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 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.

You have my end of this correct let's see if he agrees

 

[BryonD]

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

Nobody is challenging the idea that someone might care. Of course someone will care and people will have differences of preference within any group.

The question at hand is what works for keeping the focus on fun.

I know what has worked for my group for a very long time. It may not work for some other groups. But I expect that if it can't work then the attitudes of the players can't be overcome period. And there are players like that.
But if you are that DM that people WANT to play in your game, then they will happily let you make the calls and the issue goes away.
Whereas, consensus games can easily become milktoast experiences between ever more frequent needs to find the next consensus.
Easy call in my mind.

 

[Hriston]

After the first no, I would add to the chart, "Do you have your imagination turned on?" and "Do you have a reading comprehension level of at least 5th grade?" Otherwise you could end up with some pretty unnecessary rules changes by following this.

 

[Hussar]

Nobody is challenging the idea that someone might care. Of course someone will care and people will have differences of preference within any group.

The question at hand is what works for keeping the focus on fun.

I know what has worked for my group for a very long time. It may not work for some other groups. But I expect that if it can't work then the attitudes of the players can't be overcome period. And there are players like that.
But if you are that DM that people WANT to play in your game, then they will happily let you make the calls and the issue goes away.
Whereas, consensus games can easily become milktoast experiences between ever more frequent needs to find the next consensus.
Easy call in my mind.

Whereas this is the complete opposite of my experience. Consensus games become fantastic experiences because everyone at the table is expected to bring their "A" game and everyone shares responsibility for making sure that the game is a great experience for the table. The table constantly challenges itself to become better and better. Because everyone is dependent on everyone else, everyone has to pull their own weight at the table.

But, again, this is totally up to the individual group.

 

[steeldragons]

Whereas this is the complete opposite of my experience. Consensus games become fantastic experiences because everyone at the table is expected to bring their "A" game and everyone shares responsibility for making sure that the game is a great experience for the table. The table constantly challenges itself to become better and better. Because everyone is dependent on everyone else, everyone has to pull their own weight at the table.

<emphasis mine>

I see nothing here [in the emphasized text] as the results of "a consensus game" that is not similarly achieved and enjoyed by games/tables which do not coddle every player whim or open themselves up to unnecessary debate over any/every little disagreement.

 

[Mistwell]

then how does it contradict anything I said?

what I said was:


so it is true at your table... as long as you are running a fun game your player buy into... and you have this trust currency.

your table will fall aprt (in my theory atleast) if you make large sweeping rulings your players disagree with. What about this do you no agree with? do you belive if they are not having fun and dislike your style and disagree with how you run games they will not tell you or show it in anyway?

Like I said, my players honestly don't care about the rules much. If I make large sweeping rulings my players disagree with, they will still go along with it and not really care. At least, not like you seem to care. They will still have fun with it. Because they're fun is not derived from rules or even rulings. They can have fun with any rules or rulings.

I understand you GM for power gamers. I have no issue with that, just understand some tables may seem like a foreign game to you. They just don't all work the same. You may have never played with the type of group I am referring to. Just accept that there may be a type of table out there that wouldn't make sense to what you're used to.

 

[Hussar]

<emphasis mine>

I see nothing here [in the emphasized text] as the results of "a consensus game" that is not similarly achieved and enjoyed by games/tables which do not coddle every player whim or open themselves up to unnecessary debate over any/every little disagreement.

And thus:

But, again, this is totally up to the individual group.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6483426#ixzz3NfOBabO5

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. 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.

 

[Hussar]

Like I said, my players honestly don't care about the rules much. If I make large sweeping rulings my players disagree with, they will still go along with it and not really care. At least, not like you seem to care. They will still have fun with it. Because they're fun is not derived from rules or even rulings. They can have fun with any rules or rulings.

I understand you GM for power gamers. I have no issue with that, just understand some tables may seem like a foreign game to you. They just don't all work the same. You may have never played with the type of group I am referring to. Just accept that there may be a type of table out there that wouldn't make sense to what you're used to.

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? How would you deal with players who do care about the rules?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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? How would you deal with players who do care about the rules?

well from what I can see he kicks them out of his game... or at least asks them to leave because they are bad/wrong/unfun...

 

[BryonD]

Whereas this is the complete opposite of my experience. Consensus games become fantastic experiences because everyone at the table is expected to bring their "A" game and everyone shares responsibility for making sure that the game is a great experience for the table. The table constantly challenges itself to become better and better. Because everyone is dependent on everyone else, everyone has to pull their own weight at the table.

But, again, this is totally up to the individual group.

And yet you still describe this as a problem needing a solution.