I concur. Epic fail.
1. I never said it was an invalid topic of conversation. I said it was in the wrong forum. This forum is for specific rules questions, not questions about whether we should ignore the rules. That's what the General Discussions forum is for.I was responding to the flamebait comment. Very rude.
2. No one is arguing for the rules "holding our hands at every step of the way" and "spelling every darn thing out".That's not a response to anything people are saying in this thread, its a defense of my own argument. For instance, in my opinion, that's what the threads discussing the one-handed holding of a quarterstaff and the elephant climbing the ladder are doing.
Edit: extrapolation.
You're right (IMHO) and I agree.
for instance, if I as DM decide that an ogre hitting a human for max damage causes that human to move around the battlefield a bit... well gosh darn it that Ogre doesn't have awesome blow, and how dare I change a baseline blah blah blah... I do what I want. My players love it. Who says that the fighter won't critical next turn and drop the ogre to its knees, stunning it for a round? Have I as the DM betrayed a trust relationship with the players?
Nah, no way. Phooey on that. I run the game as a shared storytelling experience. I as a DM have ALWAYS taken a stand against allowing the abstract wall of game mechanics from destroying what could be an otherwise memorable experience. I also never try to take power away from my players by negating anything they do entirely. Everyone's there to have FUN (that's what you play games for, after all) and that means that no one should EVER feel left out or bored, if its within your power as the game runner to avoid.
Don't worry. I'm permanently drain bamaged.
I bet you say that to everyone.
Though it's certainly fine to have and discuss rules, I also agree that people get too carried away with trying to require them to be some kind of 100% complete simulation of the game world, covering every corner case and never requiring a judgment call. Shrieking at the top of one's lungs for an official ruling, for example. "OH GOD THIS GAME SUCKS THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE IMPLICATIONS OF TWO DIFFERENT PARTS OF IT AND NO ONE IS FIXING IT OH GOD." It's one thing to say "hey in the next version trip could be written better like this..." It's another to panic about the lack of total definition.
Sure, Rules Questions is about asking rules questions and giving answers, but it's not a prerequisite to post there to say "the rules are all there is and must never be contravened." Just responding to rules questions with "who cares just make it up" is of course wasted space, but in many cases the truth is the only slightly different "that area's not covered by the rules" or "the rules don't seem to speak clearly on that point" - and sometimes it seems like at that point people get stuck on "Oh Lord I can't run my game then," and need to be told to "make something up" or "here's how I rule it."
Here's how I prefer to run games.
Druid with constrictor snake companion: "Can I have my snake take Improved Grapple as a feat when it levels?"
Me, thinking 'not on list in the rules... probably powerful in conjunction with a snake... whatever, sure.': "Yes."
World: fails to end
Later...
Druid with snake again: "My snake attacks the guy on the horse!"
Me: "No way man, he's, like, up on a horse. Snakey's on the ground. It could attack the horse if you want."
Druid: "But the rules don't say anything about that!"
Me: "Well I do. Next!"
Druid: "Uhh, it has a climb speed... It climbs into a tree and then drops down on him next round!"
Me: "Peachy."
Rules are there to provide guidelines. You realize there are perfectly fun RPGs that are, say, 6 pages long? Rules coverage of everything is not possible or desirable.
And Organized Play isn't an excuse. I run a bunch of Living Greyhawk in my time and I flexed the rules when I felt like it and the players loved it. God forbid the "experience wasn't identical" from table to table.
problem with most rules lawyers, is that they're players who want things to be in their favor, or they're GMs that have control issues. When I'm a GM it's my game, when I'm a player, it's your game...
If you're a non-GM player, and a rules lawyer, get over it or get behind the screen.
Your mileage may vary...
I don't mind rules discussions about situations that help make the game more enjoyable. Arguments over ridiculous things are just painful. To cover the whole "why argue about physics in a world where there are fire-breathing dragons?" question, let me clarify:
If a situation is going to make the game more fun and/or exciting for all concerned, and there aren't concise rules to cover it, then yes, it is useful to discuss them and try to find a way to work the rules so they do.
If a situation is simply a player trying to do something that makes things easier/better for themselves without regard to how it affects the overall game (i.e. "Why can't my elephant make a climb roll to get down this ladder?") That should be something left to DM fiat, hopefully backed by some logic and grounding in the real world.
Yes, there are fire-breathing dragons, that doesn't mean all bets are off where reality is concerned. When people step over a pit, they still fall (unless you cast feather fall or.... If there's a wall in your way, you can't just walk through it (but you can cast passwall or maybe your 20th level barbarian with the 30 Str can just rage and charge through it...). When you break the rules reality sets, it sets a precedent. If your elephant mount can jump a chasm (though elephants can't jump), then we'll need to make a house rule and assign a jump score to the elephant entry in the Bestiary for future reference.
There are some great discussions on this board and I'm happy to be a part of them. Then there are others that I see that I'm pretty sure I shouldn't be touching with a ten foot pole. (Which, of course, is why our gaming group introduced the eleven foot pole...)
problem with most rules lawyers, is that they're players who want things to be in their favor, or they're GMs that have control issues. When I'm a GM it's my game, when I'm a player, it's your game...
If you're a non-GM player, and a rules lawyer, get over it or get behind the screen.
Your mileage may vary...
I'm lucky that my rules lawyers are able to be adults when they get to the table. Sometimes I find in their favor, sometimes I don't. I certainly am NOT going to reject their points off-hand, and if what they bring up will enhance rather than hurt the game and it makes logical sense, I'd be a bad DM if I didn't allow it in most cases.
I like rules discussions, it's fun watching people argue about physics and logic in a game where characters smaller than my five year old nephew can slay fire breathing dragons.
:)
But that's exactly the point; if the laws of physics are obviously different in D&D-land, then how can I use my common sense to figure out if a centaur can walk down stairs (for instance)? That's where game rules come in.
My two cents: using the rules to adjudicate what happens in a given situation is usually a good thing, not a bad thing. But I still wouldn't allow an elephant to climb a ladder. :-)
I think it would have been more accurate to describe my argument as "Does it Help Anyone to be so Literal About the Rules and Assume An Omission in the Rules Means You Can Take Advantage of that Omission Regardless of Common Sense?"
But that's really long.
I think it would have been more accurate to describe my argument as "Does it Help Anyone to be so Literal About the Rules and Assume An Omission in the Rules Means You Can Take Advantage of that Omission Regardless of Common Sense?"
I'm more used to seeing the argument "If it isn't in the rules you can't do it until you find a specific piece of text that says you can do it regardless of common sense."
For instance, if I as DM decide that an ogre hitting a human for max damage causes that human to move around the battlefield a bit... well gosh darn it that Ogre doesn't have awesome blow, and how dare I change a baseline blah blah blah... I do what I want. My players love it. Who says that the fighter won't critical next turn and drop the ogre to its knees, stunning it for a round? Have I as the DM betrayed a trust relationship with the players?Nah, no way. Phooey on that. I run the game as a shared storytelling experience. I as a DM have ALWAYS taken a stand against allowing the abstract wall of game mechanics from destroying what could be an otherwise memorable experience. I also never try to take power away from my players by negating anything they do entirely. Everyone's there to have FUN (that's what you play games for, after all) and that means that no one should EVER feel left out or bored, if its within your power as the game runner to avoid.
I think you hit the nail on the head right there.
People that want the rules to cover everything often* have had, or are having, an experience where someone (player or GM) has betrayed the trust relationship. This makes them wary about having that trust damaged again and thus they want things clearly explained ahead of time so that there is hopefully less issues in the future.*Though not always
My GM Fiat trumps your silly book of rules. I know you don't think I'm a nice guy. I can show you the door where I sent the other b*tches.
My GM Fiat trumps your silly book of rules. I know you don't think I'm a nice guy. I can show you the door where I sent the other b*tches.
My GM Fiat trumps your silly book of rules. I can show you the door where I stopped the other b*tches from ever entering.
My GM Fiat trumps your silly book of rules. I can show you the door where I stopped the other b*tches from ever entering.
Nah. I want to make them twist in their panties thinking they might have a chance before I show them the door.
Being anal retentive is rarely useful in any situation, but there are two very good reasons to care about the rules:
1 - Many people have multiple GMs (see Pathfinder Society for the most extreme example). Everything that is not in the rules is something that must be resolved separately each time it comes up with a new GM, and will often result in different answers.
2 - Characters are aware of the rules. Bob the grapple-based Monk may not know "I have Greater Grapple, therefore I can make grapple checks as a move action" but he does know "I'm awesome at wrestling people, and I can pin them really quickly."
Reason number one applies to things that are absent from the rules, reason number two applies to houserules that change something.
Well, that's never stopped you before. :P
It's really true.