D&D General What is your default approach to the rules, permissive or restrictive?
Paul Farquhar
Legend
If it would make sense in an action movie, I allow it.
Corinnguard
Hero
Permissive. The rules in a Role-Playing Game don't cover everything a DM or a player can do or could do in a given adventure. A restrictive game is more of a straitjacket for both.
For D&D at least.
There is usually a combat rule or structure for everything combat related in most editions of D&D. Breaking that is iffy.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Pretty sure there aint. Where is the rule for shield surfing down a staircase? Picking up and spinning a trestle table whist another character swashbuckles on top of it? Pulling down a tapestry on top of a monster? Forming a holy symbol from two candlesticks? Leaping onto the back of a giant monster? Throwing a halfling? There are any number of potential combat actions that are not specifically addressed in the rules of any edition.
Athletics checks are in the rules.
Andvari
Hero
He did say combat rule or structure. One example (PF2E) I had was a PC wanted to save someone a minotaur was dropping into a vat of boiling acid. There's no specified action for that, and it wasn't the PC's turn, but you usually have a reaction per turn. I allowed the PC to spend his reaction (and his first action next turn to prevent increased overall movement through reactions) to intercept and save the falling victim.
So there were structures and rules for handling actions outside of your turn, as well as for Athletic endeavors, even if not a specific "Jump to intercept falling dude" action.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
But these things are not given as specific examples of using it. "Restrictive" means that if it's not specifically mentioned in the rules, you can't do it. If you say "okay, make an athletics* check" you are being permissive, even if you set the DC to 35.
*Or other skill. for example, I would ask for a Religion check to make an improvised holy symbol.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I voted permissive.
My line in the sand is: Is the player being exploitative, abusive, or coercive?
Exploitative behavior is using the game or table rules in a manner that contradicts the spirit thereof or the tone and style of the game. Exploits technically work, but do so only by perverting or defying the overall goal and ethos of play. Anyone actually trying to adhere to the spirit/tone/style of the game is pretty much perfectly shielded from being exploitative--and it's really not hard to tell when a player is sincerely trying to do that in most cases.
Abusive behavior is when a player is being hostile or hurtful to other players (including me as GM--on both sides). I shouldn't have to explain why that's not acceptable in any circumstance.
Coercive behavior is manipulating other players into doing what you want, without their consent or even against their will, generally (though not exclusively) with the goal of being better or being the one "in control" etc.
As long as the player is genuinely enthusiastic about something, they will not exhibit any of the above characteristics, and thus I will do anything in my (considerable) GM power to pull it off. It may require some adaptation or alteration from the player's original vision, and they'll need to be comfortable with that. But as long as it isn't one of those three bad things, all they have to do is sell me on it--and I am quite easily sold on most things.
My line in the sand is: Is the player being exploitative, abusive, or coercive?
Exploitative behavior is using the game or table rules in a manner that contradicts the spirit thereof or the tone and style of the game. Exploits technically work, but do so only by perverting or defying the overall goal and ethos of play. Anyone actually trying to adhere to the spirit/tone/style of the game is pretty much perfectly shielded from being exploitative--and it's really not hard to tell when a player is sincerely trying to do that in most cases.
Abusive behavior is when a player is being hostile or hurtful to other players (including me as GM--on both sides). I shouldn't have to explain why that's not acceptable in any circumstance.
Coercive behavior is manipulating other players into doing what you want, without their consent or even against their will, generally (though not exclusively) with the goal of being better or being the one "in control" etc.
As long as the player is genuinely enthusiastic about something, they will not exhibit any of the above characteristics, and thus I will do anything in my (considerable) GM power to pull it off. It may require some adaptation or alteration from the player's original vision, and they'll need to be comfortable with that. But as long as it isn't one of those three bad things, all they have to do is sell me on it--and I am quite easily sold on most things.
Whereas for me, I would classify both of those behaviors--"no, you can't do it, it's not in the rules" and "sure, you can 'do' it, but it's DC 35"--as being restrictive. The latter is just making a pretense of being permissive by pretending to allow things while actually banning them. I don't like either of these behaviors, but I have a special antipathy for the latter, as it is deeply disingenuous.
Similar Threads
