Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6013550" data-attributes="member: 336">As a DM I'm expected to provide a &quot;consistent&quot; view of the game world to both the &quot;character&quot; and the &quot;player&quot;.&nbsp; I do that by making &quot;consistent&quot; adjudications.&nbsp; If something was &quot;green&quot; when I ruled about it yesterday, it should be &quot;green&quot; when I rule about it today, unless there are &quot;extenuating&quot; circumstances that make it different.&nbsp; And I should be ready to explain those.&nbsp; When a new case comes on the scene I use the previous cases to &quot;weigh&quot; how I'm going to rule.&nbsp; I try to maintain whatever precedent I've already established.When a new game comes on the scene, I don't go changing all the rules to fit &quot;my view&quot; of how they should work.&nbsp; I need to get used to the rules, and understand their basis before I go changing them.&nbsp; And I should change the rules with the full knowledge of the game group.&nbsp; As a player I expect a &quot;fair&quot; and &quot;consistent&quot; DM.&nbsp; I expect that if a rule is going to be changed without my prior consent (not a known houserule) that I will have the opportunity to change my action.&nbsp; As the &quot;character&quot; I should have a fair understanding of how the &quot;world&quot; works, which the &quot;rules&quot; in some way provide.&nbsp; As a player I need to be able to make informed decisions.&nbsp; If I'm playing checkers and the opponent, after I've taken one of his tokens, tells me that I need to move my token as a knight in chess would, I'd expect that I can change my mind.&nbsp; The rules have changed, and it should not be a surprise.&nbsp; Players are not mind readers, and as a DM, I shouldn't expect them to be.Correct, either the game needs to change the parameters of the particular rule (errata, second printing, faq, etc.), or the DM with the players have to come up with a reasonable alternative (houserule).I saw the &quot;say yes&quot; mentality as a better alternative to the, usually reactionary, &quot;say no&quot; option.&nbsp; The suggestion in the books was not &quot;ALWAYS say yes&quot;.&nbsp; Oftentimes as DMs we want &quot;our vision&quot; of something to be the base.&nbsp; I've found that the &quot;say yes&quot; suggestion opens up many more doors.&nbsp; &quot;Yes, and&quot;, as well as &quot;Yes, but&quot; are great additions to a DM's repertoire.&nbsp; &quot;No, and&quot;, as well as &quot;No, but&quot; are still available too.Yep, and good consistency as well as flexibility is key.&nbsp; There has been more than one time that we've reversed a long standing house rule because we came to understand the underlying rule better, or we saw that the houserule was &quot;fixing&quot; a problem that didn't really exist in play.And that is part of the needed consistency.&nbsp; If, as a DM, I'm going to ban something, or make it work differently because of &quot;my vision&quot;, then I need to make sure that the player that took the option is aware of the change, and is able to change his choice based on this &quot;new&quot; information.&nbsp; There should be very few surprises when the player is attempting something that their character is supposed to be able to do.&nbsp; They should have available at their disposal an &quot;informed&quot; decision making process.-</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 6013550, member: 336"] As a DM I'm expected to provide a "consistent" view of the game world to both the "character" and the "player". I do that by making "consistent" adjudications. If something was "green" when I ruled about it yesterday, it should be "green" when I rule about it today, unless there are "extenuating" circumstances that make it different. And I should be ready to explain those. When a new case comes on the scene I use the previous cases to "weigh" how I'm going to rule. I try to maintain whatever precedent I've already established. When a new game comes on the scene, I don't go changing all the rules to fit "my view" of how they should work. I need to get used to the rules, and understand their basis before I go changing them. And I should change the rules with the full knowledge of the game group. As a player I expect a "fair" and "consistent" DM. I expect that if a rule is going to be changed without my prior consent (not a known houserule) that I will have the opportunity to change my action. As the "character" I should have a fair understanding of how the "world" works, which the "rules" in some way provide. As a player I need to be able to make informed decisions. If I'm playing checkers and the opponent, after I've taken one of his tokens, tells me that I need to move my token as a knight in chess would, I'd expect that I can change my mind. The rules have changed, and it should not be a surprise. Players are not mind readers, and as a DM, I shouldn't expect them to be. Correct, either the game needs to change the parameters of the particular rule (errata, second printing, faq, etc.), or the DM with the players have to come up with a reasonable alternative (houserule). I saw the "say yes" mentality as a better alternative to the, usually reactionary, "say no" option. The suggestion in the books was not "ALWAYS say yes". Oftentimes as DMs we want "our vision" of something to be the base. I've found that the "say yes" suggestion opens up many more doors. "Yes, and", as well as "Yes, but" are great additions to a DM's repertoire. "No, and", as well as "No, but" are still available too. Yep, and good consistency as well as flexibility is key. There has been more than one time that we've reversed a long standing house rule because we came to understand the underlying rule better, or we saw that the houserule was "fixing" a problem that didn't really exist in play. And that is part of the needed consistency. If, as a DM, I'm going to ban something, or make it work differently because of "my vision", then I need to make sure that the player that took the option is aware of the change, and is able to change his choice based on this "new" information. There should be very few surprises when the player is attempting something that their character is supposed to be able to do. They should have available at their disposal an "informed" decision making process. - [/QUOTE]

Verification