RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to GM/DM Questions and Advice

05:35, 29th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Flexibility in Applying the Rules.

Posted by AdvisorFor group 0
Ike
player, 10 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 04:50
  • msg #7

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

A Voice in the Dark:
They upheld that interpretation.


There's the problem. Along with, perhaps, the rule wording 'all their belongings are hidden'.

There are two factors here. Firstly the rule wording leads to misuse and misinterpretation (which is precisely the sort of thing I like to 'fix'). Better to say 'reasonable belongings are hidden'. Houserule #1.

Secondly, an unimaginative GM slavishly adhering to the letter of the law rather than creating a believable scene. The GM is there to adjudicate the rules in order to create a smooth game reality. She is not there to uphold the wording of the rules no matter if it creates a ridiculous situation.

The person who wrote that rule evidently intended that if a th-rogue hides, then anything in his pocketses, or his hands, is probably hidden too. The rule writer was almost certainly not picturing a train of possessions like Jacob Marley's chains, nor a th-rogue being able to disappear up his own apple.

Common sense is a GM's greatest tool for creating alternative reality.
pdboddy
player, 16 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 15:01
  • msg #8

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

Sadly, at times, I believe common sense has been buried out in a desert somewhere, next to common decency.
A Voice in the Dark
player, 11 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 18:00
  • msg #9

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

Too true. Common sense isn't.
KHB
player, 5 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 21:54
  • msg #10

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

   I guess when it comes to "Rules as written", or RAW ... I'll stick with them as is until something's proven to be broken, breaks the rule of "common sense" (Voice's suggestion), or someone comes to me with an explanation of how something might be changed to make it easier for me (as GM) to work with.

   I have a standard rule in both my TT games and here on RPoL that if someone is looking to interpret the rules differently - and we all know that there are people out there that do it, mostly for their own ends  - and will come to me with a change in a rule and I'm not sure whether to allow it or not. My thing is: I'll consider the change provided the player gives me a good and sound reason for it (following the above caveats) I'll generally take the time between games, or a handful of days if it is on RPoL, and come back with a decision on it, along with my reasoning for allowing/disallowing it. I believe that being a GM, you've got to have a dialogue with your players, or what's the point?

   As for common sense & common decency - they were buried in a shallow, unmarked grave in the desert, somewhere. No one's been able to find them since.  :)
tulgurth
player, 2 posts
GM of 30+ years
Player, add one more
Tue 14 Nov 2017
at 12:36
  • msg #11

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

It does not matter what style of GM'ing you use, RAW or heavily House Ruled.  As stated before, we are there to adjudicate the rules that are being used.  I am a firm believer that once a ruling has been made it stands, even if it throws things out of whack temporarily.  A good GM can recover from that easily.  If a player has a problem with a ruling, be it F2F or PbP, that issue should be raised in private and discussed in private after the gaming session, if a F2F game.  For a PbP, the objection should be raised in a separate thread and discussed there between the GM and the player, but available for all to see.  Only after a reasonable decision has been made, should it go up for others to join in.  But the decision should be final.  This will derail the "What if...?" debates.

As GM's our rulings should be final.  Yes I sound like a control freak, actually I am and that is why I love to GM, but that is another discussion.  As the Referees of our games, if we let the players make all the ruling decisions, our games would break down into total chaos at some point in time and the fun factor will go out the window.  A good analogy would be Parents of young children.  We want them to grow and be independent, so we start them at an early age of teaching them independence and let them learn from their mistakes.  But that does not mean we let them play with matches while sitting in a pool of gasoline.  Hell, we don't even let them sit in the pool of gasoline to start with.  As parents we have to tell our children "NO" and they just have to accept the fact and reason of "Because I said so".  However, as GM's, once we make that decision or ruling, we have to stick to it as well.  We can not change it at a later date or our credibility as a GM goes out the same window as the fun factor.
Advisor
GM, 33 posts
Tue 14 Nov 2017
at 18:49
  • msg #12

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

I'm sorry tulgurth I don't agree with that (well more to do with the attitude but allow me to explain).

With rules problems absolutely I advocate a speedy resolution, whether a player can quote a rules source right away that fixes the issue or the GM says 'this is how we're doing it' then great, that's how you're doing it. And as you said a discussion should definitely take place in a manner which does not disrupt the flow of the game.

However, as the GM I disagree with this 'because I said so' mentality. Once the discussion happens, the decision you come to should be one that everyone is happy with (or failing that the one that makes the least people the least unhappy) basically a utilitarian approach. Though this does assume you have reasonable players, I'd like assume that until proven wrong. But more importantly, you need to be able to justify the reason you made that decision, otherwise players who disagree will feel stiffed and the GM's just throwing their power around because they can. It doesn't have to be a great reason, just as long as it's a good enough reason.

Also the 'sticking to your decisions and rulings' has something of a double edged meaning which I feel must be clarified. What I believe you are saying is we need consistency and if you make a ruling as a GM and it's one that was satisfactory (at least one that you properly discussed) then you should stick to it if it comes up again, I agree with that.

But I disagree with the idea of not being able to change it later. Just because you're a GM you're still human, you're not infallible. If you make a decision, even if the other players agree and think it's ok for now, but later on down the line you reconsider; there's nothing wrong with saying: Hey guys, you know how I said x? Well I've been thinking the impact that decision is having and I think it would be better if we did y instead, thoughts?

I have seen and heard numerous examples where this has applied. A DM makes a judgement call which at the time seemed sensible but an errata came out later that clarified it or just a fresh perspective based on experience or a third party looking in has made people rethink their rulings. Not to mention the situations where GMs give out really cool loot and rewards and then realise they need to reign those things in lest the players go gleefully rampaging through the world on a power trip or something like that.

Because of all this GMs have a careful balancing act to play between knowing when to be firm and when to be flexible. Afterall you always need to remember: what's a GM without players who are having fun?
A Voice in the Dark
player, 12 posts
Tue 14 Nov 2017
at 19:05
  • msg #13

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

quote:
However, as GM's, once we make that decision or ruling, we have to stick to it as well.  We can not change it at a later date or our credibility as a GM goes out the same window as the fun factor.


quote:
However, as the GM I disagree with this 'because I said so' mentality.


I agree in general, but there are times when you need to change your ruling, such as they can't teleport because the dungeon they are in is specifically isolated from relocation magic. But the players are not aware of it. Then the better response would be "Because of reasons you are not aware of."
Advisor
GM, 34 posts
Tue 14 Nov 2017
at 20:22
  • msg #14

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

That is an in game reason though remember, which is a different situation. In that case you know what the reason something can't happen is, the players and/or their characters just don't yet.
Hemophage
player, 4 posts
Tue 14 Nov 2017
at 21:09
  • msg #15

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

Whenever a problem with a rule occurs (in my experience)  I present my problem and ask for input.  I try to listen as objectively as possible and present my reasons logically and without judgement.  If an understanding/compromise cannot be reached, then ultimately i will go with "This is my ruling, i dont agree with your interpretation of the rules."  However i try to make this a last possible resort.  I know how it feels when you feel like a gm's ruling makes no sense and they have no good reason for their ruling especially when it isnt in your favor.  It builds resentment and problems.  However, if i find the gm is generally fair and receptive to my problems, then even if it doesnt go my way at least i feel like he gave me the opportunity to present my case and listened objectively.  This makes the medicine much easier to swallow.

So i try to approach any problem from the, what if i was this player perspective?  How would i want a gm to respond if i had this problem?  Is my ruling fair and impartial?
tulgurth
player, 3 posts
GM of 30+ years
Player, add one more
Wed 15 Nov 2017
at 12:39
  • msg #16

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

Advisor:
I'm sorry tulgurth I don't agree with that (well more to do with the attitude but allow me to explain).


Sorry for the delay in my reply, but my original post was made after work yesterday morning and then I had to work today.  yay real life !!

Advisor:
With rules problems absolutely I advocate a speedy resolution, whether a player can quote a rules source right away that fixes the issue or the GM says 'this is how we're doing it' then great, that's how you're doing it. And as you said a discussion should definitely take place in a manner which does not disrupt the flow of the game.




Advisor:
However, as the GM I disagree with this 'because I said so' mentality. Once the discussion happens, the decision you come to should be one that everyone is happy with (or failing that the one that makes the least people the least unhappy) basically a utilitarian approach. Though this does assume you have reasonable players, I'd like assume that until proven wrong. But more importantly, you need to be able to justify the reason you made that decision, otherwise players who disagree will feel stiffed and the GM's just throwing their power around because they can. It doesn't have to be a great reason, just as long as it's a good enough reason.


The statement 'because I said so' was directed at the analogy I used.  In F2F games I never discuss rules during the game.  I instruct my players to use a post-it note to bring it to my attention.  The ruling will still stand no matter what.  After the game, that player and I discuss their issue with the ruling or the rule until I understand where the player takes exception.  Before the next session starts, I lay out the ruling in question, what the issue was with the ruling and then I get their opinions on the ruling.  This is hashed out before the session starts and once finalized, that ruling stands for all future rulings pertaining to that rule.  If it is found later that the solution we decided upon does not work at a later date, we will re-discuss the ruling as above.  Even though in F2F games this does slow down the game, it does not interrupt its flow.

I used the same process during the one game I ran here on RPOL.  And that allowed for plenty of those situations as the Game was still in Beta testing and we were play-testing the rules.

Advisor:
Also the 'sticking to your decisions and rulings' has something of a double edged meaning which I feel must be clarified. What I believe you are saying is we need consistency and if you make a ruling as a GM and it's one that was satisfactory (at least one that you properly discussed) then you should stick to it if it comes up again, I agree with that.


That was exactly my meaning, and for the next quote, read above for how I handle rulings that seem out of whack.

Advisor:
But I disagree with the idea of not being able to change it later. Just because you're a GM you're still human, you're not infallible. If you make a decision, even if the other players agree and think it's ok for now, but later on down the line you reconsider; there's nothing wrong with saying: Hey guys, you know how I said x? Well I've been thinking the impact that decision is having and I think it would be better if we did y instead, thoughts?



Advisor:
I have seen and heard numerous examples where this has applied. A DM makes a judgement call which at the time seemed sensible but an errata came out later that clarified it or just a fresh perspective based on experience or a third party looking in has made people rethink their rulings. Not to mention the situations where GMs give out really cool loot and rewards and then realize they need to reign those things in lest the players go gleefully rampaging through the world on a power trip or something like that.


As for the giving out really cool loot and having it return to bite me in the butt because the players go on a rampage.  Been there, done that.  Over the 30+ years I have learned when the players go on their rampage because a magical item makes them over-powered, then my encounters are powered towards their power.  I equalize things, not strip players of items given to them.  In my eyes that is never right.

Thankfully, my chosen system allows for a reduction in magical items, by making them more rare finds, while still being able to hand out bonus items.  Certain crafting materials bestow bonuses because of the material that range from a +5 to +35 bonus (d100 base).  Even though the items have bonuses, they do not possess magical powers.  But this also allows the possessor of said item to have magics placed within the item.  Provided they have the patience, the money and can find someone who can do the magics.

Advisor:
Because of all this GMs have a careful balancing act to play between knowing when to be firm and when to be flexible. Afterall you always need to remember: what's a GM without players who are having fun?


You are right, we do have a balancing act ahead of us as the GM.  If we can maintain the balance, the game will be fun for all involved.

I hope this helped clarify my previous post and thoughts.
Centauri
player, 3 posts
Fri 19 Jan 2018
at 16:46
  • msg #17

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

I like to stick with rules. Partly that's because I'm not a game designer and I don't like to imagine I know better. Partly it's because I have what might be excessive faith in game designers. Partly it's because I like finding creative ways for the rules to make sense.

A Voice in the Dark:
I also didn't allow Improved Evasion/ Evasion to work when the thief rogue was at the center of a fireball, with absolutely nowhere to hide. Rare situation I know, but they did happen on occasion. (Note I did allow the normal save, and only because they were the thief Rogue).

Good case in point. I used to see it this way. Heck, I had trouble seeing why even a normal saving throw should decrease the damage. It's a ball of fire, right?

Well, then I got to thinking that instead of the rules conflicting with what I imagined was going on, I should let the rules inform what's going on. If I take it as true that a saving throw based on one's reflexes or some other trait can reduce the damage from a fireball and that certain people can avoid damage entirely, then something is going on other than one of those big, orange action-movie explosions. Heck, since the rules make no mention of a blast wave or catching anything on fire, I already shouldn't have been thinking of it like that.

(Or, by that same token, "damage" doesn't mean what I had been taking it to mean.  But let's deal with one thing at a time.)

So, whatever the spell was, it was something that was, to some degree, avoidable, even without cover, even if one were standing in the middle of it. What does that thing look like? Well, I don't necessarily know and I don't necessarily need to know what it looks like or any of its other properties. What I can do, what everyone at the table can do, is know the rules of it, and not interpret it in ways that run counter to those rules. Anyone who chooses to do so is inviting conflict between their personal interpretation and how the rules work.

I could go on, and I'm happy to discuss what I mean further, but I wanted to make another point.

I realized at one point that the rules are not the laws of physics of the game world. If you're familiar with the 4th Edition of D&D, that's the game that made me realize this, by presenting multiple ways of handling things. For instance, there were multiple ways to handle monsters: regular monsters, minions (who did static amounts of damage, were dropped by a single hit, and were never affected by a "miss), and by skill challenges.

This blew my mind, and I saw that I could extend this to other aspects of the game. A party sneaking through a castle didn't necessarily have to roll to hit and see how much damage they did when taking out a guard from behind. Sure, there are rules for gaining surprise (higher chance to hit), and for assassinating people (sneak attack, coup de grace and like abilities) and for "unimportant" enemies to get dropped quickly (the aforementioned minion rules), but none of those exactly simulate the situation we've all seen of an infiltrator sneaking up on a guard and taking them out. So - I realized - if I want someone to sneak up on a guard and take them out, and I feel the conditions for that have been met, then it happens, possibly without a roll to hit, or a roll for damage or other things that the rules make available.

At the same time, I completely understand just wanting to see what the rules allow, and based on my example with the fireball I could also look at it from the perspective of interpretation. But whereas the issue the fireball is (as I see it) one of mapping a specific event to a collection of rules, the issue with taking out a guard is one of having rules that don't adequately simulate a specific event.

Which is fine. I've come to realize that rulesystems, even general ones, are designed on certain assumptions about what the game will involve. Dungeons & Dragons, for instance, is best at simulating games in which characters are in close underground quarters, engaged in combat and exploration. Rules for many, many more situations have been devised, but when those rules are put on top of the initial dungeon-exploration rules (rather than, say, being an entirely new set of rules, for, say mass combat), cracks start to show. The rules are a model, and models make compromises and assumptions that make them work less well for certain purposes.

My usual disclaimer: none of this is the last work, I just wanted to offer some other perspectives. I welcome questions and comments. This stuff fascinates me.
Ike
player, 36 posts
Sat 20 Jan 2018
at 04:52
  • msg #18

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

Hmm. Very occasionally, as Prof. Einstein would attest, you can stick to a model and use it to gain a better understanding of reality, and when that happens, it can literally be a eureka moment. But most of the time, it's just an imperfect model which, when compared with reality and found lacking, should be adjusted.

Sure, take a look at the situation and try to interpret the rules in a way that works, but don't try to hammer a round peg into a square hole. If the rules are broken, fix them. Or, if you can't fix them yourself, ask for the advice of someone who can (just like taking your vehicles/appliances for repair when they're broken - we have a very good workshop right here).

I don't share your faith in the perfection of game designers. They make mistakes just like the rest of us, and if we find a mistake, we should fix it.

I do, however, share your disclaimer - this is my opinion and not everyone will agree with it. This is why different players get along with different GMs. There's no right or wrong, the bottom line is to have fun.
Centauri
player, 6 posts
Sun 21 Jan 2018
at 04:09
  • msg #19

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

Ike:
Hmm. Very occasionally, as Prof. Einstein would attest, you can stick to a model and use it to gain a better understanding of reality, and when that happens, it can literally be a eureka moment. But most of the time, it's just an imperfect model which, when compared with reality and found lacking, should be adjusted.

The difference is that he would be dealing with models intended to explore real-world phenomena, whereas most game rules don't have that as a primary goal. Ultimately, game rules tend to model fictional concepts, with a focus on interesting outcomes. The rules that model a fireball don't model a real fireball, because there's no such thing, but even when rules cover things like guns or vehicles, physics tends to take a backseat.

Ike:
Sure, take a look at the situation and try to interpret the rules in a way that works, but don't try to hammer a round peg into a square hole. If the rules are broken, fix them. Or, if you can't fix them yourself, ask for the advice of someone who can (just like taking your vehicles/appliances for repair when they're broken - we have a very good workshop right here).

To what does your analogy refer? What I mean about reimagining a fireball is about looking to what (little) the rules say about what a fireball is, and imagining that, rather than something else that would clash with those rules. I'm not hammering a round peg into a square hole, I'm trying to find the shape of the hole and find a peg that fits it. Almost anything can be on the other end of that peg, except where there are other holes into which it needs to fit, but there might not be many or any of those.

None of this means that one shouldn't fix rules. I'm just pointing out that sometimes it's not the rules causing the problem.

Ike:
I don't share your faith in the perfection of game designers. They make mistakes just like the rest of us, and if we find a mistake, we should fix it.

My faith in designers should not be overstated, considering that I did mention that it's probably excessive.

Ike:
I do, however, share your disclaimer - this is my opinion and not everyone will agree with it. This is why different players get along with different GMs. There's no right or wrong, the bottom line is to have fun.

True. I'm not here to give advice to people who aren't asking for it. If someone isn't having fun, that's when I hope they'll come across my advice.
Ike
player, 38 posts
Sun 21 Jan 2018
at 07:23
  • msg #20

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

Centauri:
The difference is that he would be dealing with models intended to explore real-world phenomena, whereas most game rules don't have that as a primary goal.


I disagree. As I stated somewhere upthread, the primary purpose of any rule set is to model the reality of the setting. What else would they be for?

This is not, of course, the same thing as 'real world reality', but the rules are nevertheless there to model the interactions between characters and their world.

The rules therefore have a direct analogy to the mathematical laws that we use to model our own reality - the Laws of Physics. They describe what is possible and what is not possible.

If the rules disagree with our understanding of the world (whichever world they model), then either the rules are in error, or our concept of the world is in error.

You suggest that there is no such thing as a fireball. Fireballs exist, of course, but there is no such thing as a magical fireball.

The question then arises whether this is a 'normal' fireball created by magical means, or whether it is a fireball with magical properties. In the first case, that thief is damaged and rules that let him ward off the fire are in error - they are at variance with our understanding of the way fire works. In the second case, who is to say? It would depend on the nature of the magic, and a valid interpretation would then be to accept the rules as a description of how the magical fire functions.

Personally, I go with what I see as the simplest option - normal fire ignited by magical means, and hence I determine that the rules need fixing, but if you and your players are happy with some form of magical fire described by a literal reading of the rules, that's your prerogative.

IMO, physics only takes a backseat in game rules because real physics requires complex mathematics, and  game rules have to be a simple, and imperfect, model.


Centauri:
To what does your analogy refer?


A 'normal' fireball has a specific 'shape' in our understanding. We know how fire works. If the rules don't fit that understanding of how fire works, another rule should be used, rather than trying to hammer home a rule that doesn't fit the game reality.

However, if the fireball has magical properties, as described by a literal translation of the rules, then you will, as you say, need to explore the 'shape' of this new phenomenon in the understanding of you and your players.

However, I would suggest to rookie GMs that this may open a can of worms that could cause you problems further down the line. If a wizard sets a barn ablaze, can a thief escape from it? What if the barn is set ablaze by fighter instead? What if a wizard and a fighter both simultaneously set the barn alight from opposite sides? When is fire 'real' and when is it 'magical'?

IMO, it's better to keep our common understanding of how fire works, and adjust the rules to conform to that, rather than trying to convince half a dozen players that magical fire should conform to a rule created by a game designer the morning after a late night... YMMV.

We evidently have different ideas about the pros and cons of rule flexibility, and we will have to agree to differ. However, it's good for interested parties to see the thinking behind our interpretations in a friendly debate such as this.
Advisor
GM, 44 posts
Sun 21 Jan 2018
at 08:56
  • msg #21

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

The problem with bringing 'common sense' into the mix is that it's a very slippery slope. A majority of these games are not simulationist experiences, their rules are not there to provide an accurate depiction of what would happen if x or y was to really be experienced. To attempt to make the rules fit what we would expect of reality to actually behave is a maddening process that will never end, therefore I personally do not adjust rules to make them more 'realistic'.

As for why you can make a save against a fireball exploding in your face, I can think of two excellent ways of why that saving throw lets you take half damage.
You duck and cover, the flames wash of your backpack, cloak and then onto your back rather than right into your face.
You have something you can hide behind even if you're in the origin square. Maybe you have a shield so you dont get directly hit by most of the fire, just what washes around the shield, or more gruesomely pull the corpse of that elf you just killed up to shield you.

Like has been previously said: rather than assuming the rules are wrong and try to fix them, try to think of ways why the rules can apply in those situations. If you have a think and you have no idea how that rule could ever make sense and everyone is at a loss AND, most importantly, it ruins your enjoyment of the game if that rule remains as it is, then sure go for it and change it.
Ike
player, 39 posts
Sun 21 Jan 2018
at 18:48
  • msg #22

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

My impression was that the incident in question was one where there was no logical rationale for reducing damage other than to assume that the fire worked somehow 'differently'. In that situation I was advocating a change of rule rather than a change of reality.

If there is a logical way the rule can work, such as a dive into a foxhole, a trusty backpack, or a shield, then there is no need to change anything. I think we're all in agreement on that.

Now, I think that even rules that claim to be non-simulationist are still there to create order and rationality in the game universe. It's the definition of a rule.
But maybe that's open to question, too?

In general, players and GMs will gather around the type of rules and the type of games they like. Sometimes, however, the game doesn't pan out the way we expect. On those occasions you have to decide what to do about it.

Centauri and I are offering different perspectives on how to deal with that. One way will work for one group, the other will work for another group. Whatever works for your group is the right choice.

If you want to bend the rules to better represent game reality, it's OK to do that. If you want to bend game reality around the rule book, that's OK too. Just so long as everyone is on the same page and has fun. That's always the bottom line.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:51, Sun 21 Jan 2018.
A Voice in the Dark
player, 28 posts
Sun 21 Jan 2018
at 20:39
  • msg #23

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

Wow. I was just providing an example of when a rule needed to be ignored due to common sense, and it's sparked a major debate. This is interesting.

As Ike said. I was using an example of when a saving throw being COMPLETELY avoided didn't make sense. I'm not talking about any time where there was a place for avoidance.
Centauri
player, 8 posts
Mon 22 Jan 2018
at 01:09
  • msg #24

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

Ike:
My impression was that the incident in question was one where there was no logical rationale for reducing damage other than to assume that the fire worked somehow 'differently'. In that situation I was advocating a change of rule rather than a change of reality.

I wasn't necessarily talking about fire working differently. That's only one way to play it, and it's one that's backed up by a lot of fictional portrayals. Fire frequently doesn't act on people in stories the way we'd think, based entirely how it's shown or described. The author or director wants a cool scene, not gruesome burns.

But it's not necessary to think of the fire differently. If one doesn't want to change the rules, one can instead think of the fireball spell itself differently. Thinking of it as, say, a grenade or a real-world explosive then one can potentially run afoul of nearly every aspect of the spell. And that spell isn't the only one likely to generate such issues.

Part of the problem is the name. If we look at the effects of the spell (e.g. acts at range; affects an area; does a relatively high amount of damage; deals "fire" damage but doesn't necessarily light anything on fire; causes no blast damage; targets can reduce their damage without taking any well-defined action; some targets can avoid the damage entirely - which isn't part of the spell just of a well-known special ability) then we could come up with a name and description that fit it better than "fireball" fits for some people. No rules would need to change at all.

Ike:
If there is a logical way the rule can work, such as a dive into a foxhole, a trusty backpack, or a shield, then there is no need to change anything. I think we're all in agreement on that.

I'm afraid I don't agree. The rules (that I know of) don't require anything like that for one's saving throw to succeed or for the class feature to work. It's possible that the designers didn't consider that things might come together unexpectedly to allow this situation to arise, but fireball is iconic enough and classes with that ability common enough that it seems like they deliberately intended it, so I don't really see it as something to correct.

Ike:
Now, I think that even rules that claim to be non-simulationist are still there to create order and rationality in the game universe. It's the definition of a rule.

But maybe that's open to question, too?

What's open to question is what that "order and rationality" look like. One way they might look is in a way completely different from one particular idea of what a "fireball" is and does. And overall, in a world with magic, "order and rationality" can look like almost anything.

Ike:
In general, players and GMs will gather around the type of rules and the type of games they like. Sometimes, however, the game doesn't pan out the way we expect. On those occasions you have to decide what to do about it.

One wonders why we aren't expecting the game to pan out in those ways. Granted, some games can have lots of very complicated interactions that go against the (sometimes more, sometimes less) clear intentions of the designers. But usually it's not hard to get a general sense of what to expect. In some games, all fire-based effects are devastatingly damaging; in others, they can be dodged completely.

Ike:
If you want to bend the rules to better represent game reality, it's OK to do that. If you want to bend game reality around the rule book, that's OK too. Just so long as everyone is on the same page and has fun. That's always the bottom line.

But what is "reality" in some of these cases? I'm afraid that I mostly hear appeals to "reality" when someone requires the game to go a certain way, such as when a player was expecting to vaporize and enemy with a powerful spell and instead did no damage to them at all. They get miffed and demand to know how that's possible. It's not a rules problem, more a problem with accepting the outcome as intended by the designers. "Reality" tends to be based more on what people enjoy, than what actually is real.

I call it "buy in." Really involved fans of, say, Star Trek can come up with reasons why anything anyone sees on the screen is 100% real, as shown. They can even explain away obvious flaws due to the limitations of special effects. They're bought in. Others laugh the concepts and visuals off as unrealistic. They're not bought in.

A Voice in the Dark:
Wow. I was just providing an example of when a rule needed to be ignored due to common sense, and it's sparked a major debate. This is interesting.

Issues focused around "common sense" are often like that, especially when fantasy worlds are also involved.

A Voice in the Dark:
As Ike said. I was using an example of when a saving throw being COMPLETELY avoided didn't make sense. I'm not talking about any time where there was a place for avoidance.

Avoiding fireball damage is only one of many, many things in the same game that don't make sense if one gives them the barest attention. At high enough levels in that game, plenty of events might pull away entirely from one's ability to describe them.

And, ultimately, it's not necessary to describe or even imagine the details to play and even enjoy the game. I don't know anything about swordfighting or lockpicking but I can understand the rules that let me engage in those things in the game. I could probably describe them a little, but my descriptions would be based almost entirely on what I've seen from movies and shows - which is likely the basis for many of the mechanics in the game anyway. But even if I can't describe it, I can still play.

It's probably possible to read into what I've written to come to the conclusion that I'm completely unreasonable, or worse. If anything causes you to see me that way, I hope you'll ask me about it, so I can clarify. I definitely understand preferences for realism and versimilitude and immersion. I know people fight hard to retain those and don't like it when they're challenged. Really, I'm not much different, I just arrive at realism by reimagining and overlooking things, rather than challenging them at their core mechanics.
Ike
player, 40 posts
Mon 22 Jan 2018
at 06:09
  • msg #25

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

The core of this debate is that different GMs and players have different ideas, particularly regarding flexibility in applying rules.

It seems unlikely that Centauri and I would be happy in each other’s games, for example. That doesn’t mean that either of us is doing it ‘wrong’, it just means that we have different ways of presenting a game setting and we have different ideas about how the rules should be used.

I would be one of those people who annoy Centauri by complaining when my ‘fireball’ does zero damage. I can’t accept that my fireball doesn’t work like a ball of fire, just because ‘the rules say so’. Likewise, I’m sure Centauri would ‘rules lawyer’ me every time I ignored or altered a rule that ‘didn’t make sense’ and perhaps he’d complain that there’s no point having a set of rules if you’re going to ignore them whenever you feel like it.
Whether this is a rules problem, or a problem accepting the intention of the game designer, is a moot point. The real problem is that not everyone involved is in agreement about how to address the matter.

If this happens to a new GM, and you’re faced with players who don’t like what you’re doing, it doesn’t mean you’re a ‘bad GM’, it just means that you’re not playing with the right team. Over time, you’ll find players who like the way you do things, and you’ll have plenty of fun. You don’t have to give up GMing and you don’t have to conform to someone else’s ideas. Over the years I’ve had a number of people tell me they stopped GMing because they thought they weren’t cut out for it following issues like this. They just hadn’t found their niche.

This is an aspect of Centauri’s ‘buy-in’. People who feel comfortable with ‘realism’ will find it much easier to buy in to a game with simulationist rules, and they will find it much harder to buy in to a game where the rules create ‘improbable’ situations. Likewise, people who have a more open attitude to fantasy will find it easier to accept wherever a rule/setting designer takes them, and will be frustrated by rules that constrain them to the laws of physics. There is no need to change your own preferences, just find a GM or group of players who think the same way you do, and have fun with them.

As Centauri says, ‘reality’ is what the GM, players, and game designers choose it to be. All you have to do is make sure you’re playing the right game with the right people. If you are, you’ll have fun. If you’re not, you’ll have frustration and arguments.

Choose your game wisely. :)

PS. And if you (GM or player) choose to leave a game because it isn't working for you, have the courtesy to let everyone know.
Centauri
player, 10 posts
Mon 22 Jan 2018
at 13:33
  • msg #26

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

In reply to Ike (msg # 25):

All very good points.

If I knew what the shared reality of the game was when I sat down, I could play in your game, because I could make choices for my character based on that, and not be unpleasantly surprised when someone at the table "fluff lawyered" me.

Games like Fate center very much around one's own interpretation of reality and around letting everyone at the table decide which parts of that reality matter for a given scene, so I'm not opposed to the idea in principle. I imagine some free-form games take the concept even further and, as it turns out, I tend not to play in those. Maybe I could, with the right group.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Centauri
player, 11 posts
Mon 22 Jan 2018
at 15:46
  • msg #27

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

And I don't want to obscure the fact that there's a range of more moderate positions. I think I'm actually in that range. I noted above that I've been shown by rulesets themselves that there is more than one way to simulate or otherwise handle something. Taking out a guard could be narrated, simplified, or played out using whatever standard attack and damage system a game offers. It could also be skipped over entirely. Which one I, as a GM, choose for a given situation depends on a number of factors.

And I should mention that it's not just mundane, easy-to-visualize, seen-it-on-TV-a-million-times melee combat that I might simplify. Magic, or thievery or diplomacy or anything else might be handled in a simple, non-rules-based way, or a more complicated rules-based way or in some way that's a middle-ground between the two.
Ike
player, 41 posts
Tue 23 Jan 2018
at 06:43
  • msg #28

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

In reply to Centauri (msg # 26):

Thank you.

There's a possibility I could play in one of your games, too. Provided the rule set in question was familiar to me and pretty cast-iron, so I wouldn't be surprised by any rule interpretations that I saw as counter-intuitive.

Hopefully our discussion has given others some food for thought. :)
Sightless314
player, 4 posts
Sun 22 Jan 2023
at 14:46
  • msg #29

Flexibility in Applying the Rules

In reply to Ike (msg # 4):


And here comes the list:
  1. If you change the rules, let me the player -- usually the case -- know ASAP. Particularly if this isn't something we've discussed as a group.
  2. Please give reasons why things are getting changed. It doesn't have to be a 'good reason', or a 'rational reason', but a reason would be nice.   Personally, I prefer more than, 'I just don't like X', but I can work with it.
  3. Does the rule change impact anything else? Has that been taken into account?


If the answers to all of this is yes, then we're good.
Storyteller
player, 35 posts
Sun 22 Jan 2023
at 16:58
  • msg #30

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

Sightless314:
Please give reasons why things are getting changed. It doesn't have to be a 'good reason', or a 'rational reason', but a reason would be nice.   Personally, I prefer more than, 'I just don't like X', but I can work with it.

I dont have a problem with 1 and 3, per se, but why 2? Given that you'll accept "I just don't like X," what does getting a reason matter?
This message was last edited by the player at 16:58, Sun 22 Jan 2023.
Sightless314
player, 5 posts
Sun 22 Jan 2023
at 17:44
  • msg #31

Re: Flexibility in Applying the Rules

Good question, rationale is great, because it allows me to understand the DM a little better.  If a DM switches all the prices to GP, increasing the price for some products, an explanation of why that was done would be nice, but isn’t as important as one.

Next, I’ve encountered games on RPOL, where only one of the items on this list,  was in play.  One is, to me, the most important.  Two has slightly more value, than three, because as a blind player I need to know some of the mind of my DM, because I usually have to ask more questions than a fully sighted player, sometimes.  I was recently band from a fifth edition D&D game, with no warning given, no reasons, nothing, when I explained to the DM, I was blind, during the joining process, which I always do, to try and establish best fit, further reinforcing the need to have an idea of my DM, his/ her patient level, and so on.   The mentioning of the blind element is to determine: does the DM want to have a blind player? Do they use a lot of images which would force him/ her to do a lot of explanation, etc. Usually this leads to a DM making an informed decision and him/ her saying no, if they don’t want me to join from the get go, which is fine.  Yes, this happened on a number of occasions here on RPOL, which I, and several visually impaired friends that are here don’t have a problem with.
Sign In