Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6014386" data-attributes="member: 4937">Now that I see it, I think I've heard this story before.&nbsp; I believe it has actually been told at EnWorld if not in those exact words, then the general gist of it.Isn't that just SotS all over.&nbsp; Sweet.&nbsp; I can totally see SotS pulling that off and making a really memorable character.Yep.&nbsp; Sigh.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm not sure which is worse - houserules that have unconstrained fumbles with no confirmation role - or thinking that you can play 17th level characters in a D20 system without severely houseruling the beejeesus out of the game.No, I know what is worse, blaming bad DMing on the rules.&nbsp; And not only 'the rules' but what is actually on inspection the lack of rules.&nbsp; Because a close reading of the text discovers that they don't have a rule for what happens when you fumble.&nbsp; They leave it entirely up to the DM.&nbsp; So it wasn't like rules were actually screwing over SotS - every time he rolled a 1 the DM was actively screwing him over by fiat.&nbsp; You couldn't even do anything to avoid it, since taking precautions against losing a blade would just result in more severe penalties.&nbsp; That isn't rules.&nbsp; That's bad DMing - because the DM could have just said, 'Ok, your wild battle dance leaves you open to attack, your foes have a +2 bonus to hit you the next turn' or 'In your wild battle dance, you've become fatigued.&nbsp; Once you end combat you must rest for 10 minutes.'&nbsp;&nbsp; But the DM actually lacks the imagination to come up with&nbsp; a solution to the problem, even though he's been left with complete power because the system runs entirely on his word.&nbsp; That's not rules; that's bad DMing.&nbsp; That's the rest of the group collectively deciding someone else shouldn't be having fun.Fundamentally, what we have here is an ancedote.&nbsp; A funny, slightly tragic, and instructive ancedote to be sure, but that's all it is.&nbsp; And the lesson I learn from it is, &quot;Rules are a good thing.&nbsp; Don't leave things up to fiat, or you'll tend to be unfair even if it isn't your intention to be unfair.&quot;&nbsp; I'd also like to hear from the rest of the group, because it certainly sounds like another interpretation is, &quot;That character that was rolling 15 attacks each round, wasn't nearly as amusing to the rest of the group as it was to SotS and the fumble rule was in place precisely to prevent people from taking 5 minutes rolling their attacks every turn.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6014386, member: 4937"] Now that I see it, I think I've heard this story before. I believe it has actually been told at EnWorld if not in those exact words, then the general gist of it. Isn't that just SotS all over. Sweet. I can totally see SotS pulling that off and making a really memorable character. Yep. Sigh. I'm not sure which is worse - houserules that have unconstrained fumbles with no confirmation role - or thinking that you can play 17th level characters in a D20 system without severely houseruling the beejeesus out of the game. No, I know what is worse, blaming bad DMing on the rules. And not only 'the rules' but what is actually on inspection the lack of rules. Because a close reading of the text discovers that they don't have a rule for what happens when you fumble. They leave it entirely up to the DM. So it wasn't like rules were actually screwing over SotS - every time he rolled a 1 the DM was actively screwing him over by fiat. You couldn't even do anything to avoid it, since taking precautions against losing a blade would just result in more severe penalties. That isn't rules. That's bad DMing - because the DM could have just said, 'Ok, your wild battle dance leaves you open to attack, your foes have a +2 bonus to hit you the next turn' or 'In your wild battle dance, you've become fatigued. Once you end combat you must rest for 10 minutes.' But the DM actually lacks the imagination to come up with a solution to the problem, even though he's been left with complete power because the system runs entirely on his word. That's not rules; that's bad DMing. That's the rest of the group collectively deciding someone else shouldn't be having fun. Fundamentally, what we have here is an ancedote. A funny, slightly tragic, and instructive ancedote to be sure, but that's all it is. And the lesson I learn from it is, "Rules are a good thing. Don't leave things up to fiat, or you'll tend to be unfair even if it isn't your intention to be unfair." I'd also like to hear from the rest of the group, because it certainly sounds like another interpretation is, "That character that was rolling 15 attacks each round, wasn't nearly as amusing to the rest of the group as it was to SotS and the fumble rule was in place precisely to prevent people from taking 5 minutes rolling their attacks every turn." [/QUOTE]

Verification