| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but when the topic is 'what Sean intended when he wrote that rule', saying 'that's not what you intended' is kinda...you know...This is assuming we have any idea which rules SKR wrote. For example, in the ballyhooed guidelines vs rules nature of the WBL debate brought up above, the rules derive initially from the OGL which come from the DMG 3.0 which was attributed to Cook, Tweet, and Williams... not SKR. The corporate nature of the design team, both at WotC and Paizo, makes it pretty hard for us, as observers, to tell who wrote what rules nor what the author of those rules intended.
But for my money, they're guidelines. Rules aren't written with qualifiers like should, may, or might. Guidelines are. In fact, the 3.5 DMG, in a Behind the Curtain sidebar, describes them exactly as that: guidelines.
I also like to call them GM Tools, instead of guidelines.
WBL is like a hammer, gold like nails. If the campaign is a sturdy piece of furniture, the GM needn't reach for his hammer.
Yeah, but when the topic is 'what Sean intended when he wrote that rule', saying 'that's not what you intended' is kinda...you know...This is assuming we have any idea which rules SKR wrote. For example, in the ballyhooed guidelines vs rules nature of the WBL debate brought up above, the rules derive initially from the OGL which come from the DMG 3.0 which was attributed to Cook, Tweet, and Williams... not SKR. The corporate nature of the design team, both at WotC and Paizo, makes it pretty hard for us, as observers, to tell who wrote what rules nor what the author of those rules intended.
But for my money, they're guidelines. Rules aren't written with qualifiers like should, may, or might. Guidelines are. In fact, the 3.5 DMG, in a Behind the Curtain sidebar, describes them exactly as that: guidelines.
I also like to call them GM Tools, instead of guidelines.
WBL is like a hammer, gold like nails. If the campaign is a sturdy piece of furniture, the GM needn't reach for his hammer.
That wasn't actually my point when bringing up the old conversation. My point of reference was that SKR is probably a better judge of why certain text did or did not make it into the core book; however: that doesn't change the fact that we are allowed to play the game as best suits our own tables needs.
Me and my friends can play still play basketball at my house, even though we've changed a couple of the rules to better suit our needs. Our changes have no relevance to the intent of the people who make the official rules of professional basketball though.
Hmm, back to punishing player creativity.
There are two extreme sides to this: players trying to game the system, and GMs not thinking of something that the players did.
On the player side
1) As a player, I realize I can tie ropes to my weapons, and save myself a ton of money on weapon cords.
2) A player not checking the types of bonuses to various stats, and thinking there is an excellent combo that does not pan out.
On the GM side
1) Not realizing that an undercover BBEG would be revealed too early if players think to ask everyone questions with a Zone of Truth spell.
2) Trapping PCs in a stone prison cell, forgetting that it is possible to break walls/floor etc.
However there is a lot of middle ground in between.
1) Using Entangle with a potted plant.
2) Casting extended perpetual flame on a non-magic amulet.
Some things are simple rule abuses. Some are intent abuses. Some fall into the cracks of poorly worded, ambiguous, involved, or easily misunderstood phrasing in the rule-book. The trick is to discuss anything seen as "cheating" without the value judgments of the person, or their character.
|
We used chiseled stones as our character sheets and roll dice made of baked clay. :D
More like stuff like this
And this
And this
And this
And others too...
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I thought I was being clever and creative as a player last week when our 1st level party was facing a wererat and I used command, telling her "human." The DM rolled a 3 on the save, and the intent was clear enough that the command worked! The enemy turned human, her AC dropped, and her pesky DR vanished. The fighter and monk made quick work of her on their actions...
And then the DM pointed out that command hasn't worked that way since 2e. There's a finite list of commands, and unsurprisingly, human is not on that list.
Instead, the wererat fell to the ground, provoked attacks of opportunity standing, and died in a slightly different way.
I'm fine with command being a more defined spell, but I do miss the creative/wacky uses for it.