Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThoughtBubble" data-source="post: 1555840" data-attributes="member: 9723">But since I'm ranting anyway, here's an arguement that goes back and forth in my group. I like to think my point wins, simply through poignant example and the people on the far end of the argument grudgingly backing my points.The relevance, dominance, and or mastery of the rules over the rest of the game. Is it a good thing? When is it necessarry?I argue that strict adherence to the rules is good and a necessarry thing in the absence of trust. Or rather, that, as a player unless I have a lot of trust in the talent, skill and motives of my DM, I'd prefer everything to be run by the rules. The camp I'm arguing against is "I like the game where no one but the DM knows the rules."1. As things get more open to inturpurtation, a larger schism opens between what you (any-non me person) and I think I'm capable of. A prime example of this was my character who had 75% in the outdoorsman skill. There was a long time where I was arguing that this should be plenty to allow me to figure out if I was facing east or not. I aruged that it should grant a bonus to climbing down a rope. Does 75% mean I'm good enough to consistantly find game trails? How about finding food in the wild? Does it help with climbing up a brick wall? What is the advantage to having a 95% drive skill? When should a drive check come up? Is gambling a worthless skill to put points into? 2. The less sure I am about mechanics, the more I feel controlled by the whims of the dice. Roll high? Succeed. Roll Low? Fail. Do my talents provide a modifier? How much? What's a risky manuver? What's a likely shot?3. Each of the DM's who have tried this sort of technique and argued for it are also the ones with a master plan. You know, the guys who know exactly what we 'should' be doing. A bit of character assassination to prepare the way for:4. Between 1, 2 and 3 it becomes hard to concoct any sort of plan. Is this a dumb idea? Will it work? Can I make the shot? Heck, does it even matter anyway? Either I'll roll lucky, or I won't. And either way, the result will be arbitrated by the DM however he wants. Thus, I begin to feel my choices and actions are meaningless.5. Pointing to various examples from the last games I was in (and having all the people involved int he game point out where I'm right).Now, I'm not saying that you can't run a game where DM fiat rules all. But the caviat is that THERE MUST BE AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF ALL AROUND TRUST! Aside from setting a common set of concepts and standards, the rules are like a sort of artificial trust. If I have +10 bab, and I miss on a roll of 10, I can tell you that one of a set number of situations are available. I can tell you about how difficult it is to hit an unarmored, unmoving human sized target, and from there, tell you about how hard it would be for my character to do that.There's no real ending to the arguement. We seem to settle on "Ok, so it didn't work last time, and it probablly wouldn't work with us, but it'd work with the right people". Which is a fine agreement to reach.But I'm reminded of our recent re-birth of the arguement. He told me a story to make his point. It's an example of a player using out of game knowledge of the rules to do something that's a bad action, and broke the game. In it, there was some big events happening at the bottom of a cliff. The PC's are at the top, and aren't going to make it down in time. One of the players asks how far the fall is, and upon recieving the answer (some ridiculous height) goes "That's only xD6 points of damage. I'll jump."To which, I replied "Well, he probablly could tell if he'd die from the fall. Besides, what sort of DM puts a big important ritual in a place the PC's can't interact with it?"I don't like the rules as a be-all, end-all. However, I do think that the rules have a very important place as a facilitator of what is possible, likely and the estimation there of. Then again, the two big things I like in a game are consistancy and self direction. If I'm an awesome swordsman, I'd like to stay that way. Likewize, I like it when people's choices matter.Ironically, it seems that those traits (a great deal of why I like the rules' ability to define things) are reasons why the pople I play with have expressed that they'd trust me in the whole 'unknown rules situation'.</blockquote>

Verification