what kind of DM are you: rule interpretation

[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.

Oooo, now them's fightin' words.

To further qualify: If "arbitrary (interpretive)" decisions are made before the game begins (and before I've created my PC), then that's fine. If "arbitrary" decisions are made during the course of the game, so that I don't know what the expect from an interpretive DM, then that becomes a real problem.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

To further qualify: If "arbitrary (interpretive)" decisions are made before the game begins (and before I've created my PC), then that's fine. If "arbitrary" decisions are made during the course of the game, so that I don't know what the expect from an interpretive DM, then that becomes a real problem.

It would probably be useful for DMs to have a guide of "100 rulings to ponder" so they can formulate an opinion on them ahead of time. And for players to bring up their most relevant issues before entering a game.

This would be not only things of ambiguous wordings, but things of fairly clear wording that are nevertheless often house-ruled (or the DM has just missed the text in the rules). The lance question, monks and Improved Natural Attack, and many more issues.

Example: melee attack into a grapple DOES NOT have a random chance of hitting either combatant. Many DMs and players think otherwise and are surprised when the actual rule is pointed out. If you're playing a druid with a brown bear companion, probably very good to make sure your DM and you are on the same page on grappling rules.

And an example for the DM to think about before a campaign starts: ranged attack into a grapple DOES have a random chance of hitting either combatant, but "random" doesn't necessarily mean "50/50" -- could be size-weighted in some way.

 

[evilbob]

I agree with Nail's above comment. However, I completely disagree with any suggestion that the idea that "interpretive" is somehow equal to "arbitrary." I don't think those are related at all. I applaud the literalist perspective's ideal of "achieving consistancy," but I do not believe a literalist perspective is required in any way shape or form, nor is it even implied.

 

[Nail]

It would probably be useful for DMs to have a guide of "100 rulings to ponder" so they can formulate an opinion on them ahead of time. And for players to bring up their most relevant issues before entering a game.

Sure.

But let's be honest: Most don't/won't/can't do this. For one thing, it requires extensive rules knowledge. For another, writing this all down is a lot of work! And finally, there will always be rules that seem clear, but later turn out to have a strange effect in a corner case.

Far better to (usually!! ) stick with a strict reading of the rules text, rather than "that doesn't seem right! I'm changing it right now 'cause I don't think that's what the designers intended!"







EDIT: I'm especially thinking of "cleave off of an AoO" when I wrote that last sentence.

 

[evilbob]

It would probably be useful for DMs to have a guide of "100 rulings to ponder" so they can formulate an opinion on them ahead of time.

I agree with you 100% in theory, and believe it would be typically partially or completely disregarded in practice.

Edit: Or in other words: ditto what Nail posted (1st paragraph, anyway) at the same time!

 

[Nail]

Edit: Or in other words: ditto what Nail posted (1st paragraph, anyway) at the same time!

Cross-posting EDIT-goodness!

 

[Brother MacLaren]

But let's be honest: Most don't/won't/can't do this. For one thing, it requires extensive rules knowledge. For another, writing this all down is a lot of work! And finally, there will always be rules that seem clear, but later turn out to have a strange effect in a corner case.

True, but starting a new campaign is ALWAYS a lot of work on a DM's part. Running through a checklist of the 100 most important/controversial/unclear rules to consider is not that much more work IF such a list already existed. I'd also include in this list rules that are so poorly designed that house rules are almost essential (e.g. damage from heavy falling objects).

Far better to (usually!! ) stick with a strict reading of the rules text, rather than "that doesn't seem right! I'm changing it right now 'cause I don't think that's what the designers intended!"

In many cases (especially with splatbooks), it seems like products were just rushed out the door without enough playtesting and evaluation of the corner cases. Damage for falling objects is a problem with the core rules, but it took the Hulking Hurler to really highlight that.

 

[evilbob]

One interesting (and statistically insignificant) trend: if you re-split the respondants to only two sides and throw out the chaos answers, you get that currently about 78 folks are either "always" or "usually" literalists, while 70 are interpretive about half the time or more - giving a fairly even 53%/47% split.

Again, though, the actual value of such interpretation: zero. Hooray for random polls!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Nothing wrong with that.

Unless your goal is consistency.

There's nothing wrong with two DMs having different rules... except for the player who's blindsided because the DM didn't realise he's using a different rule.

Consistency gives everyone (in theory) a common baseline from which to make their modifications, consciously... rather than a chaotic jumble where nobody knows what's 'standard' and what's a house rule any more.

-Hyp.

 

[Nail]

Running through a checklist of the 100 most important/controversial/unclear rules to consider is not that much more work IF such a list already existed.

Searching on these boards would turn up such a list, IIRC.

Any interest is compiling one? Now's a good time, as 4e is right around the corner....