Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5432722" data-attributes="member: 22779">It would be nice if Robin D Law's writing was so fantastic that it could time travel, but, barring that, where in the 3.5 or 3.0 DMG does it expressely state to &quot;say yes&quot; to players?&nbsp; I see all sorts of quotes about the DM being the &quot;final arbiter&quot; of the rules, but that's not the same thing as advising DM's to say yes to player ideas.Look, I already stated repeatedly that you can do the spoon trick in 3.5.&nbsp; Of course you can.&nbsp; What you can't do, however, is do it by RAW.&nbsp; It's pretty much in direct violation of the RAW.&nbsp; Now, violating RAW is certainly fine and wonderful, but, that's still what you're doing.&nbsp; The DM has to step in and decide if this is an okay place to violate RAW.&nbsp; And he's certainly empowered to do so.What I am not saying is that this is impossible to do in 3e D&amp;D.&nbsp; Of course you can and I said as much.&nbsp; What I did say is that the rules are pretty much against you if you try.&nbsp; And if your DM sticks with the rules, then the player is SOL.&nbsp; Sticking with the rules should not be a sign of a bad DM in my opinion.Going back to the specific example of the Thieves' tools, it does not say that they are required in 4e.&nbsp; It says to use it properly, you need them and having them grants a bonus, but, it does not forbid you from using the skill if you do not have them.&nbsp; In 3e, you are expressly forbidden from using the skill without thieves tools.&nbsp; Right in the skill description, you &quot;require at least a simple tool of the appropriate sort&quot;.&nbsp; 3e mechanics are proscriptive, not descriptive.&nbsp; They hard wire the narrative into the mechanics.In 4e, because the narrative is largely divorced from the mechanics, the player can choose to narrate any event however he chooses, so long as the table agrees.&nbsp; If the player wants to Fonzie Bump the lock, the rules support that.&nbsp; If the player wants to sing the lock open, the rules allow for that, so long as the table is willing to go for it.&nbsp; So, yes, the naked rogue can open the lock at 1st level and that's very much in keeping with the rules in 4e.BryonD, you like the narrative that is produced by the 3e ruleset.&nbsp; I get that.&nbsp; That's groovy.&nbsp; But, the narrative is no more &quot;open&quot; in 3e than any other edition.&nbsp; You attempt an action, resolve the action through the mechancs and those mechanics define how you resolve that action.&nbsp; In 4e, they actually don't.&nbsp; I could use Theivery to open a lock by singing to it.&nbsp; Granted, I can do the same thing in 3e, but only if the DM is willing to tie up the mechanics and dump them in a trunk somewhere.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5432722, member: 22779"] It would be nice if Robin D Law's writing was so fantastic that it could time travel, but, barring that, where in the 3.5 or 3.0 DMG does it [u]expressely[/u] state to "say yes" to players? I see all sorts of quotes about the DM being the "final arbiter" of the rules, but that's not the same thing as advising DM's to say yes to player ideas. Look, I already stated [u]repeatedly[/u] that you can do the spoon trick in 3.5. Of course you can. What you can't do, however, is do it by RAW. It's pretty much in direct violation of the RAW. Now, violating RAW is certainly fine and wonderful, but, that's still what you're doing. The DM has to step in and decide if this is an okay place to violate RAW. And he's certainly empowered to do so. What I am [u]not saying[/u] is that this is impossible to do in 3e D&D. Of course you can and I said as much. What I did say is that the rules are pretty much against you if you try. And if your DM sticks with the rules, then the player is SOL. Sticking with the rules should not be a sign of a bad DM in my opinion. Going back to the specific example of the Thieves' tools, it does not say that they are required in 4e. It says to use it properly, you need them and having them grants a bonus, but, it does not forbid you from using the skill if you do not have them. In 3e, you are expressly forbidden from using the skill without thieves tools. Right in the skill description, you "require at least a simple tool of the appropriate sort". 3e mechanics are proscriptive, not descriptive. They hard wire the narrative into the mechanics. In 4e, because the narrative is largely divorced from the mechanics, the player can choose to narrate any event however he chooses, so long as the table agrees. If the player wants to Fonzie Bump the lock, the rules support that. If the player wants to sing the lock open, the rules allow for that, so long as the table is willing to go for it. So, yes, the naked rogue can open the lock at 1st level and that's very much in keeping with the rules in 4e. BryonD, you like the narrative that is produced by the 3e ruleset. I get that. That's groovy. But, the narrative is no more "open" in 3e than any other edition. You attempt an action, resolve the action through the mechancs and those mechanics define how you resolve that action. In 4e, they actually don't. I could use Theivery to open a lock by singing to it. Granted, I can do the same thing in 3e, but only if the DM is willing to tie up the mechanics and dump them in a trunk somewhere. [/QUOTE]

Verification