Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Waibel's Rule of Interpretation (aka "How to Interpret the Rules")
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7656280" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>Well, I think we both have known that for some time now, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. hahaha. And, as you said, that's fine.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Correct. Taken in a different context, I run "Consensus games" as well. It's just that the consensus is more commonly referred to as the "social contract" or some such, 'round these parts.</p><p></p><p>We play Dungeons & Dragons, not Democracy & Debate. Everyone at the table understands/accepts that I (or whoever is DM, as I accept it as well if/when I have had the rare chance to be a player) "set 'em up" and they [the players] "knock 'em down." Where "knocking 'em down" refers to defeating/overcoming in some way (not necessarily just fight/kill) the challenges/foes/situations that I [the DM] present<s>.</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>There is a degree of suspension of disbelief we all know/accept to be at the table to begin with. Part and parcel of that suspension, is the knowledge that the DM creates and controls the goings-on of the world and the parameters thereof. We are all in agreement on that. The DM calls the shots. The players have no control over anything other than what their characters do...and that's a metric ton of control to effect the possibilities of the world/game/story. That's the game [we play].</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>Might a DM make a mistake? Sure. Recalling or implementing rules. Miss gaging creature/encounter difficulty. Interpersonal/communications skills. Forgetting a plot point until its too late. There's LOADS of mistakes to be made. We [DMs] are, lamentably, human.</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>But no one's going to derail/hold up a game over some "rules" minutia. Pacing is important. The table understands/accepts that and enjoys good pacing when it is accomplished. Retaining "immersion" is tantamount. React how your character would react/with what your character knows, is tantamount. That is all part of our "consensus." </s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>If a new person at the table wants to come with a Drow Sorcerer/GOO Warlock/Valor Bard, after knowing that the game world does not allow for drow PCs, has no Sorcerer class, and that warlocks are inherently tainted/corrupted toward evil (and possibly madness) as they advance where Evil PCs are also disallowed, and/or that I'm not a fan/the table doesn't use 3e-style multi-classing, then they're going to get a "No." or (more likely in the case of new players) "I don't think this is going to be the fun you think it is. What is it about this character that you're going for...and why?" then, possibly, "How 'bout you try/Have you looked at/This campaign world has XYZ..."</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>There is no, to borrow from a recent thread "Can you just fix/take away my Sunlight Sensitivity, then it'll work out fine." There is no "But I wanna" whining. There is no "You<em> have</em> to let me [feat/MC/stack stuff/use some heretofore unused race/class/supplement] X or I can't Y...and Jerry can with his wizard, so..."</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>It's not a debate. It's not "You're ruining my fun." That is not something that requires or is included in my table's understanding of "consensus."</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>If, as nearly inconceivable to me as it is, a player were to complain/pipe up that I [the DM] is "wrong" because I put a manticore in a forest and/or I "<em>can't</em> put a manticore in a forest! Cuz..." they are getting a (figurative) "No." It doesn't matter what the MM says. It matters that the DM just told you a manticore was spiraling overhead and preparing to rain spikey death down upon you. What're you [the PC, not the player!] going to do about it? </s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>You want to persist? Fine. "Everyone else make Dex. checks while Bewildergast, here, wonders in amazement that a manticore is flying over a temperate region."</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>"NO WAIT! I dive for cover too!" would likely be the response. </s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>There is no need (or even thought) of debate. If there is an "out of- or meta-game" reason/answer that I can share (without giving away plot info) or a thought rationale that I have, <em>for the players</em>, I'll share it. If its something the PCs might need to discover on their own...then they have to [have their PCs] do that. Or just shrug it off as one of life's odd occurrences/coincidences/fluke of the creative-imaginative game/made-up world.</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>There is no "but the book says." It is understood/accepted that what the DM says goes...and yes, most of the time all intentions are to follow what the books say "rules" wise. That's how you have a framework for a playable game...unless/except for the things we agree to change, i.e. houserules. Fluff wise? No holds barred/the details of the setting are known and/or mutable. But once fluff has been introduced, I do try to be consistent. That is the game we play.</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>That is part of the "buy in" to sit at the table in the first place. Because there is that mutual understanding,<em> that </em>"consensus" -and yes, it includes some inherent trust- at the table that the DM is making/presenting the world for fun and excitement and adventure. They are not, personally/individually "out to get you/screw you over". They are trying to create a coherent and fun<em> challenging adventure</em> experience. All of which leads to (in theory) a good time had by all present...there...to play Dungeons & Dragons.</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>That is understood and accepted by everyone who sits at the table. To greater or lesser degrees, sometimes, sure. Because, again, we're all human and not all cookie-cutter in our views and preferences. But we all know why we're there and have a "consensus" of what goes and what we want out of the experience.</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>Joe always wants to do the most DPR. He makes the strongest PC with the biggest weapon and the hardest hits. That's what he likes. Fine. "Mystical" Mary always wants to have the broadest spell repertoire and enjoys expressing a certain sprituality in her characters. That's how/why she plays her 6th power-mad/overachiever priestess of the goddess of magic in a row. Fine. Bob enjoys putting his lowest ability score in his class' Prime Ability and playing the "overcoming adversity/underdog" with elaborate backstory and heavy RP. Fine. Jim...poor, mad, Jim...I never know what he's gonna do, but it's gonna be Chaotic Neutral in a party of staunchly Lawful PCs. *sigh* Fine. </s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>It's not just "well, the book says" or "a player wants something" so I am under some DMly obligation to comply. That's just not the case for "my" playstyle.</s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>And as I have probably mentioned in threads before, haven't had any [serious] complaints. Well, not in a couple of decades. Naturally, when we were all teenagers/kids and beginner/inexperienced DMs, we all have issues to overcome. But that's more years than I'd care to admit behind me now. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></s></p><p><s></s></p><p><s>Whew. There. That turned into something, din't it. Now I hope everyone on EN world reads this and has a greater/thorough understanding on my views of DMing, DM empowerment, player entitlement, the concept of "consensus" as social contract, and playing the game as a whole. So we should never, ever, have any misunderstandings or disagreements again....ever. Right? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></s></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 7656280, member: 92511"] Well, I think we both have known that for some time now, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. hahaha. And, as you said, that's fine. Correct. Taken in a different context, I run "Consensus games" as well. It's just that the consensus is more commonly referred to as the "social contract" or some such, 'round these parts. We play Dungeons & Dragons, not Democracy & Debate. Everyone at the table understands/accepts that I (or whoever is DM, as I accept it as well if/when I have had the rare chance to be a player) "set 'em up" and they [the players] "knock 'em down." Where "knocking 'em down" refers to defeating/overcoming in some way (not necessarily just fight/kill) the challenges/foes/situations that I [the DM] present[s]. There is a degree of suspension of disbelief we all know/accept to be at the table to begin with. Part and parcel of that suspension, is the knowledge that the DM creates and controls the goings-on of the world and the parameters thereof. We are all in agreement on that. The DM calls the shots. The players have no control over anything other than what their characters do...and that's a metric ton of control to effect the possibilities of the world/game/story. That's the game [we play]. Might a DM make a mistake? Sure. Recalling or implementing rules. Miss gaging creature/encounter difficulty. Interpersonal/communications skills. Forgetting a plot point until its too late. There's LOADS of mistakes to be made. We [DMs] are, lamentably, human. But no one's going to derail/hold up a game over some "rules" minutia. Pacing is important. The table understands/accepts that and enjoys good pacing when it is accomplished. Retaining "immersion" is tantamount. React how your character would react/with what your character knows, is tantamount. That is all part of our "consensus." If a new person at the table wants to come with a Drow Sorcerer/GOO Warlock/Valor Bard, after knowing that the game world does not allow for drow PCs, has no Sorcerer class, and that warlocks are inherently tainted/corrupted toward evil (and possibly madness) as they advance where Evil PCs are also disallowed, and/or that I'm not a fan/the table doesn't use 3e-style multi-classing, then they're going to get a "No." or (more likely in the case of new players) "I don't think this is going to be the fun you think it is. What is it about this character that you're going for...and why?" then, possibly, "How 'bout you try/Have you looked at/This campaign world has XYZ..." There is no, to borrow from a recent thread "Can you just fix/take away my Sunlight Sensitivity, then it'll work out fine." There is no "But I wanna" whining. There is no "You[I] have[/I] to let me [feat/MC/stack stuff/use some heretofore unused race/class/supplement] X or I can't Y...and Jerry can with his wizard, so..." It's not a debate. It's not "You're ruining my fun." That is not something that requires or is included in my table's understanding of "consensus." If, as nearly inconceivable to me as it is, a player were to complain/pipe up that I [the DM] is "wrong" because I put a manticore in a forest and/or I "[I]can't[/I] put a manticore in a forest! Cuz..." they are getting a (figurative) "No." It doesn't matter what the MM says. It matters that the DM just told you a manticore was spiraling overhead and preparing to rain spikey death down upon you. What're you [the PC, not the player!] going to do about it? You want to persist? Fine. "Everyone else make Dex. checks while Bewildergast, here, wonders in amazement that a manticore is flying over a temperate region." "NO WAIT! I dive for cover too!" would likely be the response. There is no need (or even thought) of debate. If there is an "out of- or meta-game" reason/answer that I can share (without giving away plot info) or a thought rationale that I have, [I]for the players[/I], I'll share it. If its something the PCs might need to discover on their own...then they have to [have their PCs] do that. Or just shrug it off as one of life's odd occurrences/coincidences/fluke of the creative-imaginative game/made-up world. There is no "but the book says." It is understood/accepted that what the DM says goes...and yes, most of the time all intentions are to follow what the books say "rules" wise. That's how you have a framework for a playable game...unless/except for the things we agree to change, i.e. houserules. Fluff wise? No holds barred/the details of the setting are known and/or mutable. But once fluff has been introduced, I do try to be consistent. That is the game we play. That is part of the "buy in" to sit at the table in the first place. Because there is that mutual understanding,[I] that [/I]"consensus" -and yes, it includes some inherent trust- at the table that the DM is making/presenting the world for fun and excitement and adventure. They are not, personally/individually "out to get you/screw you over". They are trying to create a coherent and fun[I] challenging adventure[/I] experience. All of which leads to (in theory) a good time had by all present...there...to play Dungeons & Dragons. That is understood and accepted by everyone who sits at the table. To greater or lesser degrees, sometimes, sure. Because, again, we're all human and not all cookie-cutter in our views and preferences. But we all know why we're there and have a "consensus" of what goes and what we want out of the experience. Joe always wants to do the most DPR. He makes the strongest PC with the biggest weapon and the hardest hits. That's what he likes. Fine. "Mystical" Mary always wants to have the broadest spell repertoire and enjoys expressing a certain sprituality in her characters. That's how/why she plays her 6th power-mad/overachiever priestess of the goddess of magic in a row. Fine. Bob enjoys putting his lowest ability score in his class' Prime Ability and playing the "overcoming adversity/underdog" with elaborate backstory and heavy RP. Fine. Jim...poor, mad, Jim...I never know what he's gonna do, but it's gonna be Chaotic Neutral in a party of staunchly Lawful PCs. *sigh* Fine. It's not just "well, the book says" or "a player wants something" so I am under some DMly obligation to comply. That's just not the case for "my" playstyle. And as I have probably mentioned in threads before, haven't had any [serious] complaints. Well, not in a couple of decades. Naturally, when we were all teenagers/kids and beginner/inexperienced DMs, we all have issues to overcome. But that's more years than I'd care to admit behind me now. ;) Whew. There. That turned into something, din't it. Now I hope everyone on EN world reads this and has a greater/thorough understanding on my views of DMing, DM empowerment, player entitlement, the concept of "consensus" as social contract, and playing the game as a whole. So we should never, ever, have any misunderstandings or disagreements again....ever. Right? :p[/s] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Waibel's Rule of Interpretation (aka "How to Interpret the Rules")
Top