toward "fiction-first" and you toward "ruleset-first", but that shouldn't imply that you ignore the fiction or that I ignore the rules. It implies only what is given primacy, in the majority of cases, when the ruleset and fiction clash.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

No ruleset can hope to cover every possible eventuality.

Actually, that is quite easily done by the simple expedient of declaring impossible whatever the rules do not stipulate.

That is, one might notice, logically implied in the "down with the DM's discretion, up with rigid interpretation of the rules" position.