D&D General What is your default approach to the rules, permissive or restrictive?

[FrogReaver]

I’m restrictively permissive or maybe it was permissively restrictive.

seriously though. There are all certain things we permit and certain things we restrict, and probably a nearly infinite amount of both (when looking at specific examples).

Then theres the semantical issue of restrictive - a word with a generally bad connotation. Most People aren’t going to self identify such ‘bad connotation’ words. Need a different word there IMO.

I couldn’t answer the poll. There’s no option that even gets close to summarizing me.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'd say I'm permissive. Then again, the basic rule of "roll a check against DC" covers a lot of ground already. But most things you can imagine, you can try, and I allow and encourage improvised actions in combat. That being said, one also must bear in mind that improvised actions shouldn't overpower actual features some classes get, so there must be some pretty clear limits on their effectiveness.

That sounds restrictive to me

The bear minimum is allowing players to declare an attempted action IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

Which of these two best describes your default approach to handling the rules of the game?

Permissive. This stance follows the principle that if the rules don't explicitly forbid an action, then it is considered permitted. Players operating under a permissive stance often seek creative solutions and enjoy exploring the boundaries of the game mechanics.

Player. My level 1 Fighter tries to cast fireball without expending a spell slot or requiring a magical item. I don’t know any dm that gives that a chance of working. Doesn’t that mean they are all restrictive?

Restrictive. In contrast, the restrictive stance holds that if the rules don't explicitly permit an action, then it is considered forbidden. Players adhering to a restrictive stance tend to stick closely to the established rules and may be more cautious about deviating from them.

Player: I want to walk and talk at the same time. DM - well there’s no rule saying you can do both at the same time, so looks like you can’t.

Hopefully this begins to highlight the absurdities of these definitions.

 

[tetrasodium]

Given the low statistical validity to EN World polls, they are at best a novelty. How folks vote is of no real importance.

The poll is a conversation-starter. The real value is in the discussion thread, where folks make clear what they individually mean, and how they feel about it, whether or not your "correction" is in place.

Your quibbling over that point, then, is taking breath away from the real value. Maybe don't?

Would the subjective drawing of lines around "permitted" not be conversation? I had to carve out some qualifications in my unoriginal response and haven't voted either way because of the uncertainty @Lanefan is raising over is a chance of success is required for the attempted action being permitted. Barring some subjective area we can all weigh in on the permissive/restrictive line seems hard to have a conversation about without meaningful experiences at someone else's table.

 

[overgeeked]

But they don't specify not rolling a d30.

It's an intentionally absurd example to show how the idea that I should be allowed to do something because it is not specifically disallowed can be abused.

Though, even my absurd example is tame compared to what I've encountered with some players trying to rules lawyer being allowed to do something because the rules don't specifically say you can't.

Yes, there are rules. Yes, I am also open to entertaining ideas not covered by the rules. However, I also believe that some amount of common sense and shared understanding about how the world works ought to be used as a governing guideline.

If you come to the table with the worst of all possible intentions, in the baddest of all possible faith, maybe. The book also doesn’t say you can’t roll a d4 or a d100. But it does say you roll a d20. If you need the book to list every die you can’t roll along side the one you should, that’s not a design problem, that’s a malicious player problem. The solution for that is simple. Show them the door.

 

[tetrasodium]

You're making the same mistake as the OP here, in that it seems you're conflating allowing the action a chance of success with allowing a player to declare the action.

Player - with zero chance of success both by rules and by common sense - declares his character's action to be "I jump across the Grand Canyon".

It's not restrictive to say "Your attempt to jump across the Grand Canyon fails, and unless you have means of slowing your fall you might as well start rolling up your next character".

It is restrictive to say "The rules say you can't possibly jump across the Grand Canyon and thus you cannot declare that as your (attempted) action; please declare a different action".

Permissive means they can declare anything, even if the rules say there is no chance of success. Restrictive means they can't even declare it unless the tules allow a chance of success.

The pushback on this was kinda surprising and makes me wonder if some of that was hinting that permit only counted if success by die roll is an option. I think this is an important distinction that has kinda fallen away over the last decade or so between New players approaching it like a video game where there is a much higher expectation of success as an option if they have enough skill and were allowed to start an action barring things like jumping off a cliff to death in platformers and such. Imo all of that combines into many players feeling like they were cheated out of success owed when they are able to make rolls that meet or exceed the system's DC ceiling. Those feelings of being cheated unfortunately tend to clobber any emergent story that would otherwise come from the "success at cost is a thing but so is measured failure and you never had a chance at that action" roll

 

[Umbran]

Would the subjective drawing of lines around "permitted" not be conversation?

I did not raise the point over a binary truth value of, "Yes, it is conversation," or, "No, this is not conversation." I raised it over, "How much does this argument over the presence of one word really enhance or enlighten us on the topic of how we approach rules?"

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you come to the table with the worst of all possible intentions, in the baddest of all possible faith, maybe. The book also doesn’t say you can’t roll a d4 or a d100. But it does say you roll a d20. If you need the book to list every die you can’t roll along side the one you should, that’s not a design problem, that’s a malicious player problem. The solution for that is simple. Show them the door.

Yeah, I don't think a need for rules to have exhaustive exclusion is necessary to talk about this question.

 

[Kannik]

I voted permissive.

My line in the sand is: Is the player being exploitative, abusive, or coercive?

Likewise for me. I love it when the players are creative, and I recognize that the rules are a means to an end. I don't want to approach it in a way that would restrict either of these. So long as the what the players are doing are within the spirit of the intent (creating an adventure and story within this setting and scenario), then I tend to be quite permissive.

 

[Zardnaar]

Somewhere in the middle. Fine line between being creative and cheering the system or rules layering.