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. ]

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I want to go back to this "re-evaluate the people you're gaming with." thing,

it is part of why I developed this theory. See I have a few players that play in multi games. (I have 2 gaming nights regularly right now and we alternate GMs on both nights)

Now here is the information I have...

the same player, in similar situations does not always cause the same outburst or issue.
the DMs that run into the issues are ones that the player in question is having less fun.
DMs that are more ridged when they run into this issue ask players to leave rather then fix issue, and DMs that are less ridged try to make the game work for everyone...

so my theory is also based on movie critic logic, and the suspension of disbelief.

 

[Sacrosanct]

OK, I think I'm done. IMO, I think you're being either extremely deliberately obtuse or disingenuous, especially with your reply a couple posts above. We've plenty of things we can actually point at to support what I claimed, and you're refusing to even consider it, but at the same time, in the same post even, you're sticking to your claims about players despite nothing to point at except your own opinion, and other people directly contradicting it.

So shine on I suppose.

 

[steeldragons]

but didn't you just jump in to someone saying "I think X" and correct him with "But other people think Y"?

infact that is what I responded to.

That was not a "correction". Pointing out when to use "which" instead of "witch" is a correction.

What I was doing was disagreeing, yes. I disagree with X and point out/use Y, as a support for my disagreeing position...not that people agree with me, but that 20+ years of the game's history/structure of the game disprove [to my eyes] the X assertion.

To which your response, "but some people agree with X", is at once redundant and, as I said, an obvious given.

[EDIT: That is, I can only hope, as clear as I can make it. There will be no further back-and-forth with you. As I already said, I have no desire for an argument. /EDIT]

 

[Pickles JG]

Sales figures and popularity of 4e (first time a previous edition outsold a current one in the same window of time, which is essentially what PF is--a version of 3x)

This is not very salient as pathfinder is more rules heavy than 4e, in the cover every possibility sense.

On thinking over issues I have had with rule disputes over the many systems and many years I have just realised that it is certain people that cause these problems rather than certain rule sets.

The 5e style of simple core systems that do not try to be comprehensive at least flags that you will need to have some flexibility and that people cannot get everythimgmfromthe rules, suprise in 5e thread be damned.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK, I think I'm done. IMO, I think you're being either extremely deliberately obtuse or disingenuous

by disagreeing with your opionon and not thinking that you can back up your 'facts'?

We've plenty of things we can actually point at to support what I claimed,

I conside the point that you are not making things up whole cloth, I just think you are interpreting the evadance that we do have in a light I disagree with.

and you're refusing to even consider it,

I did consider it... I just disagree. I have evidence you have evidence no one has proof, and we are both looking at eachothers number differently...

but at the same time, in the same post even, you're sticking to your claims about players despite nothing to point at except your own opinion, and other people directly contradicting it.

please even if you ignore everything else, tell me what you are talking about here...

 

[BryonD]

I love that something that matters to a player (and presumable a friend, at least an acquaintance of some time) dome how is less important to you then other players (and presumable a friend, at least an acquaintance of some time) fun... how do I decide between Ross and Kurt when both I have know for almost twenty years?? I mean really, if a player says "Hey, stop the game something here is bugging me and making me have less fun" why NOT address it?

To start with an aside: it is interesting that one player disrupting me, and Ross, and Kurt, and John, and Linda, all at the same time, is ignored in your point.

But beyond that you have to keep this question within the context of the conversation.
You may very well have missed my earlier point that a DM's first obligation is to run a game that people WANT to be part of.
So that is important to keep in kind when you start throwing around implications about being a jerk to friends.

If there is a disconnect, then it will be addressed. But the addressing is going to be "asked and answered" not a debate, derail of game, or otherwise creation of turmoil, as this thread has identified.
Certainly in the case of Manticores don't live in the forest, an answer of "they do in this game" should suffice to any friend who lives up to that label.

My current group of 15 years has not yet reached your 20 year benchmark, but I think it is close enough. And we have a lot of fun and there is a distinct LACK of turmoil at the table.
We most certainly have the routine misunderstandings or disconnect on presumptions. But we understand that having a single point of cutting off that dispute in a manner that facilitates persistent fun for all is vastly better than constant derailing. And it is worth noting that there is a strong overlap between the people who complain about the problems caused by these disruptions and the people who agree with the pandering method of addressing it.

There have been plenty of conversations away from game about thoughts or requests. I generally am eager to accommodate. Honestly, I find having curve balls like that in the game to be a fun part of the entire experience. But I've also simply told people that "this idea won't work in this game". And I've had some disappointment on rare occasion. But the primary goal of making people WANT to be in my game is still recognized and I've never come close to losing a player over something like this. I make no claims of a utopian cure-all. But my method works. I'd advise anyone trying to make this problem go away to keep that in mind. But they are, of course, free to do whatever they want.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But beyond that you have to keep this question within the context of the conversation.
You may very well have missed my earlier point that a DM's first obligation is to run a game that people WANT to be part of.

this is the prime part of my theory of the social aspect of the game as well... And no matter how much else we disagree on this is an very important part we can all agree on

I don't care if I'm walking through the dessert and run into a white Dragon but someone might

 

[GameOgre]

I have close to 40 years gaming and if there is one thing that 40 years has taught me that you might not be able to pick up in 5 years of playing it's this. Even bad DM's and players get older.

I guess it's human nature to try and give our personal experiences more importance but time and age only guarantee that you have been doing it longer. NOT that you have been doing it longer RIGHT(not that there is a RIGHT way). I know one guy who used the game as a ego trip back in the 70's who now uses it as a ego trip today! In 40 years of gaming he has learned......to bludgeon his friends Ego even better!

Every human being that doesn't die gets older very few(and certainly not myself) get wiser. Even gamers!

In fact in my personal experience if you KNOW you have been doing it "THE RIGHT WAY" that is a very huge warning sign that instead you have just been sniffing you own buttocks too long because you liked the smell.

I'm sure one of the Really old gamers will come along shortly and tell me with a few more years experience I might just see things differently, they might even be right!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sales figures and popularity of 4e (first time a previous edition outsold a current one in the same window of time, which is essentially what PF is--a version of 3x)
Survey feedback with an overwhelming response supporting rulings over rules (as told by the DEV team)
Implementation of this style into 5e, followed by the reception and popularity since it's release, with overwhelming responses of people who have said they came back to D&D with this edition

Watch your inferences here. The people whom I know in real life who came back to D&D for 5E skipped 3rd edition as well as 4th, so whatever it was that turned us off, it was not 4E's approach to rules. It was something else. For me, it's a de-emphasis on build-time options like prestige classes in favor of game-time decisions, and support for a low- or no-magic game. (5E still has some things like battlemasters and feats which turn me off, but not so much that I can't live with them.)

To put it differently: Bounded Accuracy existed in AD&D, though not by that name, and it's probably the single most important factor in making 5E palatable to me. I know how tough an AC of 16--it means the monster's hide is like chain mail. An Iron Golem with an AC of 18 is like plate armor. I have no way to conceptualize what AC 40 is, or how it is different than AC 45. Therefore, I am very happy with the fact that in 5E (as in AD&D), plate armor and a shield always gives you a "good" AC (AC 0 in AD&D, AC 20 in 5E) and it genuinely is pretty close to optimal.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

please even if you ignore everything else, tell me what you are talking about here...

I think you and Sacrosanct are talking about different things. He thinks you made a universal claim that rules disputes will always eventually become a problem; you think you made a reasonable claim that you can only push DM fiat so far before you run out of trust currency (but you earn more trust currency by running a fun game) and that player feelings should therefore be taken into account. He says he's never had an issue with rule arguments, and to you this means that he's running reasonable games that don't push the limits, but he thinks that's a disproof of your assertion (in his mind) that rule disputes are inevitable.

I think this is just a miscommunication between the two of you.