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. ]

 

[Sacrosanct]

It has nothing to do with rules lawyering. This goes to show you really don't get it.

It's simple. It's not YOUR game just because you are DM, it's everyone at the tables game.

it has everything to do with rules lawyering, or having you been paying attention? It's about a player starting a "lengthy argument" because the DM thought it would be cool to have a manticore in a forest and the player pointing to the book to prove him wrong.

and newsflash, it *is* the DM's game because he or she is the one running it. It also says that in the rulebooks directly from Gary himself

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It has nothing to do with rules lawyering. This goes to show you really don't get it.

It's simple. It's not YOUR game just because you are DM, it's everyone at the tables game.

Playing devil's advocate for a second: it could be your game because you're the DM. I mean, if you are the kind of DM who takes the initiative to recruit players, and has the game at your house, and has a whole campaign written out that you want to run players through, and recruits new players when old ones leave, that makes you a lot more invested in the game than one of your typical players is. From such a DM I would be a little bit more tolerant of the dictatorial style, because hey, clearly they care more than anyone else at the table.

However, I prefer games that are more collegial than dictatorial. Apparently Bryon and Celebrim feel differently.

 

[Authweight]

Why won't anyone think of the rules lawyers!

This is the sort of dismissive attitude I'm talking about. Better to call everyone who disagrees with you a name, like a rules-lawyer or a whiner or a power gamer or a munchkin. As long as you don't need to consider they have their own desires that are worth considering.

 

[DaveDash]

Playing devil's advocate for a second: it could be your game because you're the DM. I mean, if you are the kind of DM who takes the initiative to recruit players, and has the game at your house, and has a whole campaign written out that you want to run players through, and recruits new players when old ones leave, that makes you a lot more invested in the game than one of your typical players is. From such a DM I would be a little bit more tolerant of the dictatorial style, because hey, clearly they care more than anyone else at the table.

However, I prefer games that are more collegial than dictatorial. Apparently Bryon and Celebrim feel differently.

Yes, but not every game is like that, hence the OPs post is more specific to a type of game, rather than all games. I play in a game where the DM defers rules decisions to us for example, because his rules knowledge is weak.

His back hand comment about rules lawyering makes me think he doesn't understand this concept.

 

[DaveDash]

it has everything to do with rules lawyering, or having you been paying attention? It's about a player starting a "lengthy argument" because the DM thought it would be cool to have a manticore in a forest and the player pointing to the book to prove him wrong.

and newsflash, it *is* the DM's game because he or she is the one running it. It also says that in the rulebooks directly from Gary himself

Now now, are you rules lawyering there?

I personally dont care if Gygax writes to jump off a cliff. Everyone makes the same time commitments to turn up and play on game day, it's just as much the players game as the DM, in many cases.

You can either be a dictator or referee, whatever floats your boat.

 

[pemerton]

despite accusations implying otherwise, the intent of my post and flowchart was really nothing more than, "don't let yourself get hung up on rules if it prevents you from playing the game and having fun."

Isn't the flip-side of that "If the rules are important to your play experience, then it's worth the effort to work out rules, and rulings, that work for you and your group?"

 

[Authweight]

and newsflash, it *is* the DM's game because he or she is the one running it. It also says that in the rulebooks directly from Gary himself

[sarcasm]
DMIng advice from the very earliest rpg book ever written is 100% infallible, so it's a good thing you brought this up. Otherwise we would be lost.

In unrelated news, why do they keep posting speed limit signs of 65 and 70 mph? My Model T Ford only gets up to around 45 tops. Surely there is no finer vehicle able to go faster than it?
[/sarcasm]

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

In plainer, more civil terms, you can play however you want, and despite my sarcasm earlier, I really don't think that Gygax's style is inferior to any other. But we have done a lot more thinking on it since then, and a lot of people run things in ways that would make old Gygax's head spin, and that's not a bad thing at all.

 

[Celebrim]

However, I prefer games that are more collegial than dictatorial. Apparently Bryon and Celebrim feel differently.

More false contrasts.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes, but not every game is like that, hence the OPs post is more specific to a type of game, rather than all games. I play in a game where the DM defers rules decisions to us for example, because his rules knowledge is weak.

His back hand comment about rules lawyering makes me think he doesn't understand this concept.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Jester David]

Not everyone plays RPGs so that the GM can tell them a good story. Not everyone regards the game as belonging solely, or principally, to the GM. For some, story, backstory, campaign world etc is secondary to game play. For others, they want to contribute in a significant way to the telling of the story.

When the focus of the game is on game play, then there needs to be some way of mediating possible competing moves. When the focus of the game is on story contributions, then there need to be some way of mediating possible competing contributions. This is one thing that rules can do. For them to do this, they have to have some content that is independent of the GM's conception of them, given that for them to do this they have to bind the GM as well as the players.

Both Hussar's examples (plate armour, and manticores) concern background elements. I think the scope for conflict comes up most often in relation to action resolution. For instance, can a powerful epic-tier fighter leap 50' from a flying carpet onto a flying slaad lord? This question came up in my most recent 4e session. We didn't answer it by considering what makes sense to me (the GM) or to the player of the fighter. We resolved it using the jumping rules.

Meh.

I can take or leave gameplay.
Gameplay is essential for board games, because that's all they have. Video games is 50/50. I can overlook ass gameplay for a good story or other aspects (graphics, writing, story, nostalgia). Sudoko arguably has "good gameplay" being simple and easy to learn with a range of complexity. But it's not fantastically engaging, being almost a mobile time waster game.

Tabletop roleplaying games... I can play terrible TT-RPGs if the DM is solid. If they're telling a good story, it doesn't matter how they're mangling the game with house rules (to a limit). Or my friends are playing (as so much of it is social, an excuse to hang).
Gameplay is barely even necessary. You can have whole sessions with no gameplay or with side mechanics. Often, gameplay becomes the crutch for when the story is lacking or the DM is having an off day ("Can't think of a *real* story, better just have a dungeon crawl.")
Relying on the gameplay to prop up an RPG is relying on something generic, that can be found anywhere. Relying on the DM is something you can *only* do with a TT-RPG. It's the unique thing about TT-RPGs. DMs should be empowered and brought to the forefront because they make the game different. When the DM is replaceable but rules, the game stops being a TT-RPG.