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. ]

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But I think, based on an early post in this thread, that @emdw45 sees the "collegiate" approach to the role of the GM as consistent with "rulings not rules" in action resolution. I'm hoping to hear more about that - either directly, or indirectly coming out in the discussion of the various examples and hypotheticals - because it seems relevant to both the games I'm GMing at the moment: the "page 42" aspects of my 4e game, and the tight connection between action resolution and fictional positioning in Burning Wheel.

Hmmm. Okay, here's where I'm coming from:

* I'm basically a simulationist at heart. A lot of the joy of D&D for me personally comes from exploring various subsystems of D&D and how they interact. As a player, I don't really care about win/lose, but I care a lot about internal consistency.

* When I'm DMing, I have a pretty fast and loose style. I don't map out the whole campaign world in advance, and sometimes I'll design adventures by flipping through the MM or kobold.com and finding monsters I want to use, and then back-fill an ecology from there. (That is, I want the end result to be consistent, but I don't mind being surprised during world-building. "Oh! I guess the twig blights must be working with the mind flayers. Lord Waldemar the Rakshasa is probably opposed to them both.") Because I don't have a predetermined end in mind, and because I enjoy playing with the rule sets, I don't mind at all when players contribute to the rules by trying to design their own weapons ("You want a hammer polearm? Okay, glaive stats but with bludgeoning." "Shouldn't I be able to slash with the back end?" "Good point. Sure, why not?") nor do I mind at all if players want to push back on a ruling ("It says elves get eight hours benefit from four hours of trance, so I should be fully rested." "Well, technically it's not supposed to work that way, but that sounds reasonable to me, so okay, we'll go with it."). I have absolutely no fear of losing control of my narrative, because I don't have a very sophisticated narrative in the first place, just a sandbox with guide rails. (Last week I told my guys, when they started trying to chase down a tenuous clue to the murder mystery, "I won't guarantee that this clue really even has anything to do with the murders. It may be a red herring. The only thing I promise you is that if you do chase this clue down, you will find something interesting.")

* When I'm playing a PC, my DM is a guy who is basically narrativist at heart. Like many people, he's played many editions of (A)D&D and is relatively new to 5E, and is therefore still learning the rules. He likes to concentrate on the storyline and let us worry about the rules. (And by "us" I mostly mean "me" since I have the best memory for them.) An example rules adjudication a few weeks ago went something like this:

One PC casts Silence on an enemy spellcaster.
DM is like, "Oh no, he can't do anything now."
I point out that Silence, unlike Darkness, has no language saying that it follows you around in 5E. [Some other players are a little upset at this point that I'm "helping the enemy" but that's dumb.]
DM takes a minute to read both descriptions, and then rules that yeah, the enemy spellcaster can just move out of the affected area. Play resumes.

There have been other times where things didn't go so smoothly, but usually if there is friction it is due to either 1.) players being upset that their plan (e.g. using the Daylight spell to blast vampires) is derailed due to another player "influencing" the DM; 2.) DM getting irked at rules reminders that interfere with narrative pacing (being reminded that there's a materials component cost for Arcane Lock when he's busy thinking about the illithids on the other side, and how the PCs are reacting to them). But he actively appreciates having someone else keep an eye on the rules for him, and I in turn keep discussions brief, and if the rules affect a problem player I sometimes just sit on my notes until after the session.

I think these are both examples of what I've called "collegial" play, cooperative play among peers, in spite of the fact that they are pretty much opposites in terms of how the mechanics of the different games work. Nobody is thin-skinned about having their "authority" challenged, but at the same time, all the players are courteous to the DM about how challenges are conducted. And, I think my games probably fall closer to the "rules" end of the spectrum because I am good at creating rules and enjoy doing so, whereas my DM's games are closer to the "rulings" end of the spectrum--so collegiality is compatible with rules and rulings both.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, for years in 3e, we had a rules guru at our table. A player who had a pretty near encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules. The entire table deferred to her on rules questions, including the DM. It was fantastic.

/edit to add

I'm largely backing out of this thread because apparently there are several posters here who are incapable of separating the post from the poster. Apparently a fairly minor mea culpa from me has turned out to yet again people claiming that I think that DM's are always wrong and that I hate DM's. It's unfortunate that this view has gotten so entrenched and it's probably my fault. On the plus side, it's nice to see the new faces in here be able to clearly see through that and see the point I'm trying to make without getting bogged down in whatever other think I'm trying to say instead of actually reading what I've said.

IOW, it's nice to know that I am actually making my point fairly clearly since those who lack the baggage of prior discussions can see my point clearly.

 

[Ranes]

If the thread is being reduced to collegial versus 'never question the DM', its wheels have come off.

An example rules adjudication a few weeks ago went something like this:

One PC casts Silence on an enemy spellcaster.
DM is like, "Oh no, he can't do anything now."
I point out that Silence, unlike Darkness, has no language saying that it follows you around in 5E. [Some other players are a little upset at this point that I'm "helping the enemy" but that's dumb.]
DM takes a minute to read both descriptions, and then rules that yeah, the enemy spellcaster can just move out of the affected area. Play resumes.

There have been other times where things didn't go so smoothly, but usually if there is friction it is due to either 1.) players being upset that their plan (e.g. using the Daylight spell to blast vampires) is derailed due to another player "influencing" the DM; 2.) DM getting irked at rules reminders that interfere with narrative pacing (being reminded that there's a materials component cost for Arcane Lock when he's busy thinking about the illithids on the other side, and how the PCs are reacting to them). But he actively appreciates having someone else keep an eye on the rules for him, and I in turn keep discussions brief, and if the rules affect a problem player I sometimes just sit on my notes until after the session.

I think these are both examples of what I've called "collegial" play, cooperative play among peers, in spite of the fact that they are pretty much opposites in terms of how the mechanics of the different games work. Nobody is thin-skinned about having their "authority" challenged, but at the same time, all the players are courteous to the DM about how challenges are conducted. And, I think my games probably fall closer to the "rules" end of the spectrum because I am good at creating rules and enjoy doing so, whereas my DM's games are closer to the "rulings" end of the spectrum--so collegiality is compatible with rules and rulings both.

Good stuff. When I'm DMing, I have absolutely no problem with players who correct me on the rules. On the contrary, I appreciate it. It strengthens my understanding of the rules. When I'm a player, I like DMs who feel the same way, unsurprisingly (and I'm not trying to catch out the DM or prove my superior knowledge here; I bring something up if I think it will cause more of a problem down the road - for DM and players alike - unless I do). And things like courtesy and timing always play their part. My guiding principle is rulings are for the table, debate is for after the game. By your reasoning, that makes me a collegial DM, to an extent at least.

A creature showing up outside its preferred or typical habitat is not a rule gone awry. It does not, in my opinion obviously, open the door to a game-stopping debate on the fairness of it turning up elsewhere. My opinion on this does not make me fall into the hyperbolic 'never question the DM' camp as some people who disagree with my opinion (and who are welcome to do so) believe.

Without context I don't see how we can tell.

I was assuming all other things being equal but…

What plans had the player made?

Irrelevant unless the DM has deliberately misled the player(s).

What sort of character was the player playing?

See above.

What investment did the player have, as part of his/her game experience, in following received D&D lore?

You're talking about metagaming. Celebrim already addressed this.

There are ways in which a player could contest the manticore encounter which suggest bad faith or a lack of sporting behaviour (eg the player suddenly realises the party isn't equipped to deal with flying ranged attackers, and so tries to negate the encounter via a metagame strategy). There are ways in which the player contesting the manticore encounter is all about good faith and investment in the game - I've sketched some of them above.

Not very well. A player suddenly realises his party isn't equipped to deal with flying attackers and that makes the DM's use of the manticore 'unsporting' or in 'bad faith'? Sorry, but unless the DM has previously announced that there will be no flying attackers, this is simply the player's inadequacy and not the DM's fault. Any airborne creature would cause the party as much of a problem. The fact that in this case it's a manticore is completely irrelevant.

A DM might take pity on the party, and have the manticore strafe them once before moving on to an even easier meal ticket, just to remind the players that they need to give more thought to preparing for an excursion into a wilderness in which things fly. But even a DM who does that is doing so because he realises the party has poorly prepared, not because he should never have had a manticore fly in on account of their preferred habitat being a desert.

Your prior examples are equally poor. The ranger wants to hit the forest trail, because that's where his favoured enemy lives. Well, so what? Does nothing else live in or venture into the forest? "The only dangerous flier we might encounter is a green dragon and we have protections against poisonous gas?" So nothing else could possibly be in there; you're absolutely certain. Any appearance of another monster is the DM acting in 'bad faith'?

None of your examples justify a player derailing the game over something clearly within the DM's purview. Unless the DM has actively misled the players beforehand, and by your own admission, we don't know if that's the case, so let's start by reasonably assuming he didn't, the player's behaviour was unwarranted.

This from a reasonable and somewhat collegial DM.

 

[steeldragons]

This thread is a train wreck.

It's funny because it's true. hahaha.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6787650]emdw45[/MENTION] - thanks for the reply!

I don't map out the whole campaign world in advance, and sometimes I'll design adventures by flipping through the MM or kobold.com and finding monsters I want to use, and then back-fill an ecology from there. (That is, I want the end result to be consistent, but I don't mind being surprised during world-building. "Oh! I guess the twig blights must be working with the mind flayers. Lord Waldemar the Rakshasa is probably opposed to them both.") Because I don't have a predetermined end in mind, and because I enjoy playing with the rule sets, I don't mind at all when players contribute to the rules by trying to design their own weapons ("You want a hammer polearm? Okay, glaive stats but with bludgeoning." "Shouldn't I be able to slash with the back end?" "Good point. Sure, why not?") nor do I mind at all if players want to push back on a ruling

All this fits me pretty well - especially what you say about backstory/world creation and the players' role in that. Sometimes I might be a little bit more strict than you on the "push back on a ruling" - it's hard to compare styles across just a series of posts, but I might lean a bit more towards balance and a bit less towards simulation.

Thanks again for the reply.

 

[pemerton]

A player suddenly realises his party isn't equipped to deal with flying attackers and that makes the DM's use of the manticore 'unsporting' or in 'bad faith'?

You've misread me. I used those words as a possible characterisation of the player, not the referee.

 

[Ranes]

Then please accept my apologies.

 

[pemerton]

An example rules adjudication a few weeks ago went something like this:

<snip example>

When I'm DMing, I have absolutely no problem with players who correct me on the rules. On the contrary, I appreciate it. It strengthens my understanding of the rules. When I'm a player, I like DMs who feel the same way

When I think about this in relation to my own group, I can identify one player who is more inclined to point to corrections that run his/the players' way, and another who is more inclined to point to corrections that run against them.

The latter player's PC has a feat that grants a bonus to skills used for rituals. As published, I think that what was meant was "rituals" in the technical 4e sense. The player interprets it as applying also to uses of the skills for "rituals" in the fictional sense - ie complex manipulations of magic - including page 42/skill challenge scenarios that go beyond the technical scope of the ritual mechanics (eg using Arcana to shut down a portal to stop the demons coming through). I accept the player's interpretation, and furthermore almost always just let him decide when the bonus applies and when it doesn't.

How do others handle takebacks/corrections based on forgetfulness/oversight? We have a phrase - "bad Magic player" - to describe someone who has an option/combo "in hand" and fails to deploy it. When the players miss something like this, after their turn is over I will sometimes comment that so-and-so is "a bad Magic player" - in the spirit of friendly mockery! As GM, when I have missed something like this for my monsters/NPCs, I will occasionally retroactively deploy it, if it doesn't disturb the in-fiction situation too much but just - for instance - adds to the damage taken by the PCs. The same player who likes to correct rules/rulings in the players' favour will sometimes suggest to me "Haven't you been a bad Magic player?" but I claim GM's prerogative!

Do other's have experience with/approaches to this?

 

[Eric V]

In a sense, with a very tight rules system (say, 4e), there is no need for "collegiate" or "Never question the DM" debates...the rules are there, and that's it. "This is how stealth works. Period."

Moving to a "rulings, not rules" system to let DMs do what they want has some advantages, for sure, but I guess I don't understand how the DM couldn't do what they wanted under a tight rules system...they just need to know the rules and plan accordingly. Said planning might include coming up with a new ritual, developing a new monster, but if there are strong mechanics for that, no biggie.

A tight rules system forces players to learn the rules (my number 1 pet peeve as a DM) and reduces table conflict. If a question comes up, as colleagues, someone can look it up (easy as pie if there is a web resource) and go from there.

Having said that, I do believe that even in a "collegiate" system, the DM is first among equals. If consensus cannot be reached quickly, DM has to make the call, and that's part of social contract.

But the DM can be wrong...and reading here, it seems like some DMs invoke infallibility more than the last 25 Popes combined.

 

[Eric V]

Do other's have experience with/approaches to this?

In our high level 4e game we recently shut down, in part, because it was too easy to be a "bad Magic player."

Basically, if someone hasn't started moved their token yet or hit a button (we play online with Maptool), we apply the forgotten modifier/whatever, but otherwise, it can be too much trouble to go back and change things...unless it's pivotal to the plot. Then, since it records the chat and all results, we can go back, but that is a sucky scenario.

On my own end, if I forgot a resistance the monster had or something, I just quietly add hp back to it and no one is the wiser.