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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 8417430" data-attributes="member: 86653">That's a contradiction. The most realistic response or interaction with the fiction would be whatever a real person in that situation would do. Game rules by their nature stand between the player and the character. Decisions players make are always filtered through the rules of the game. And if not, then why the insistence on knowing the rules? If knowing the rules won't affect the decision making process, why do players need to know them? It's obvious to everyone why. Because players filter their decisions based on the rules. The examples above that I gave. 3X grappling and 4E improvised action and basic attacks.Agreed.I'm not sure what you mean.Oh, yeah. Obviously it still exists. I'm more lamenting that it's now niche rather than the mainstream.Right. But that's partially the point. It takes the DM saying so for that rule to be ditched. If the DM doesn't, it's the physics of the world. That physics is patently absurd. Far better to simply remove that absurd rule in the first place rather than rely on the DM recognizing the absurdity of it and giving you a pass in the moment. That a rule produces absurdities is, in itself, a problem.I don't get the idea that a game book or the rules can somehow protect players from DMs, good or bad. That's just not a thing. As you mentioned above, the DM can simply ignore whatever the rules say at their whim. In either case, the DM ignoring rules to benefit the players or ignoring rules to hinder the players, the players' only real recourse is to vote with their feet. There's no appeal to the rules or appeal to the designer. Sure. In the moment you can open the book and point to the page and read the rule, but the DM's still in charge. As you say, they can ignore the rules at their whim.The books can try to teach DMs and players the game designers' idea of the "proper" way to play the game, i.e. what their intent was in designing it. But once it's in the wild, that's it. It's now up to the DM and players to make it work.To me, it's simply more honest to say the DM's in charge and run with it. And if a player doesn't like how a DM runs their game, leave. Those are literally the only options. Play or don't. I mean, it's like that thing going around about empathy. "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people." If someone doesn't care, they don't care. If someone doesn't have empathy, you're not going to be able to explain to them the benefits of empathy by appealing to their empathy. If a DM doesn't care what the rules say, you're not going to be able to explain why they should care about the rules by appealing to the rules.You're making the mistake of assuming this one behavior (optimizing the fun out of the game) is the sum total of all behaviors, it's not. That's only one aspect among many. It is a given that players will optimize the fun out of the game. It's not a given whether the players at my table enjoy epic fantasy, jungle adventures, or pike & shot warfare. It's also not a given whether my players will want to engage with strict encumbrance rules or whether they want pure, unending combat, or prefer an entire campaign of pure roleplaying.What an odd assumption. If I didn't trust my players, I wouldn't play with them. Understanding this aspect of gamer behavior isn't about trust or lack thereof. It's understanding human psychology. I don't get mad at dogs for barking. Dogs bark. My trust doesn't enter into it. I don't get mad at the wind for blowing. Wind blows. My trust doesn't enter into it. I don't get mad at my players for trying to optimize the fun out of the game. Gamers optimize the fun out of the game. My trust doesn't enter into it.Again, it's not about trust. It's about eliciting a more honest response to the circumstances as presented in the fiction. Rules get in the way and the players will inevitably filter their decisions through the rules. So to avoid that, lighter rules are better or obscured rules.Because they're already trusted with the sum total of the entire game, game world, fiction therein, world building, running all the NPCs, factions, etc. If you're not trusting enough of your DM to let them handle the rules, why are you trusting enough to let them handle literally everything outside of your character?</blockquote>

Verification