Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Windjammer" data-source="post: 4523746" data-attributes="member: 60075">Is the page you cited is your base (or worse, sole) evidence for the fact that 4E encourages the DM to forego RAW on a particular occasion if, on that occasion, this would fit his understanding of where the &quot;plotline&quot; should be heading? If it is, then I think you risk confusing two things which have nothing to do with one another. House rules are rules. Rules, by definition, aren't designed to cater for one-off needs (whether of the DM or the players) - 4E DMG p.189 explicitly warns you to avoid that temptation - but are intended to regulate all future occasions of relevant similarity. Also, rules are for both parties to agree on and hence, by definition, cannot be decreed by the DM only and for the sole use (or worse, exploitation) by the DM. The DMG p.189 explicitly discourages the DM to shift the rules without consulting his players - which I think is a highly sane consideration (which doesn't compromise his final authority on the matter).The thing you mention is rather 'the DM is allowed to make up stuff on the fly'. It's the thing I enjoy most as a DM, and I agree that the easy go grasp core mechanics of 4E provides for that to a much better degree than 3E did if you bring that mindset with you. Because that mindset doesn't come across to players, especially, who have just read the Players' Handbook. Heck, it's only the DM who actually knows he can allow in-game actions not covered by the rules. In my book, that should be in the players' book. But kudos to 4E for having a section on that (DMG, p.42) in the rulebooks at all. What should be clear to all involved, however, is that that aspect of the game doesn't apply to Graz'zt, and never intended to be so. Anyone who thinks so is bringing something to 4E that is (a) wonderful in my estimate and (b) not part of 4E (whether PHB or DMG or MM).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Windjammer, post: 4523746, member: 60075"] Is the page you cited is your base (or worse, sole) evidence for the fact that 4E encourages the DM to forego RAW on a particular occasion if, on that occasion, this would fit his understanding of where the "plotline" should be heading? If it is, then I think you risk confusing two things which have nothing to do with one another. House rules are rules. Rules, by definition, aren't designed to cater for one-off needs (whether of the DM or the players) - 4E DMG p.189 explicitly warns you to avoid that temptation - but are intended to regulate all future occasions of relevant similarity. Also, rules are for both parties to agree on and hence, by definition, cannot be decreed by the DM only and for the sole use (or worse, exploitation) by the DM. The DMG p.189 explicitly discourages the DM to shift the rules without consulting his players - which I think is a highly sane consideration (which doesn't compromise his final authority on the matter). The thing you mention is rather 'the DM is allowed to make up stuff on the fly'. It's the thing I enjoy most as a DM, and I agree that the easy go grasp core mechanics of 4E provides for that to a much better degree than 3E did [i]if you bring that mindset with you[/i]. Because that mindset doesn't come across to players, especially, who have just read the Players' Handbook. Heck, it's only the DM who actually knows he can allow in-game actions not covered by the rules. In my book, that should be in the players' book. But kudos to 4E for having a section on that (DMG, p.42) in the rulebooks at all. What should be clear to all involved, however, is that that aspect of the game doesn't apply to Graz'zt, and never intended to be so. Anyone who thinks so is bringing something to 4E that is (a) wonderful in my estimate and (b) not part of 4E (whether PHB or DMG or MM). [/QUOTE]

Verification