Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Theo R Cwithin" data-source="post: 5555518" data-attributes="member: 75712">Imho, the &quot;Believability Filter&quot; doesn't belong exclusively to&nbsp; the DM; it's built and shared by everyone at the table.&nbsp; That's&nbsp; basically what I mean when I talk about trust &amp; communication at the&nbsp; table.&nbsp; The more we all talk to each other, the more likely we are to&nbsp; all stay on the same page.&nbsp; I'm sure it's a DMing style thing, but at least in my case, I try to keep players in the loop with respect to rules changes and ad hoc decisions. I give them my ruling and rationale, they can protest or offer an alternative ruling, I make a final decision, and we move on-- with the promise that I'll review/correct the decision &amp; make it official between sessions, especially if I know it'll pop up again. In session, the whole process takes 2 or 3 minutes, and is pretty painless.&nbsp; (Perhaps that's what you meant by &quot;gaming the DM&quot; in the OP?)The end result of this sort of back and forth may or may not actually result in lots of rules changes for a particular campaign.&nbsp; It really just depends upon how we all end up hashing things out, subject to the nature of the rule set; whatever the group is comforatable with; and whatever we decide &quot;cool&quot; or &quot;fun&quot; means in that particular campaign.[edit] It occurs to me that you might also be referring to rules changes (ie, house rules) established before a campaign begins.&nbsp; In my case, it's roughly similar, in that that I as DM propose the mods I want to make and get players' opinions.&nbsp; Usually, unless there's a strong adverse initial reaction, up front house rules are pretty much set.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Theo R Cwithin, post: 5555518, member: 75712"] Imho, the "Believability Filter" doesn't belong exclusively to the DM; it's built and shared by everyone at the table. That's basically what I mean when I talk about trust & communication at the table. The more we all talk to each other, the more likely we are to all stay on the same page. I'm sure it's a DMing style thing, but at least in my case, I try to keep players in the loop with respect to rules changes and ad hoc decisions. I give them my ruling and rationale, they can protest or offer an alternative ruling, I make a final decision, and we move on-- with the promise that I'll review/correct the decision & make it official between sessions, especially if I know it'll pop up again. In session, the whole process takes 2 or 3 minutes, and is pretty painless. (Perhaps that's what you meant by "gaming the DM" in the OP?) The end result of this sort of back and forth may or may not actually result in lots of rules changes for a particular campaign. It really just depends upon how we all end up hashing things out, subject to the nature of the rule set; whatever the group is comforatable with; and whatever we decide "cool" or "fun" means in that particular campaign. [edit] It occurs to me that you might also be referring to rules changes (ie, house rules) established before a campaign begins. In my case, it's roughly similar, in that that I as DM propose the mods I want to make and get players' opinions. Usually, unless there's a strong adverse initial reaction, up front house rules are pretty much set. [/QUOTE]

Verification