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. ]

 

[pemerton]

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.

Of course, the only posters in this thread who don't share your views and experiences to do with the roles of the GM and the rules in an RPG are [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and me. Everyone else in the thread is in vigorous agreement with you!

 

[Hussar]

I saw an example of this on YouTube. I won't go into details in case the DM posts here, but basically he got a ruling completely wrong, and the way he ruled nerfed a player somewhat. He declared "Sorry guys that's just the way I read the rule!".

Totally ruined my enjoyment of the series at that point. Made it seem more like dictators and dragons, not dungeons and dragons. I'd *never* declare anything like that without input from the table.

I preferred it when the DM was considered a referee, not a dictator.

I remember a similar example with one of the WOTC 4e actual play podcasts. One of the early ones where Chris Perkins (that's his name right?) ruled something or other about drow elven darkfire. Something to that effect anyway. In any case, he was actually wrong about the ruling, as I recall, but, in the interests of moving the game forward, went with his own ruling.

And, to be fair, I have and probably will do, the same thing from time to time. Particularly in the early days of a game when we're all still learning the game. Context really does matter. It is sometimes better to be confidently wrong than tentatively right.

But, for my preference, in the normal course of play, I'd rather stop the game and find the right answer. That way, it doesn't come up later.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It wasn't a mistake.

by his words he regrets the mistakes made...

As for your position that I shouldn't make assumptions, you yourself have just made a most unwarranted assumption and one that strikes me as terribly unlikely - that the player who called this out to Hussar had a reason. I think it highly improbable that he had any reason at all. On the basis of my 40 years of experience with nerds, I suspect that there is no other reason than the player remembered the fact, and decided therefore 'he was right', and would not let go of it. He had no reason for caring, but gosh darn it, that's what the book said so he was 'right'. On the basis of my experience with people, and on the fact that even you admit you can't imagine any possible reason to care, I don't think any other explanation is remotely likely. And if there is some other explanation, it would be even more ludicrous.

you honestly believe that when someone makes an argument about something they are MORE likely to NOT have a reason then to have one?

We know enough to know a player challenged a DM regarding the favored terrain placement of a monster. This is enough.

ok, but we don't know what he said, how he said it, or why he said it... you assume he was rude said things he should not have and he did so for no reason...

And in conceding that, I feel you've conceded almost the entirety of my argument. It's hardly worth reiterating the point if you agree that there are valid reasons. It seems I'm mostly arguing with you then because you feel insulted, even if your actual disagreement with me is pretty small.

my whole point in this thread was that there are reasons why players and DMs collapse into problems, and that a final little detail can be a symptom of a larger lack of communication.

I don't care particularly how you earn your trust. Point is, not being challenged over the placement of a monster is a level of trust even a 6th grade DM randomly stocking his dungeon should be able to expect.

then why do you think the DM in question thinks he was in the wrong?

I know full well?

unless you have been raised somewhere very different then the world we live in you should understand telling people they are wrong, and they are like children, and they are argueing about nothing, and that there way of having fun is not fun at all or they are bad at things they are being good at... will make them mad. You are pushing buttons and I don't know why...

so I will ask one more time... How should I take being compaired to a 9 year old you would scould?

To be fully frank, and I've said this before at EnWorld in other contexts, so I'm not just saying it now - I feel I have no right to be pissed. Period. I not only feel I have no right to be angry when someone tells me I'm in the wrong, but would feel I was further in the wrong to become angry about that.

we now find something else we disagree on. I feel Anger is a natural response and can be used to good cause...

I feel anger is morally evil, especially and perhaps always in defense of ones person.

so if someone tries to punch me, and that angers me, that makes me evil? I really don't understand you at all...

I feel ashamed when I get angry about such things. I have confessed to the boards that there are still some triggers that do get me angry - misquoting me in particular, actions I feel are unjust by authority figures, things I feel are deceptive - but have said repeatedly that you cannot get me angry by contradiction or any sort of insult. Call me a SOB, call a jerk, call me a dipstick - public place or not, internet or to my face.

to get me to do any of that even over the internet would require me to be very mad.

So I know no such thing 'full well'.

so what response do you belive is common to being compare unfavorable to a 9 year old?

It's not weird that you'd disagree with me. It's weird that you'd say you were disagreeing with me while making all sorts of suggestions which any one reading my posts would know I fully agree with. I can only put it down to the fact that you were blowing your top at time and impressing on me how angry you were and how seriously I should take that.

my anger was justified and used to impress how you are impacting people, it is a thing you could take as a learning experience and be nicer... but since you now belive me evil you will not...

Lately, pretty rarely. I can handle most players and by and large most of my players have been pretty reasonable since reaching adulthood. However, this neglects my actual point, that though I can deal with problem players and bad play, I don't feel I should have to.

so I can deal with players, and I do so in a different way... why do you think you can declair witch way is right?

Well of course it was a strawman. It went beyond starwman. It's bloody well satire. But it's really not that far from some table arguments I've seen regarding canon in the FR, the placement of tombs, or the HD distribution of goblins in a tribe.

see here is the thing... FR canon brings bad part out of people I know... so it is an excellent example. I don't run or play FR, and I do so for a reason. Players who are great and cooperative for years at a time will be an issue in an FR campaign... it is there pressure point,

As for your feelings that you've been insulted, if I were to recall times when I 'snapped' and banged my head on the table and called out DMs, it wouldn't be with any intention of receiving approval and sympathy for such actions.

my example was a non theratical time that I as a player had a reason to interrupt game... it was not for sympathy or approval it was an explanation of a non strawman...

That I withhold such approval and indeed find the actions to be less than ideal, and that you nonetheless wish to feel insulted about, I cannot do anything about.

you could have used non insulting words... it isn't that you disagree, it's that you insult.

I don't ask that you not take my words as insulting. I instead ask how you intend such a description of yourself to be anything but self-deprecating or how you imagined such a story would justify your opinion? I would think that the story is funny because you can laugh now at your own folly, but did you intend for me to see the DM in the story as deserving of your abuse?

the only folly in my story was not speaking up earlier... that I tried to just keep going and 'explore in game' as you say...

No, it wasn't, though since as you've pointed out we don't have any full information, I wonder how you know it was worse.

the information we have is less worse.... maybe it was much worse, maybe not, but no info we have would indicate that.

My original posts simply displayed my dismay at the poor level of play implied by the incident, and tried to explain why. I don't see how that is verbally abusive.

you have told me my way of running games is wrong...
you have compaired me to a 9 year old in a bad light
you used the word evil to describe something I did

My retort to your post was more colorful I admit, since you wished to tell me how grown ups were supposed to behave while providing as examples things which look more like temper tantrums to me.

hitting my head on the table is a tantrum?

Big font anyone?

yes the same way I would emphasise those words in real life... those are important words that need emphasise...

As for looking for a fight.... well, you are the one suggesting how angry you are and how angry you've been in the past and well angry. Physical violence hadn't accorded to me until you brought it up. I suppose I'd get hit a couple times by you if this was in person, eh?

I have never in my memory punched, hit, slapped or grab someone who did not first aggressively touch me or a friend... but again you want to control some narrative where I did something wrong when you came in and insulted

 

[DaveDash]

I remember a similar example with one of the WOTC 4e actual play podcasts. One of the early ones where Chris Perkins (that's his name right?) ruled something or other about drow elven darkfire. Something to that effect anyway. In any case, he was actually wrong about the ruling, as I recall, but, in the interests of moving the game forward, went with his own ruling.

And, to be fair, I have and probably will do, the same thing from time to time. Particularly in the early days of a game when we're all still learning the game. Context really does matter. It is sometimes better to be confidently wrong than tentatively right.

But, for my preference, in the normal course of play, I'd rather stop the game and find the right answer. That way, it doesn't come up later.

Chris Perkins is running games for entertainment purposes (ie, the viewers, not just the gamers), so he has to keep things moving along. The games we run at our tables are different though, and given the nature of so many ambiguous rules in 5e, a little "What do you guys think?" goes a long way.
When I first started running my games I'd get my players input on ambiguous rulings to ensure that everyone thought the ruling was fair, or perhaps notice or know something that I do not. After all providing a consistent world which does not break the suspension of disbelief is extremely important, vs said DM in my example unanimously declaring a ruling that has nothing to do with the story, without any table input/consultation.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not going to quote walls of text and try to split it I to a dozen spliced multi-quotes. But I will say that if you're arguing in the defense of pedantic rules lawyering about things that aren't even rules, and fleeing under the "don't accuse me badwrongfun!" when people start calling you out on it, you're not on a very good side of the argument. There's a very real reason why rules lawyers have the reputation they do, and why the people who designed the game felt it necessary to devote page space to explicitly say, "don't let rules lawyers ruin your game", ironically in the rules themselves.

"products of your imagination" means for everyone who plays. If the DM thinks it's a cool idea to have a monster in a forest and a player pulled what was pulled on Hussar as he described it? Completely missed that point

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm not going to quote walls of text and try to split it I to a dozen spliced multi-quotes. But I will say that if you're arguing in the defense of pedantic rules lawyering about things that aren't even rules, and fleeing under the "don't accuse me badwrongfun!" when people start calling you out on it, you're not on a very good side of the argument. There's a very real reason why rules lawyers have the reputation they do, and why the people who designed the game felt it necessary to devote page space to explicitly say, "don't let rules lawyers ruin your game", ironically in the rules themselves.

"products of your imagination" means for everyone who plays. If the DM thinks it's a cool idea to have a monster in a forest and a player pulled what was pulled on Hussar as he described it? Completely missed that point

ok... so where is the rules lawyering if it is just stating his opionon? and why is it wrong for everyone at the table to have fun?



to everyone fighting I wonder, if you had a game with friends running smoothly, until an encounter happened, and you could make a change of a monster without affecting your game any way other then letting that player have it his way, what is the harm?

 

[Celebrim]

I'm 100% sure it's not a trust issue. Nor is it an issue of "good manners", as Celebrim assets.

I agree only in as much as I don't think it is only an issue of trust and good manners.

However, the basic problem we always have in this sort of thread is, simply that I see your following declaration as false contrast:

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.

Nothing prevents a player from both wanting a GM to tell them a good story, and expecting to be able to contribute in a significant way to the telling of the story. In fact, I've never been in a game where I the PC couldn't contribute to the telling of the story in significant ways. I've heard horror stories about how it happens, but I've never seen it. I have regularly seen tables where the DM can't entertain the players.

And regardless, my observations here I hold would remain true whether we were playing with a group that preferred a more adventure path style where the players rode rails from point to point (but still participated in the telling of the story) or a more sand box approach with proactive players determining the story, even to the point of having brain storming sessions OOC to get ideas for future stories. Style here doesn't change the observations regarding what is poor play and poor DMing. We could get side tracked into detailed discussions of how to pull off those different styles well, and none of it would justify a player failing to interact with in game information as in game information, and then questioning the DM over monster placement based on metagame knowledge of favored terrain suggestions in some rule book.

When the focus of the game is on story contributions, then there need to be some way of mediating possible competing contributions.

And even where that true, this isn't it.

Players make all sorts of assumptions about game and world backstory. When the GM violates those assumptions, conflict at the table can result. In my view, telling the player s/he is a dick isn't the best technique for resolving that conflict.

No, but that doesn't mean that the player is being any less of a dick. If said player really had a 10th level Ranger or whatever, the first move is to establish that the character knows that the manticore's appearance is unusual by whatever means the system allows, probably by beginning with something like, "Do I know what the usual habitat of manticores is?" And if the DM then says, "Normally they show up in deserts... oh crap, forgot about that." or "Normally they show up in deserts. It's a bit unusual to be seeing one in the forest.", or, "They aren't specialists. They can appear in any terrain.", then you have a basis for further play. If the DM decides he made a mistake and ask for advice in how to fix it, great. If not, well great. If you don't like it, take it up with him after the session. It's not worth provoking a table argument. Heck, it's not worth testing to see if the DM made a 'mistake' - though again, I pretty much feel that there isn't a way to make a mistake in this. It's not a hard rule that monsters listed with favored terrain deserts only show up there. "After close observation, this one has a collar on its neck! Maybe it escaped from a menagerie!", is another line of play. And for that matter, deciding that would be an interesting explanation on the spot is not 'covering up'. I frequently try to tie random encounters to the story in some fashion. So what that the details were invented 5 seconds ago instead of 5 days ago? Is there some rule against a DM improvising?

You go on and on with a bunch of things I agree about. I hate 'gotcha' play by a DM. I've got tons of post about how Nitro Ferguson would be a good DM if he wasn't always trying to surprise his players. If its reasonable the PC know about the monsters habits, by all means tell the player everything about the monster. But this isn't the same as 'gotcha' play. This is a DM that wanted a Manticore in the forest and was made to feel guilty about it because some player quoted utterly irrelevant text from a rulebook and tried to treat that as a hard and fast rule that bound the DM to a contract, when the DM in question hadn't even read the contract.

For me that would count as bad GMing.

For me too. But you sure are spinning now to compare the two.

 

[Sacrosanct]

ok... so where is the rules lawyering if it is just stating his opionon? and why is it wrong for everyone at the table to have fun?



to everyone fighting I wonder, if you had a game with friends running smoothly, until an encounter happened, and you could make a change of a monster without affecting your game any way other then letting that player have it his way, what is the harm?

ok, look. You need to go back and read Hussar's post, because I think you keep coming up with these assumptions that make no sense if you actually read it. He said he got into a lengthy argument over it. That's not a player just expressing an opinion. By his own words it was a lengthy argument that manticores shouldn't be in a forest.. It's not even over a rule. If you keep ignoring this very important part, I will begin to question your motives in sticking with this line of discussion

 

[GMforPowergamers]

ok, look. You need to go back and read Hussar's post, because I think you keep coming up with these assumptions that make no sense if you actually read it. He said he got into a lengthy argument over it. That's not a player just expressing an opinion. By his own words it was a lengthy argument that manticores shouldn't be in a forest.. It's not even over a rule. If you keep ignoring this very important part, I will begin to question your motives in sticking with this line of discussion

I acknowlade the lengthy argument, but not what was said or who was at fault... do you have any reason to not continue to belive Hussar when he says he handled it badly... not the player the DM?

 

[Authweight]

Hey, I just wanted to point out that it's not really fair to jump back and accuse the other side of calling your playstyle "baswrongfun" but then tell them they're missing out on something and are playing the game poorly. Either there is a right way to play the game and we fight over what it is or we accept each other's diversity. You don't get to protect yourself but still go after others. We can either decide to accept each other's experiences at face value, or ignore their stated experiences and substitute our own experiences instead.

This entire thread was started by a flow chart to me seems to serve no purpose other than to dismiss the experiences and concerns of a large section of the community. Then when those who take issue with the approach spelled out in the flowchart responded, making it clear they were annoyed at the dismissive attitude, they were told they're doing it wrong and are missing out on the point of d&d.

This is why we can't have nice things.