Rystil Arden
First Post
Mistwell, the "Rules of the Game" in this poll refers to the (often highly erroneous) column on Wizards website, and it looks like you thought it meant the core booksMistwell said:
What do you consider generally unquestionable sources of rules interpretation?
- Thread starter TheEvil
- Start date
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Rystil Arden said:Mistwell, the "Rules of the Game" in this poll refers to the (often highly erroneous) column on Wizards website, and it looks like you thought it meant the core books
Whoops. You are correct, I thought it meant core.
I don't read that collumn, so I erroneously marked it in the poll as something I consider an unquestionable source.
The poll doesn't offer my answer - the DMs final ruling on an interpretation. Among the gamers I've played with, there is no holy grail of rules interpretation. Even DMs realize that they are only human, can make mistakes and thus should be occasionally questioned. However, once the DM has considered all viewpoints and made a final ruling on an interpretation that's it. End of discussion on the topic and let's get back to playing.
The DM is the final arbiter of his or her game. Rule zero trumps anything WotC or even Hypersmurf says.
The DM is the final arbiter of his or her game. Rule zero trumps anything WotC or even Hypersmurf says.
Infiniti2000
First Post
I don't think that means what you think it means, even if we put 'rule zero' back into 3.5.Azul said:
Infiniti2000 said:I don't think that means what you think it means, even if we put 'rule zero' back into 3.5.
I'm using the term "Rule zero" loosely here to describe the basic principle that the gamesmaster/DM trumps the rulebooks. I could care less how WotC worded it in 3.0e or that they left it out in 3.5e. The principle behind it is decades older than 3rd edition. The final authority of the gamesmaster has been a staple of RPGs since I started playing 25 years ago and I have never seen it so heavily under assault as I have in the past 5 years.
It's a well established concept in roleplaying games and used to be held pretty darn sacred. I'm perpetually astonished by how 3e/3.5e seems to have given some players the idea that the rulebook trumps the DM somehow. :\ Perhaps this is part of the sense of player empowerment that was mentioned in prior threads. I know I've noticed a much greater tendency to challenge DM rulings among players when using 3e/3.5e but I've tended to usually dismiss that as being caused by the sheer weight of the mechanics.
The rulebooks present the official rules and thus serve as a good baseline for discussion in places like ENworld or for new players joining a campaign. They are the "official" version of the game. However, just about any DM I've ever seen has his own particular take on interpretation (often differing enough that he or she feels compelled to introduce house rules) and most will tweak the rules in some fashion or another to suit their needs. The rules are a tool, not a straightjacket.
The idea that a DM controls the game isn't something that needs to be written up as a rule. It goes to the fundamental nature of what the DM is - the arbiter. Gamesmasters serve a three-fold role. First, they establish basic storylines and plot elements. Second, they play the role of all characters besides the player characters. Third, they are the final arbiter and interpreter of the rules in their game.
I don't subscribe to the "DM is God at their table" philosophy (that's just a great way to alienate players) but I sure as heck think that any player who tries to somehow overturn a DM's final ruling on something is out of line, especially if this is done at the table and delays the game. If a rules question is raised, then players and the DM should discuss it and after listening to all views and giving it due thought, the DM makes a ruling. End of discussion on that rules issue for now - keep playing.
If you really feel it is a poor decision, you can revisit the issue with the DM after the game session (e.g. present the errata or a sage advice collumn and argue that that is a good way to interpret the point in question). In the end, it is still up the DM the decide. Their final say is the only unquestionable source of rules interpretation.
What if a player keeps hounding a DM over rules issues after the DM has made clear that their ruling is final? Sounds like a player asking to become persona non grata. That is certainly not a trait I would welcome. :\
What if a DM keeps making poor rules interpretations (at least in your view)? Then perhaps this person's game is not the right one for you. Different players enjoy different games. Different gamesmasters run games differently (something radically so).
Presenting a DM with text from a rulebook or an errata is like submitting statute, regulations or jurisprudence to a judge. Clearly written points are highly likely to be read the same way by all parties but more obscure points are prone to different interpretations. In addition, a judge can be just plain wrong. That doesn't change the fact that his rulings are binding. Even if the DM is factually wrong and has completely screwed up, their final ruling is still the only unquestionable interpretation of the rules in that campaign. The DM is the judge and their is no court of appeals even when they make a bad call. For better or worse, that's the nature of the game.
If a DM keeps making bad judgements, the only choices are to find another judge (i.e. change DMs) or live with it. Otherwise you'll just sit their arguing rules all the time and never actually playing. A DM who consistantly makes bad judgements is likely to have no players soon enough so the problem is kind of self-correcting. Most DMs slowly get better at rules interpretation and also tend to develop their own quirks and biases over time (e.g. favouring "realism" or "cinematic action").
Anything written on paper can be questioned, house ruled or otherwise trumped in a given game... even the rulebooks themselves. The rulebooks only represent an semi-unquestionable source of official rules. I haven't ever met a veteran DM who used just official rules or strict RAW. Only the DM running the game says what books (and what parts of those books) are core to their specific game.
This thread asked about unquestionable sources. In any particular campaign, the rules buck stops at the gamesmaster. They are the final arbiter and thus their final word is in effect unquestionable. The only effective way to question it is to leave the table or disrupt the game outright, neither of which are viable strategies for anyone who wants to enjoy their game.
If you want to restrict the discussion to unquestionable sources of offical rules interpretation, then I'd have to answer none of the above. All have their flaws and are thus questionable at times. The core rules are the best official materials since they are universally recognized but they have their typos, errors and other flaws. As far as human interpretation goes, several regular posters on EN World stand out - Hypersmurf in particular - as presenting well reasoned views.
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
Ogrork the Mighty said:
But that would be contradicting Monopoly's RAW. It's not an interpretation or alternative ruling. It's patently against the RAW. Much in the way that the Sage often is. I don't think that anyone but the Sage is proposing that personal rulings that are contradicted by the RAW should be considered official, or even that they should be considered anything more than house rules. I'm not sure where the Sage got the idea that his job was to contradict the rules, but he does it with gusto. Gatling Wand. 'nuff said.
But really, I think you should address my second point there, which is, if someone on this board comes up with a ruling based on the RAW, which that someone can demonstrate by citation is in line with the rules, and then the Sage goes and makes a contradictory ruling, then there are two official, contradictory rulings: the RAW, as spelled out by Hyp, or Patryn, or whomever...and the Sage. Since the RAW is a primary rules source, it takes precedence over the Sage. So if the someone on these boards posts a RAW-prescribed ruling, then his ruling is not just official, but primary. Because it's the RAW.
Perhaps we should consider the Sage's rulings that agree with the RAW to be official (they were already official before he made them, since they agree with the RAW), and his rulings that contradict the RAW to be the "official WotC contradictions." That might solve some problems.
edit: I think I should also mention that I don't think the RAW always speaks for itself. Sometimes it requires work to winnow out what it says because the references are buried. This is why people like Hypersmurf can make official rulings...he's just pointing out what the rules actually say.
Last edited:
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
Ogrork the Mighty said:
John Cooper's corrections are official. This is because they rely on the RAW to point out where the statblocks he corrected deviate illegally from the rules. Officially, they should have followed the rules in the first place. So the errors are errors and the correct statblocks are official by virtue of official rules laid down elsewhere no matter who does the work of correcting them. Even if nobody corrects them, there is an official, correct statblock, even if it never sees print.
Lonely Tylenol
First Post
Azul said:
The removal of references to the ultimate power of the DM over the years seems to have been primarily to allow the players to use the rules to protect themselves against arbitrary rulings and incoherent behaviour by bad DMs. Or at least, that's how I read it.
If you've ever read AB3's gaming fiction over on rpg.net, consider gaming with a DM like Psycho Dave, and how having a consistent and well-defined set of rules would help prevent trauma.
Edit: still waiting for that "merge" button...
Last edited:
Similar Threads
