Waibel's Rule of Interpretation (aka "How to Interpret the Rules")

The only CORRECT interpretation is the one I say!

The sooner the rest of the world gets that, the sooner we can all sit down and have fun...and end all fantasy rpg forum arguments everywhere.

heheheh.

[Seliousry though, nice chart. ]

 

[Manbearcat]

No really, it's not inevitable, and it does not have to happen, and it really does not happen in my 5e games at all. I make decisions on the fly all the time, and we don't have a dispute erupt at all over it even if I happen to be wrong, because game flow without rules debate is more important for everyone at my table than being right about their view of the rules.

The game isn't the rules. And frankly, not everyone cares as much as you do about their expectations concerning the rules being realized.

That is a fine autobiographical fact about your table. I'm very glad for you that your players are mostly or wholly apathetic about the refereeing component of your game. But this is so deeply an outlier as to how anyone plays games (RPGs or otherwise) that I don't even know why you bring it up in a conversation about the greater gaming culture or the impact that refereeing subjective rules language has on a game.

I would have much rather that you addressed the meat of my post (which you abridged). The process for action declaration and resolution is pretty simple (and has an analogue to every aspect of life):

1) Players and GM engage in a conversation where the sensory input that the PCs ingest is conveyed.

2) At that point, the player can orient themselves properly (through their characters) with respect to the dimensional and dramatic components of the situation at hand.

3) Using those observations and orientation, they will then consider the possible actions they can declare. Doing this requires an understanding of the proxy by which the players and characters interface. This proxy, of course, is the collective of the PC build rules, the resolution mechanics, and their best understanding of how all these things intersect to spit out the probability of various outcomes. They then make a decision, declare an action, and resolve it.

If any part of 1-3 is made fuzzy (be it by opacity of rules language, poor GMlayer communication, or a disconnect between GM/player inference/intuition/understanding on areas where rule subsystems intersect), a player will lose confidence in their ability to intuitively (and thus quickly - your pacing...of which I also share considerable concern) execute 1-3...eg declare an action and then resolve it and find out what happens. In essence, they're disoriented and making wobbly decisions where they can't reasonably infer the probability of outcomes within a margin-of-error they're comfortable with. Play slows down, at the very least, at the GMC conversation stage where the player attempts to haggle more and more information out of the GM to reduce that disorientation and attendant, uncomfortable margin-of-error.

That isn't egoism. That isn't immaturity. That isn't being a me-first, poor sport. I've always had great sympathy with (good faith) players when this has happened because I know that either I've done a poorer job than I would have liked or the ruleset itself is problematic.

---

How about a (in my opinion) very relevant, real-life analogue to the impact (on play, on the culture of fans, on participants, and on referees themselves) of refereeing games in a landscape of (intentionally) subjective rules language that requires interpretation.

NFL

* The new "hit on a defenseless player" rules language and all of the areas of that rule that intersect (targets, location on field, posture of players moment to moment, target area). Fans hate how damaging the vagaries of these rules are onto the competitive legitimacy of a singular game and the cross-season impact. Defensive players utterly abhor them because they demand the physically impossible. Referees do not want this kind of impact on games to be in their subjective hands as the margin-of-error and impact on a misapplication is enormous. Oddsmakers and gamblers hate it. WR and TE are liking the rule less and less as target areas are becoming knees and thighs, leading more devastating knee and ankle injuries. The only people that like these rules are (1) NFL execs who are terrified of the continuing threat of class-action lawsuits for head injuries (and are doing everything they can - including destroying the competitive integrity of the game - to protect the brand) and (2) QBs (who find themselves in the unenviable position of hating them when their team is on defense and they're screwed by a terrible, game-altering call).

NBA

* The evolving incoherence and lack of uniform application (and the negative fallout on play - including the increasing propensity for flopping and making a mockery of play) of the block/charge call.

NHL

* The new goaltender interference rules versus the old, clear, unmistakable rules-language of "any player being in the crease at the time of the goal."


There are plenty more than that, but those are three areas where there is pretty much universal disdain for the impact of these subjective rules, and the poor/inconsistent refereeing that stems from them, on the integrity of play.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That is a fine autobiographical fact about your table. I'm very glad for you that your players are mostly or wholly apathetic about the refereeing component of your game. But this is so deeply an outlier as to how anyone plays games (RPGs or otherwise) that I don't even know why you bring it up in a conversation about the greater gaming culture or the impact that refereeing subjective rules language has on a game. .

I don't think it's nearly as much of an outlier you think it is. Many of us share the same experiences. Ironically, you're doing exactly what he was warning against--acting like your own experience is somehow the norm. while you're not outright saying his (or mine) experiences don't happen, you are waving them away as so unlikely as to not be important or carry any weight. You're also engaging in a pretty blatant strawman. He's not saying his players don't care about refereeing, he's saying they don't worry so much about the rules themselves. Those are completely different things, as it seems they care very much about the refereeing. I.e., "I"m not so much worried about RAW, but I do care that the DM is fair and consistent."

 

[Authweight]

It seems clear that we have very different experiences. Here's some stuff I hope we can agree on though:

1) If everything is going fine and nobody is bothered, then there's no need to worry about rules interpretation.

2) If one person is getting very upset and everyone else thinks it's fine, then there's probably a poor fit between that individual and the group. Either the group needs to adjust to that player or the outlier player should leave.

3) If a player is civil about bringing up an interpretation issue and takes reasonable care not to drag the game down in minutiae, they should get a fair hearing, and some attempt should be made to accommodate them, unless their request would damage the game in a major way.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't think it's nearly as much of an outlier you think it is. Many of us share the same experiences. Ironically, you're doing exactly what he was warning against--acting like your own experience is somehow the norm. while you're not outright saying his (or mine) experiences don't happen, you are waving them away as so unlikely as to not be important or carry any weight. You're also engaging in a pretty blatant strawman. He's not saying his players don't care about refereeing, he's saying they don't worry so much about the rules themselves. Those are completely different things, as it seems they care very much about the refereeing. I.e., "I"m not so much worried about RAW, but I do care that the DM is fair and consistent."

I have GMed so much AD&D it isn't even funny. And I've GMed it with more players than I've run any other edition (well, well, well over the century mark). So I have my autobiographical info just like you. I'm more generally talking about the impact (on play and on the mentality of actors under the auspices of such a paradigm) on games and the culture surrounding games.

And you might want to take a closer look at the post that was a direct response to me and then the follow-up below (bolded mine):

No really, it doesn't. I've been playing since 1977. It's NEVER been an issue since I became an adult and started playing with adults. And there are many people here at EW, and at other sites that talk about D&D, that verify this. Sometimes people genuinely don't care. They really don't care if their view of the rules works out or not. They don't care if their view is constantly contradicted by the DM. They real DON'T CARE. It's not a priority for them. They are there to play a fun game and be social with their friends. They trust the DM to make it a fun game, even if it doesn't play out how they expect it will based on their view of the rules.

If you read that as "I"m not so much worried about RAW, but I do care that the DM is fair and consistent", then our respective conceptions of plain english are entirely disconnected from another. We have:

1 - Player:GM disagreement on rules and constant contradiction of player inference of how rules intersect by GM (and thus what rulings should come from those intersections).

2 - But they DON'T CARE.

3 - Because they trust the DM to make a fun game.

Full stop. Nothing in that is about consistent, fair rulings (from which they can make inferences and future, intuitive action declarations of which they are comfortable with).

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have GMed so much AD&D it isn't even funny. And I've GMed it with more players than I've run any other edition (well, well, well over the century mark). So I have my autobiographical info just like you. I'm more generally talking about the impact (on play and on the mentality of actors under the auspices of such a paradigm) on games and the culture surrounding games.

Good for you. But of the two of us, it's not me who is saying your experiences don't matter. That would be you. So stop acting like your experiences are the end all, be all. They are not.

And you might want to take a closer look at the post that was a direct response to me and then the follow-up below (bolded mine):


If you read that as "I"m not so much worried about RAW, but I do care that the DM is fair and consistent", then our respective conceptions of plain english are entirely disconnected from another. We have:

1 - Player:GM disagreement on rules and constant contradiction of player inference of how rules intersect by GM (and thus what rulings should come from those intersections).

2 - But they DON'T CARE.

3 - Because they trust the DM to make a fun game.

Full stop. Nothing in that is about consistent, fair rulings (from which they can make inferences and future, intuitive action declarations of which they are comfortable with).

Saying that the players don't care about the rules is not the same thing as saying they don't care about the refereeing (DMing). Those are two fundamentally different things. If you can't see that, well, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't care about 90% of the rules in football. But I do care that the referees make the game fair and fun.

 

[Mistwell]

But, there's the issue Mistwell. The player I talked about before DID care about the rules. Does that make him a bad player because he's not like your players?

No of course not. What about my responses in this thread made you think I was referencing anything about your player, or even your game in general? I am just responding to the hasty generalizations made.

 

[Mistwell]

That is a fine autobiographical fact about your table.

It disproves a claimed universal generalization.

But this is so deeply an outlier as to how anyone plays games (RPGs or otherwise) that I don't even know why you bring it up in a conversation about the greater gaming culture or the impact that refereeing subjective rules language has on a game.

You have no good evidence to support the claim it's an outlier, others in this very thread have agreed with me on that so it's obviously not as much an outlier as you claim.

In addition, the entire philosophy of D&D for 5e was changed towards rulings over rules, towards focusing more on casual gaming (which itself tends to care less about rules themselves) based on massive feedback they got from a huge survey and playtest experiment they ran which tended to more support my experience as being more typical than you're claiming.

It's your duty to prove your claim is as universal as you want others to believe it to be. If you fail to support it, then we're left with a false universal generalization. Which is all I was responding to.

And given it's usually you and Pemerton against most of this message board in many threads you decide to engage in lengthy debate, I am pretty sure you're well aware by now that your views tend to not be in the majority view, on many topics. I am actually a bit surprised to see you claiming universal experience given that fact. I'd expect a bit more humility and introspection before claiming your experiences are so universal you can dismiss the experiences of others outright as extreme outliers.

I've cut the rest of your post because it was meaningless for this aspect of the discussion.

 

[steeldragons]

To me, the fact that you would characterise consensus as coddling player's whims and trivialise disagreement says that I would likely not enjoy your game. Which is fine.

Well, I think we both have known that for some time now, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. hahaha. And, as you said, that's fine.

There's no problem with that. It's a different play style. I enjoy games where the DM is open to challenge and the entire group is invested in making sure that everyone is having fun. I realise that there are DM's out here that see things very differently. Not a problem.

Correct. Taken in a different context, I run "Consensus games" as well. It's just that the consensus is more commonly referred to as the "social contract" or some such, 'round these parts.

We play Dungeons & Dragons, not Democracy & Debate. Everyone at the table understands/accepts that I (or whoever is DM, as I accept it as well if/when I have had the rare chance to be a player) "set 'em up" and they [the players] "knock 'em down." Where "knocking 'em down" refers to defeating/overcoming in some way (not necessarily just fight/kill) the challenges/foes/situations that I [the DM] present.

There is a degree of suspension of disbelief we all know/accept to be at the table to begin with. Part and parcel of that suspension, is the knowledge that the DM creates and controls the goings-on of the world and the parameters thereof. We are all in agreement on that. The DM calls the shots. The players have no control over anything other than what their characters do...and that's a metric ton of control to effect the possibilities of the world/game/story. That's the game [we play].

Might a DM make a mistake? Sure. Recalling or implementing rules. Miss gaging creature/encounter difficulty. Interpersonal/communications skills. Forgetting a plot point until its too late. There's LOADS of mistakes to be made. We [DMs] are, lamentably, human.

But no one's going to derail/hold up a game over some "rules" minutia. Pacing is important. The table understands/accepts that and enjoys good pacing when it is accomplished. Retaining "immersion" is tantamount. React how your character would react/with what your character knows, is tantamount. That is all part of our "consensus."

If a new person at the table wants to come with a Drow Sorcerer/GOO Warlock/Valor Bard, after knowing that the game world does not allow for drow PCs, has no Sorcerer class, and that warlocks are inherently tainted/corrupted toward evil (and possibly madness) as they advance where Evil PCs are also disallowed, and/or that I'm not a fan/the table doesn't use 3e-style multi-classing, then they're going to get a "No." or (more likely in the case of new players) "I don't think this is going to be the fun you think it is. What is it about this character that you're going for...and why?" then, possibly, "How 'bout you try/Have you looked at/This campaign world has XYZ..."

There is no, to borrow from a recent thread "Can you just fix/take away my Sunlight Sensitivity, then it'll work out fine." There is no "But I wanna" whining. There is no "You have to let me [feat/MC/stack stuff/use some heretofore unused race/class/supplement] X or I can't Y...and Jerry can with his wizard, so..."

It's not a debate. It's not "You're ruining my fun." That is not something that requires or is included in my table's understanding of "consensus."

If, as nearly inconceivable to me as it is, a player were to complain/pipe up that I [the DM] is "wrong" because I put a manticore in a forest and/or I "can't put a manticore in a forest! Cuz..." they are getting a (figurative) "No." It doesn't matter what the MM says. It matters that the DM just told you a manticore was spiraling overhead and preparing to rain spikey death down upon you. What're you [the PC, not the player!] going to do about it?

You want to persist? Fine. "Everyone else make Dex. checks while Bewildergast, here, wonders in amazement that a manticore is flying over a temperate region."

"NO WAIT! I dive for cover too!" would likely be the response.

There is no need (or even thought) of debate. If there is an "out of- or meta-game" reason/answer that I can share (without giving away plot info) or a thought rationale that I have, for the players, I'll share it. If its something the PCs might need to discover on their own...then they have to [have their PCs] do that. Or just shrug it off as one of life's odd occurrences/coincidences/fluke of the creative-imaginative game/made-up world.

There is no "but the book says." It is understood/accepted that what the DM says goes...and yes, most of the time all intentions are to follow what the books say "rules" wise. That's how you have a framework for a playable game...unless/except for the things we agree to change, i.e. houserules. Fluff wise? No holds barred/the details of the setting are known and/or mutable. But once fluff has been introduced, I do try to be consistent. That is the game we play.

That is part of the "buy in" to sit at the table in the first place. Because there is that mutual understanding, that "consensus" -and yes, it includes some inherent trust- at the table that the DM is making/presenting the world for fun and excitement and adventure. They are not, personally/individually "out to get you/screw you over". They are trying to create a coherent and fun challenging adventure experience. All of which leads to (in theory) a good time had by all present...there...to play Dungeons & Dragons.

That is understood and accepted by everyone who sits at the table. To greater or lesser degrees, sometimes, sure. Because, again, we're all human and not all cookie-cutter in our views and preferences. But we all know why we're there and have a "consensus" of what goes and what we want out of the experience.

Joe always wants to do the most DPR. He makes the strongest PC with the biggest weapon and the hardest hits. That's what he likes. Fine. "Mystical" Mary always wants to have the broadest spell repertoire and enjoys expressing a certain sprituality in her characters. That's how/why she plays her 6th power-mad/overachiever priestess of the goddess of magic in a row. Fine. Bob enjoys putting his lowest ability score in his class' Prime Ability and playing the "overcoming adversity/underdog" with elaborate backstory and heavy RP. Fine. Jim...poor, mad, Jim...I never know what he's gonna do, but it's gonna be Chaotic Neutral in a party of staunchly Lawful PCs. *sigh* Fine.

It's not just "well, the book says" or "a player wants something" so I am under some DMly obligation to comply. That's just not the case for "my" playstyle.

And as I have probably mentioned in threads before, haven't had any [serious] complaints. Well, not in a couple of decades. Naturally, when we were all teenagers/kids and beginner/inexperienced DMs, we all have issues to overcome. But that's more years than I'd care to admit behind me now.

Whew. There. That turned into something, din't it. Now I hope everyone on EN world reads this and has a greater/thorough understanding on my views of DMing, DM empowerment, player entitlement, the concept of "consensus" as social contract, and playing the game as a whole. So we should never, ever, have any misunderstandings or disagreements again....ever. Right?

 

[Cyberen]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] : please keep in mind 5e has been built from the ground up with this foundational "rulings" aspect. The system is really very robust wrt DM's judgement.
To resolve an action the DM has to pick a level on the scale auto-success > advantage > normal > disadvantage > auto-failure, and maybe pick a stat and decide if proficiency applies. Note that :
* the stacking rules is meant to be the least toxic, as the disconnect between a player's expectation and the DM's call should differ by at most one step on the resolution scale.
* bounded accuracy means the actual odds of success won't change drastically, whatever the DM decides.
* the game is built to use dice and a DM screen. This device means a player can not and should not know precisely if he has to put the blame on bad luck or adversarial DMing.
These 3 features combined should ensure "rulings, not rules" doesn't strain trust too much.
I also think there are places where the design team hasn't done that great a job to demine potential conflict. I specifically call out Surprise as an obvious offender, as it is an area mostly left to DM fiat where the decisions are potentially devastating.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No of course not. What about my responses in this thread made you think I was referencing anything about your player, or even your game in general? I am just responding to the hasty generalizations made.

Maybe Hussar is referring to my posts, where I implied that if a player is pushing the argument that the DM is wrong because there is a manticore in a forest and they won't let it go, he or she is a bad player. And I stand by that, because not only is it the DM's world, but nothing about having a manticore in a forest triggers the unreasonable flags. It's not like Hussar was having rocs being encountered underwater or something.