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. ]

 

[Celebrim]

So again, in conclusion, he should be doing what make sense for the table, either the table can vest ultimate power in him, or a more distributed approach such as how I prefer.

And we are back to the false contrast just that quickly. Start out in a good place, but within 3 sentences we are back to clinging to a patently false argument. I mean seriously, how quickly can you go from, "That's an excluded middle argument." to "No it's not; because, excluded middle"?

I mean someone in this thread managed to throw this one out:

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

Yet there is not one statement in the entire thread invoking DM infallibility. Not one. Yet, out comes the patently false declarations which no doubt the person making the statement really honestly believed, and yet this is an opinion with absolutely zero evidence behind it.

Or how about this one:

You've made it more than clear that you abhor collegial games and everyone who plays them.

And yet again, there is not one statement by me in any way abhoring collegial games, and yet somehow I've made it more than clear that I not only abhor collegial games but everyone who plays them.

I mean seriously, is there any evidence at all that anyone in the thread actually disagrees with this statement?

The DM does have final say, "first among equals", but it's not his game and his game alone. It's not even his story alone. There are x number of other participants who are also at the table that he rightly should consider before refereeing decisions

And yet, from that we go right back to the idiocy of 'collegial' versus 'dictatorial' just in different words: "either the table can vest ultimate power in him, or a more distributed approach such as how I prefer."

 

[DaveDash]

And we are back to the false contrast just that quickly. Start out in a good place, but within 3 sentences we are back to clinging to a patently false argument. I mean seriously, how quickly can you go from, "That's an excluded middle argument." to "No it's not; because, excluded middle"?

I mean someone in this thread managed to throw this one out:



Yet there is not one statement in the entire thread invoking DM infallibility. Not one. Yet, out comes the patently false declarations which no doubt the person making the statement really honestly believed, and yet this is an opinion with absolutely zero evidence behind it.

Or how about this one:



And yet again, there is not one statement by me in any way abhoring collegial games, and yet somehow I've made it more than clear that I not only abhor collegial games but everyone who plays them.

I mean seriously, is there any evidence at all that anyone in the thread actually disagrees with this statement?



And yet, from that we go right back to the idiocy of 'collegial' versus 'dictatorial' just in different words: "either the table can vest ultimate power in him, or a more distributed approach such as how I prefer."

Other than to add more pages to the argument, I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Are you meaning to imply that people who take a different attitude towards the role of the GM, and/or the place of the rules, have trouble finding players for their games? Or aren't giving "people" what they want?
.

No, that's not what I'm implying at all. I'm saying that if he's going to make a personal attack on me and imply that I have "unhealthy views", that doesn't seem to mesh with the fact that it seems players like to have me as a DM. In no way was I saying anything like people with a different attitude have a hard time finding players.

Other than to add more pages to the argument, I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm guessing to say, "stop making up strawmen arguments to support your position, and actually address what is being said."

 

[DaveDash]

No, that's not what I'm implying at all. I'm saying that if he's going to make a personal attack on me and imply that I have "unhealthy views", that doesn't seem to mesh with the fact that it seems players like to have me as a DM. In no way was I saying anything like people with a different attitude have a hard time finding players.




I'm guessing to say, "stop making up strawmen arguments to support your position, and actually address what is being said."

You are the one that referred to anyone challenging the DM at the table as a "rules lawyer".

You also think of the DM as having a special right because it's *his* game, based upon something Gygax wrote eons ago.

Those are two points I have strong issues with. Nothing straw-man about it. Like me to get your direct quotes?

 

[Sacrosanct]

You are the one that referred to anyone challenging the DM at the table as a "rules lawyer".

See, this is a the strawman we're talking about. I said the person arguing with Hussar was a rules lawyer. I did NOT say anyone challenging the DM was a rules lawyer. Hell, I even specifically said my #1 rule as well, but I'm sure you glossed over that like you've glossed over so much else.

#1 Rule: No reasonable request should be unreasonably declined.

*Edit* Now that I see your edit (added sentences), I did say the game is the DM's because it's the DM who is running it. It also states this directly in the rulebooks (supposedly you're super into following the rules, right?) that this is the case, and while I don't have the 3e or 4e book in front of me, I know it's been that way for at least the first 25 years of the game--not some afterthought.

Here's a tip for you: Just because you personally don't like something (and it's obvious you don't), doesn't mean that it isn't the intended style of play. The great thing about D&D is you can play in whatever style you want, and that's not really wrong. but the intended style of play is something that isn't in dispute because it's explicitly defined for us. For example, in D&D you can play with a group of evil PCs raping and murdering towns if you want, but that is not the intended style of play.

 

[DaveDash]

Why won't anyone think of the rules lawyers!

You weren't even quoting Hussar at all. You were quoting Authweight, and letting your true intentions shine through in the process.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You weren't even quoting Hussar at all. You were quoting Authweight, and letting your true intentions shine through in the process.

Jesus man, Authweight was defending the guy (and people like him) in Hussar's story in that post I quoted. You know, the guy I called a rules lawyer. Do you have a problem following basic conversation? I don't mean to be snarky, but it sure seems that way so far between your posts directed at me and Celebrim.

And "true intentions"? Bwahahahahahaha. You don't know anything about me.

 

[Nebulous]

Or, another time, I bombed the party with a manticore. I love manticores. One of my favourite critters. A player piped up and complained that I was using a manticore in a completely wrong terrain - manticores in 2e were desert monsters and we were in a temperate forest. Now, he was 100% right, but, I stuck to my guns. It wound up being a rather lengthy argument at the table, so it stuck in my mind. I often wonder if I had of just admitted that I screwed up and skipped the encounter, if it wouldn't have been a better solution.

And again, DM's good and bad are sometimes wrong. It happens. AFAIC, a good DM knows when to step back and relax.

Wow. I'm surprised someone actually argued about that detail. The player i mean. It could have been a forest dwelling cousin of the desert manticore. Who cares? Just kill it!

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6786202]DaveDash[/MENTION], I've read this entire thread, and I can't find anyone claiming that the DM should make decisions without ever even considering everyone else at the table, or claiming that it is only the DM's game.

I see people claiming that the DM should have X amount of authority vs. Y amount of authority, but in neither case do people seem to be arguing for "all" or "none." It does seem to me, however, that some people on each side of the discussion view the other side as arguing for all or none.

People are arguing a matter of degrees, and reacting as though they're absolutes.

Actually, I'm going to disagree with you here. Way, way back in the thread, in my first post in this thread, in regards to the very first point on the flow chart, I asked:

Not to be a killjoy, but, "makes sense" to who? That's generally where the issue comes up at the table. I've had DM's make all sorts of rulings that "made sense" to them and I'm sure as a DM I've done exactly the same thing. "Makes sense" isn't always what's best for the game.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...w-to-Interpret-the-Rules-quot-)#ixzz3NoS13yhX

and I was told, in no uncertain terms:

The DM. That's really the only person who needs to know how the rules work. He or she is the one running the game, not the players. Also, there's some pretty significant historical precedence that shows that the game can easily be played this way.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...w-to-Interpret-the-Rules-quot-)#ixzz3NoSJi8o4

which is pretty much my entire bone of contention. That decisions that the DM makes only have to "make sense" to the DM. My placing a manticore in the game at that point didn't make sense to that player. Suggestion or rule, it doesn't make much difference AFAIC. I put the manticore there, without realising that it would cause any issues at the table because I had no idea that I was using the manticore outside of its climate/terrain.

Funnily enough, at the time, I acted exactly as Celebrim or Sancrosanct or Mistwell have advocated - I told the player that, no, it's my game, and there's really a manticore here, deal with is.

That was the wrong answer in this case. I could have just as easily said, "Oh, wait, the sun was in your eyes. Did I say manticore? I meant wyvern (or chimera, or any number of other honking big flying beasties), roll for intiative." And the argument would have been over, everyone at the table would have been happy and it would have made zero difference to the game.

Instead, it turned into a kinda big deal, not a major one, just something that stuck out in my head. So, my advice to DM's is that just because it makes sense to you, that's not necessarily always the best solution to the situation.

 

[Hussar]

Wow. I'm surprised someone actually argued about that detail. The player i mean. It could have been a forest dwelling cousin of the desert manticore. Who cares? Just kill it!

Well, to be honest, that's my take on it too. But, as far as this thread is concerned, I would have hoped that people would start from the position that we want to keep the players happy and engaged, rather than telling them to shut up and play. :/


--------


And, just another thing, I always thought rules lawyering was when you took a rule and bent the rule to your advantage, either through byzantine definitions or twisting the intent of the rules. How is being 100% right being a rules lawyer? It's not like he was mistaken here. Manticores really ARE desert dwelling monsters. He wasn't wrong here. Inflexible? Sure, but, not wrong.

Funny thing was, otherwise, he was a joy at the table. Really brought interesting characters to the table, ran some very fun games, otherwise never a problem, as far as I recall. He was just a real stickler for the idea of D&D canon being followed.

Again, hardly a rare occurrence, if threads here are any indication.