what kind of DM are you: rule interpretation

[pallandrome]

I voted "usually a literalist, open to interpretation." Since I became an RPGA certified DM I've made an effort to become more uniform, precise and consistent with the rules and it's been a fun journey.

It should be noted that I'm a RPGA certed DM. I knows my rules. I just don't always care to use them in my home games.

 

[Nail]

But often, the reason a literalist values certainty is to provide consistency... because once people start inquiring into those nebulous areas, you're more likely to end up with two DMs getting two different answers. (Or worse, once people start ruling on 'common sense', because as we all know, common sense isn't...)

Exactly.

"Interpretive" generally means "arbitrary" in practice.

 

[evilbob]

"Interpretive" generally means "arbitrary" in practice.

Oooo, now them's fightin' words.

 

[Sejs]

Interpreter.

Fun comes first.

Rules exist to serve the game, the game does not exist to serve the rules.

 

[pallandrome]

Interpreter.

Fun comes first.

Rules exist to serve the game, the game does not exist to serve the rules.

This is what I said, boiled down to comprehensability, and stripped of misspoken intent.

 

[Sunfist]

Exactly.

"Interpretive" generally means "arbitrary" in practice.

I don't think "generally" is fair but that definitely can be a problem. And even if the decision isn't arbitrary, it can definitely seem that way to the players.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I lean towards interpreter, trying to figure out the spirit of the rules and the game design reasons why they are a certain way. I'm perfectly happy to take that approach on the Rules forum as well, since talking about WHY the rules are the way they are is still talking about the rules. I rarely appeal to realism, but more often to what a rule was meant to accomplish versus what it actually does accomplish if interpreted one way or another.

The Cleave/AOO trick is one where the literalist interpretation seems to fly in the face of balance and good game design. It was, I think, a design oversight to NOT have a sentence saying "You cannot Cleave on an Attack of Opportunity."

The lance question is one of ambiguous wording where the literalist interpretation best supports the design intent as I understand it. Without giving the lance the 2-handed benefits if used 1-handed while mounted... most cavaliers would ALWAYS use it 2-handed while mounted. Str and PA bonus are just too high at that level. It's a slightly odd visual, and here's one case where realism does factor into it for me -- it doesn't seem to me that holding a lance 2-handed (or carrying a spear overhead, or whatever) would impart that much more force than couching it normally.

 

[Mistwell]

I suspect that if this question were asked of the D&D community in general, as opposed to on a rules forum, the spread of answers would be different.

I think folks who tend to read rules forums also tend towards literalism more often than not.

 

[balterkn]

I put the mostly interpretation, but a bit more restrictive.

Generally, I'm a simulationist - most of the campaigns I run will generally move to some aspect of world simulation - or at least, an expectation that the NPCs in the world to react rationally and take rational choices in that world. Hence, "fixing" rules to be what was intended (different from what may have been implemented) to ensure that anything that just doesn't make sense to the majority of the players at the table is expected when I DM.

If I were doing one night or one adventure games, I'd probably tend more towards literal interpretation.

 

[hong]

But often, the reason a literalist values certainty is to provide consistency... because once people start inquiring into those nebulous areas, you're more likely to end up with two DMs getting two different answers.

Nothing wrong with that.