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]

there are also those that agree with him... funny how you always forget that...

Didn't forget it, but it doesn't seem to be as many as you think

now we can debate till we are blue in the face witch set of players is right or more numerous, but neither of us really knows...

We don't need to debate the #s. We can look at the market and see what happened. For people like yourself and Paraxis, you seem to be in the minority of what most gamers wanted. Nothing wrong with your preferred style of play, but it seems obvious at this point you're not representative of the larger gamer market, which is what the D&D brand needs to target. Being the most popular RPG and all.

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.

Yeah, and to be honest, a lot of the experiences some folks have said sort of baffle me. I mean, we're adults right? The last time anyone at any table I ever played at got into a real argument over a rule was when I was a kid. And I haven't played with only the same small group these 30+ years either. I was in the military so we had a different gaming group every month, and I've played a lot at cons with pick up groups and whatnot. It seems to be that some of these experiences are very much the exception.

I mean, even today I don't always agree with a ruling the DM makes, but as an adult, I realize that a) it's just a game, and b) he's the one DMing it, I just shrug and move on. What's arguing the point going to accomplish?

99.99% of my experiences go like this:

DM ruling
Me: "Hmmmm, that doesn't seem to make sense to me. Here's how I interpreted it."
DM: "OK, this is how I felt it means, and how I interpret it in my games."
me: shrug. "Fair enough. You're game. I will adjust accordingly"

or

DM ruling
Me: "Hmmmm, that doesn't seem to make sense to me. Here's how I interpreted it."
DM: "OK, this is how I felt it means, and how I interpret it in my games. But I can see your point. What does everyone else think?"

 

[Mistwell]

witch is true at every table...until it isn't. At some point you run out of what I call Trust currency, right now your game works because you tell a good story and your players tust you to run a good game (great for you) but everytime they disagree with a dission or a ruleing it eats away at that trust currency. As long as you are all more or less on the same page it works... when you deviate it wont work anymore...

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.

There's this bizarre conception that always causes problem on message boards. The idea that ones experience is universal, and that you can discern universal claims about players and DMs based on your own experience. You cannot. I can honestly say what has happened with my games, and what others have reported about theirs. There is no universal experience. You cannot speak to a universal force operator that plays on rules interpretation in D&D.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No really, it doesn't. I've been playing since 1977. It's NEVER been an issue. 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.

There's this bizarre conception that always causes problem on message boards. The idea that ones experience is universal, and that you can discern universal claims about players and DMs based on your own experience. You cannot. I can honestly say what has happened with my games, and what others have reported about theirs. There is no universal experience. You cannot speak to a universal force operator that plays on rules interpretation in D&D.

doesn;t the second paragraph basically say your first one is wrong?

 

[Mistwell]

doesn;t the second paragraph basically say your first one is wrong?

No because I made no universal claims in my first paragraph, just claims about my games, and what some others have reported from theirs (not all others, just some).

The only universal claim I've made is that you can't really make universal claims about D&D

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Didn't forget it, but it doesn't seem to be as many as you think

We don't need to debate the #s. We can look at the market and see what happened. For people like yourself and Paraxis, you seem to be in the minority of what most gamers wanted. Nothing wrong with your preferred style of play, but it seems obvious at this point you're not representative of the larger gamer market, which is what the D&D brand needs to target. Being the most popular RPG and all.

please prove this... show me the numbers...

Yeah, and to be honest, a lot of the experiences some folks have said sort of baffle me. I mean, we're adults right? The last time anyone at any table I ever played at got into a real argument over a rule was when I was a kid. And I haven't played with only the same small group these 30+ years either. I was in the military so we had a different gaming group every month, and I've played a lot at cons with pick up groups and whatnot. It seems to be that some of these experiences are very much the exception.

I mean, even today I don't always agree with a ruling the DM makes, but as an adult, I realize that a) it's just a game, and b) he's the one DMing it, I just shrug and move on. What's arguing the point going to accomplish?

99.99% of my experiences go like this:

DM ruling
Me: "Hmmmm, that doesn't seem to make sense to me. Here's how I interpreted it."
DM: "OK, this is how I felt it means, and how I interpret it in my games."
me: shrug. "Fair enough. You're game. I will adjust accordingly"

or

DM ruling
Me: "Hmmmm, that doesn't seem to make sense to me. Here's how I interpreted it."
DM: "OK, this is how I felt it means, and how I interpret it in my games. But I can see your point. What does everyone else think?"

that is how about 80-90% of mine go to... although with like 3 or 4 people giving there thoughts and opionons instead of 2 (you know whole table) the problem comes up when we disagree and try to change each others minds...

 

[steeldragons]

there are also those that agree with him... funny how you always forget that...

now we can debate till we are blue in the face witch set of players is right or more numerous, but neither of us really knows...

I do not "always forget that." That is a given. We all know that. Thus, it does not require comment.

There will be people that agree with me [at least some times]. That is also a given and, so, does not require my pointing it out.

Obviously there will be people that agree with them [whoever the "them"/whatever the thread is]. Agreement with a point I disagree with is irrelevant to how I view the point/opinion (whatever it happens to be).

To put it, perhaps, more clearly: Because people agree with a given statement/opinion is not a reason I need to change my opinion/position of it.

Are you suggesting I should need to individually address, in every post, "my comments apply to everyone who thinks/agrees with <this position, comment, opinion, preference> with which I disagree"? That seems like a lot of extra typing for something we all know/understand.

As for arguing til we're blue in the face, I am perfectly happy with my complexion in its current hue....though this time of year, I could certainly use a tan. So thanks anyway, but I'll pass on the argument. Hope that doesn't hurt [anyone's] feelings/"insult" anyone.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No because I made no universal claims in my first paragraph, just claims about my games, and what some others have reported from theirs (not all others, just some).

The only universal claim I've made is that you can't really make universal claims about D&D

then how does it contradict anything I said?

what I said was:

witch is true at every table...until it isn't. At some point you run out of what I call Trust currency, right now your game works because you tell a good story and your players tust you to run a good game (great for you) but everytime they disagree with a dission or a ruleing it eats away at that trust currency. As long as you are all more or less on the same page it works... when you deviate it wont work anymore...

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?

 

[Sacrosanct]

please prove this... show me the numbers...

.

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

Come to whatever conclusion you want, but it seems clear to me that your style is the minority, and can't support the D&D model for what they want it to be (the leading RPG).

At some point you run out of what I call Trust currency...

This right here is you making an absolute statement. That's what he is disagreeing with you about. This statement you made is not universally true. If I haven't run into your issues in over 30 years, I don't see it happening any time in the future.

And honestly, if you're running into these issues as often as you are, I'd re-evaluate the people you're gaming with. Because it's just a game for people to have fun. If a player is going to disrupt that because they're butthurt or whatever and won't let it go? they can go play somewhere else.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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)

we don't have sales numbers... unless you have something no one else does... so wrong FACTUALY wrong... we have a survey of some LGS owners as our best guess, and even then it is at best word of mouth and hear say...

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

so your evidence is 3-5 months of 5e compaired to years of 4e... at month 5 of 4e it was going strong too.

Come to whatever conclusion you want, but it seems clear to me that your style is the minority,

it is clear as mud and you know it

and can't support the D&D model for what they want it to be (the leading RPG).

I'm not even willing to conside they ever lost that title while producing 4e...

This right here is you making an absolute statement.

well a theory, one that has a lot of back up and even goes on to explain why people like you and I see things different.

That's what he is disagreeing with you about. This statement you made is not universally true. If I haven't run into your issues in over 30 years, I don't see it happening any time in the future.

that is like saying "Hey Me and my five friend drove pinto's for 30 years and they never blew up." and again goes to my theory that you don't have the little issue without larger ones first...

And honestly, if you're running into these issues as often as you are, I'd re-evaluate the people you're gaming with.

OK, some of my best friends for the last 20 years, some new friends I made 5ish or so years ago, my neice and nephew, my girlfriend, and occasionally my best friend's wife... let me reavalute... I love them all...

Because it's just a game for people to have fun.

witch is as absolut a statement as I made... and one I hope we can all agree on.

If a player is going to disrupt that because they're butthurt or whatever and won't let it go? they can go play somewhere else.

right here, why do you not care that you hurt someone? Your own anology is pain... if you are causing pain you might want to step back and think about it

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I do not "always forget that." That is a given. We all know that. Thus, it does not require comment.

There will be people that agree with me [at least some times]. That is also a given and, so, does not require my pointing it out.

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.

I believe there are a minimum of 1.5 to 2.5 decades of the game and players, including those who solely ran PCs, those who sometimes played PCs and sometimes DMed, and players who solely DM'd, who would disagree with this assessment.