Rope trick

[Zore]

Because that's not RAW.

Its explicitly RAW. It may not be RAI or RAMS or whatever other acronyms people use to denote how they actually use the rules but strictly speaking something being 'hazardous' doesn't mean it does a thing. At all.

Now I agree that there may have been something that was implied here, or meant by the designers. But they never actually spelled it out or even implied it beyond a vague sort of sense of bag things. Other things described as hazardous in the book range from 1d4 non-lethal damage to instant death no save. So with that its almost impossible to determine what form this 'hazard' takes.

[Starbuck_II]

Um...I'm been DM for this group and a few others for over 15 years now. Not ONCE has anyone thrown dice, books, or anything other than high fives toward me. No one has yelled at me. Yes, they disagree, and we discuss. Then we solve the problem. That's what mature gaming is all about. We evolve together.

The funny thing is, I posited to my players this exact circumstance about 10 minutes ago. Their response? "Yeah, we don't expect you to baby us. It says in the spell that it is hazardous. If we don't pay attention, that's our bad."

So I'm not really worried. But thanks for the concern.

That is fine, but the difference is not everyone plays with same group.

[LibraryOgre]

Its explicitly RAW. It may not be RAI or RAMS or whatever other acronyms people use to denote how they actually use the rules but strictly speaking something being 'hazardous' doesn't mean it does a thing. At all.

Now I agree that there may have been something that was implied here, or meant by the designers. But they never actually spelled it out or even implied it beyond a vague sort of sense of bag things. Other things described as hazardous in the book range from 1d4 non-lethal damage to instant death no save. So with that its almost impossible to determine what form this 'hazard' takes.

That it is hazardous is RAW. In the absence of a game definition of "hazardous", we go back to the plain meaning of the word (i.e. "exhausted" is a game term, so we use the game definition of exhausted when the word is used). Hazardous means "involving or exposing one to risk." What that means in game terms is left up to a ruling by the DM.

Note that a ruling is distinct from a house rule. A house rule specifically changes something; a ruling clarifies something that is indistinct or not covered. What hazardous means, in context, is up to DM ruling.

[Malakar]

It's sometimes of value to analyze the rules under the assumption that the rules creators are incompetent boobs.

In this case:

2e: Bags of Holding and Rope tricks had an explicit explosion principle. Spelled out in the Bag of Holding description.

3e: The entire Rope Trick text section is a copy pasta of the old 2e one, including the ominous warning.

There is no explicit statement of any danger anywhere of any kind.

So... Hey, maybe they just copy pastaed a spell description. It happens.

And contrary to some people's claims the statement "It's sometimes hazardous to juggle daggers" does not mean "DM make up something violent and evil and completely unavoidable to punish your players, DO IT NOW!"

It doesn't mean anything with in the rules, and so if the DM makes up a new rule explicitly claiming a specific hazard, he is in fact houseruling.

[Optimystik]

That it is hazardous is RAW. In the absence of a game definition of "hazardous", we go back to the plain meaning of the word (i.e. "exhausted" is a game term, so we use the game definition of exhausted when the word is used). Hazardous means "involving or exposing one to risk." What that means in game terms is left up to a ruling by the DM.

Mark, for the last time, I am not disputing this.

Yes, DMs have to define what is not spelled out in the game rules. This blast of insight has shaken my world to it's roots! (No, not really.)

My problem is with DMs that do not share their definitions with their players until it is too late for the knowledge to matter.

If the player would have behaved differently knowing your houserules, they deserve to know them ahead of time. I've left the RAW part of this discussion behind long ago. Can't we all move past that yet? Do you see me waving over here?

[Lamech]

Its [without an "official errata rules change," the interaction does nothing?] explicitly RAW. lolwut? So whats RAW if someone is reincarnated as "other"? Do they come back as nothing? Just like "hazardous" means nothing happens. Neither are explicitly defined...

Clearly randomly killing the party is not a good thing, one should probably warn them ahead of time that something bad might happen.


I mean, the description of portable hole seems to use both terms synonymously:Bubbles is a cat. Bubbles is a mammal. Mammal=!cat. So non-dimensional and extra-dimensional are not necessarily the same thing. I guess the DM should define them. (And if they are the same he should definitely warn the party before someone takes a bag holding in.)

I personally would warn them and if they do it enough give them all some magic, incurable cancer.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

lolwut? So whats RAW if someone is reincarnated as "other"? Do they come back as nothing?
The term “other” has a far more specific and standard meaning than the term “hazardous.” Particularly in the case of a table of limited choices. Basic use of the English language indicates that the term “Other” that some, well, some other form not on the table should be used.

As has been pointed out many times above, the term “hazardous” carries with it no such inherent meaning. The term “hazardous” is inherently vague.

However the form is decided, as long as a reincarnated creature that got a result of “Other” does not come back as a creature listed on the table, it is purely RAW. However, no matter what happens when you put two extradimensional spaces inside each other, it is not RAW.


Bubbles is a cat. Bubbles is a mammal. Mammal=!cat. So non-dimensional and extra-dimensional are not necessarily the same thing. I guess the DM should define them.
Point. So one could be one kind of the other. But which is which?

Well, if that’s the case, the portable hole description seems to use extradimensional as the more specific term. So that would make extradimensional space a nondimensional space as well, but a nondimensional space is not necessarily extradimensional.

Oh, the fun of categorization.

[hr]
You know what I really think should make an explosion/rift/whatever?

Casting rope trick while inside a rope trick. :smalltongue:

[Riffington]

No, because the rules on flanking are spelled out (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#flanking) - i.e., not houserules.

"Here is what causes you to be flanked, and here is what happens to you when you are flanked." Done.
Your players just read some rules. The fighter spent years in intensive training.

You should absolutely tell your fighter if he's doing something stupid like generating an attack of opportunity or moving near a flank. He would be way more aware of such a situation than the player would, and also way more aware of such a situation than a wizard would be of some strange interdimensional interaction.

There is nothing special about a houserule vs a written rule. Characters should be assumed to be aware of things they'd be aware of. Whereas you should not assume that players know the rules. But if you were going to assume, the order of safe assumptions would be
1. Rules they've already demonstrated familiarity with.
2. Rules that pretty much everyone including the rulebook agrees on.
3. Rules you actively explained to them.
4. Standard houserules that you never bothered to mention due to their obviousness (such as a monk's proficiency with unarmed strike)
5. Confusing, obscure, or often-ignored rules from the books.
6. Unusual houserules that you never bothered to explain.

To the extent that something would be obvious to the character, is a higher number on this list, or would highly affect the character/plot, it should be considered more important to make sure the player understands what she's doing.

[Optimystik]

There is nothing special about a houserule vs a written rule.

Completely false. Written rules never vary from one DM to the next.


Characters should be assumed to be aware of things they'd be aware of. Whereas you should not assume that players know the rules.

You should especially not assume they know the ones you've made up on the spot, and kept to yourself.

[Riffington]

Completely false. Written rules never vary from one DM to the next.
Interpretations of them do, and so if you assume someone knows your interpretation (or this board's) you are often wrong.




You should especially not assume they know the ones you've made up on the spot, and kept to yourself.
Yeah, I put that number 6.

[Optimystik]

Interpretations of them do, and so if you assume someone knows your interpretation (or this board's) you are often wrong.

A given interpretation still has to fit the written rule, or else it becomes a houserule. Houserules do not have to fit any known wording at all, and therefore they cannot be assumed to be known by those who did not devise them.


Yeah, I put that number 6.

So we agree then?

[Riffington]

A given interpretation still has to fit the written rule, or else it becomes a houserule. Houserules do not have to fit any known wording at all, and therefore they cannot be assumed to be known by those who did not devise them.
Neither houserules or written rules can be assumed to be known by those who did not devise them (or even, as WotC has demonstrated, by those who did devise them) - except for certain ones. The houserule that drowning does not heal can be assumed to be known without being explained; so can many written rules. The houserule that halflings are 10' tall cannot be assumed to be known; neither can the complicated, obscure, or often-confused rules.




So we agree then?
I hope so.

[Optimystik]

Neither houserules or written rules can be assumed to be known by those who did not devise them (or even, as WotC has demonstrated, by those who did devise them) - except for certain ones. The houserule that drowning does not heal can be assumed to be known without being explained; so can many written rules. The houserule that halflings are 10' tall cannot be assumed to be known; neither can the complicated, obscure, or often-confused rules.

Not all written rules are open to interpretation - and even those that are, are still subject to common sense in actual play (using your "drowning to heal" example.)

Those can all be assumed.

A houserule needs follow no other train of logic besides the DM's own desires and/or vision of his world. The players cannot read his mind, therefore they are at a disadvantage.


I hope so.

It seems not yet.

[Riffington]

If a player looks like she doesn't understand a rule the way you do, you obviously can't assume she does. For instance, if her fighter provokes an attack of opportunity, you may easily suspect that she doesn't understand those rules. You should explain them, just as you would a houserule which she appears to be unaware of but which her character would be aware of.

[Optimystik]

If a player looks like she doesn't understand a rule the way you do, you obviously can't assume she does. For instance, if her fighter provokes an attack of opportunity, you may easily suspect that she doesn't understand those rules. You should explain them, just as you would a houserule which she appears to be unaware of but which her character would be aware of.

That is still a bad example. There are rules for Attacks of Opportunity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm), and many resources attempting to explain those rules. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041026a) The literature is out there to be read.

There is not one bit of literature on your definition of "hazardous" other than what you provide to the players - and the one official resource we do have even says you should [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a]ignore it![/URL]

So, again I ask you - how are your players supposed to know what happens between bags of holding and rope tricks in your campaign... unless you tell them?

[pingcode20]

Er, Optimystik? You put the AoO article instead of the Rope Trick article on your 'ignore it!' link. Sorry to be nitpicky.

[Riffington]

That is still a bad example. There are rules for Attacks of Opportunity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm), and many resources attempting to explain those rules. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041026a) The literature is out there to be read.

It's not a bad example. There's no reason to suppose your players read all that or understood it. If the character should know better than the player seems to, give her a hint. "Hey, you know that provokes, right?" If the character wouldn't know better (say, her BAB is 0), you don't necessarily need to mention it.




So, again I ask you - how are your players supposed to know what happens between bags of holding and rope tricks in your campaign... unless you tell them?
They wouldn't. If you think the character would know better, and the player
seems to be doing it anyway, mention it. If you don't think the character would know better (I have no idea how common bags of holding and weird dimensions are in your campaign), you don't necessarily need to mention it.

Additionally, many rules admit of multiple interpretations. Can you benefit from multiple defending weapons? Can a monk flurry in a grapple? Does precocious apprentice qualify for X? You cannot expect even experienced players to know the answers to these questions, and again: the decision to mention your ruling depends on whether it matters, whether the character would know, and how likely you think it is that the players happen to have the same interpretation as you do.

[Optimystik]

Er, Optimystik? You put the AoO article instead of the Rope Trick article on your 'ignore it!' link. Sorry to be nitpicky.

Thank you.


It's not a bad example. There's no reason to suppose your players read all that or understood it. If the character should know better than the player seems to, give her a hint. "Hey, you know that provokes, right?" If the character wouldn't know better (say, her BAB is 0), you don't necessarily need to mention it.

a) AoOs are a metagame abstraction used to approximate a real-time environment in a turn-based system. BAB has nothing to do with your character's knowledge of them, because nobody should know what an "Attack of Opportunity" is in-universe. (Or what BAB is, for that matter.)

b) Even allowing that there is some mystical BAB threshold that should yield insight to a character as to when he would be subject to an AoO, what would it be? 1? 5? 16?


They wouldn't. If you think the character would know better, and the player
seems to be doing it anyway, mention it. If you don't think the character would know better (I have no idea how common bags of holding and weird dimensions are in your campaign), you don't necessarily need to mention it.

Additionally, many rules admit of multiple interpretations. Can you benefit from multiple defending weapons? Can a monk flurry in a grapple? Does precocious apprentice qualify for X? You cannot expect even experienced players to know the answers to these questions, and again: the decision to mention your ruling depends on whether it matters, whether the character would know, and how likely you think it is that the players happen to have the same interpretation as you do.

*facepalm.*

"Class" is a metagame concept. "AoO" is a metagame concept. "Flurry" is a metagame concept. How would any character know about these things, so that you as DM could determine whether they are worthy of a warning or not?

[Riffington]

a) AoOs are a metagame abstraction used to approximate a real-time environment in a turn-based system. BAB has nothing to do with your character's knowledge of them, because nobody should know what an "Attack of Opportunity" is in-universe. (Or what BAB is, for that matter.)

Oh, come on.
The combat-experienced character should know that moving quickly near an enemy creates openings that a savvy foe can exploit; such a character would know not to create such openings. The player may talk in abstractions, but the character does not.

A combat experienced-character is one with a BAB of +1 of higher; this is the threshold at which basic tactics become evident so as to permit drawing while moving, learning weapon finesse, etc.




"Class" is a metagame concept. "AoO" is a metagame concept. "Flurry" is a metagame concept. How would any character know about these things, so that you as DM could determine whether they are worthy of a warning or not?
Again, the words may be metagame, but the concepts are not (except in the case of precocious apprentice). The ability of a monk to strike quickly may or may not translate into an improved ability to grapple. Whether monks are or are not better grapplers as a result may be evident to some characters (admittedly it's a soft call which ones. Maybe those with Improved Grapple and those with the Flurry of Blows ability? Maybe you can also mention it to any players who plan to use this tactic regardless of whether their character currently knows it? That also goes for precocious apprentice)

[Optimystik]

You are layering complexities onto the game that really aren't needed. Why sit down and determine exactly which rules should be known in-universe by certain characters based on their BAB, feat loadout, class levels, race, hair color, wardrobe choice, whether they stopped at the temple that morning... when you can just focus on telling the players only on the rules that you have created or modified?

"His character wouldn't know, so I won't tell him" may sound great to you on paper, but it isn't practical. How many ranks of Spellcraft does he need to be in the know? How many ranks of arcana? Or the Planes? Would a small amount of each be enough? Just one? It seems to me that the answer far too many DMs in this thread would settle on would be "one more than the wizard has, so that I can have my fun."

If your players are on board for that - great. Gotcha DMing works for some tables. But if all the people who have come in here to say how much they hate it haven't taught you caution, then nothing will.

[Riffington]

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't tell people - only that it's less important to. I don't know how you can accuse me of "gotcha DMing" when you're the one suggesting hitting a fighter with attacks of opportunity rather than warning him. Now, it's a matter of not stopping the game every time someone looks like they're going to make a mistake - only for the mistakes that are both relevant and out-of-character for the PC in question. The point is, you can't just lay out all the houserules at the beginning, and assume that all the players magically know the written rules and memorize your houserule list. Some do, but many do not. And the players who don't bother to memorize either (or both) lists shouldn't feel like they're being penalized. So explaining the rules is always going to have to be an ongoing process, or else you're excluding a large group of players. Now, in my playergroup at least, that would mean specifically excluding the women.

[Killer Angel]

That pretty much it. But also, as the DM, I have already decided what will happen when the situation is tested. Just because the spell doesn't specify, doesn't mean the player can't find out the answer without placing themselves in serious danger.

You are also right that there is a difference between being a player and being a character. The character should have advantages over the player. They should know things the player doesn't. Sometimes. But its up to the player to ask the questions about those differences. Otherwise, for me, it takes the mystery out of the game.

And this situation is a little unique, as the spell specifically warns the player of the problem without telling them the consequence. This doesn't happen alot in DnD. The way I see it, this spell is testing the player, not the character, because it is the player that will or will not choose to ignore the warning written in the spell.

I guess my major hangup with just TELLING my players what will happen is that it just isn't the same as experiencing it, and they will NEVER experience it if I tell them ahead of time the houserule. I like putting my players in unique situations to see how they react, and they enjoy being in unique situations.


Thanks for the explanation.


Maybe we just have a different style of playing than most. *shrugs*

Decisely is different from my DM's style, so I think we shall agree to disagree; if it works for your player, fine for you. If I were one of your players, maybe we would discuss too much, without having fun.
A style of play may be common or uncommon, but if all the players are fine with it, it's OK for the group.

[Optimystik]

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't tell people - only that it's less important to. I don't know how you can accuse me of "gotcha DMing" when you're the one suggesting hitting a fighter with attacks of opportunity rather than warning him.

What? Please show me where I suggested the DM should blindside fighters who don't know the AoO rules perfectly. That wasn't my point at all.
I said your example is bad because AoO rules are written and researchable. Your houserules on Rope Trick? Are not.
I personally think the DM should warn the players before they do anything overly foolish, even something as simple as "are you sure?" But if that something is related to his houserules, then as far as I'm concerned he absolutely has to. That's all I'm saying.


Now, it's a matter of not stopping the game every time someone looks like they're going to make a mistake - only for the mistakes that are both relevant and out-of-character for the PC in question.

A metagame concept cannot be "in-character."
My fighter does not know what his BAB is, beyond the most general sense of "I can fight better today than I could yesterday." (He might not even realize that.) He sure as hell does not know the BAB of his opponent.


The point is, you can't just lay out all the houserules at the beginning,

You can, actually, but I wasn't even saying you have to do that;


and assume that all the players magically know the written rules

The internet is magic? :smallconfused: It's been around for a while now, you know;


and memorize your houserule list.

Nobody has to memorize anything that can simply be looked up.


Some do, but many do not. And the players who don't bother to memorize either (or both) lists shouldn't feel like they're being penalized. So explaining the rules is always going to have to be an ongoing process, or else you're excluding a large group of players. Now, in my playergroup at least, that would mean specifically excluding the women.

I'm not even touching the gender comment.

You are caught in a false dilemma. The choice does not have to be "I need to codify all my houserules, issue pamphlets and have training sessions... or else leave my players totally in the dark and keep springing things on them they have no way to anticipate." There is a middle ground.

You can tell your players your houserules as they become relevant just fine - so long as you don't penalize them for not having known something they had no way of knowing. It's just plain decency. Is that really so onerous?

[Riffington]

What? Please show me where I suggested the DM should blindside fighters who don't know the AoO rules perfectly. That wasn't my point at all.
As requested:
Mauther: Is it the DM's responsibility to point out to the fighter that he's moving into a position to be flanked?

Optimystik: No, because the rules on flanking are spelled out - i.e., not houserules.

Perhaps I misunderstood or you miscommunicated - but the fact is, failure to tell the fighter's player something she would definitely notice (that she's moving into a flank) is way worse than failure to tell a wizard's player something she might not (that there is a complex theoretical interaction between multidimensional spaces)




A metagame concept cannot be "in-character."
But the thing it represents can.
A fighter may not know the number of his BAB, but he surely knows that he's a better fighter than he was a year ago despite being no stronger. Without giving numbers, you can give warriors a sense of one anothers' BAB based on their relative fighting skills. So yes, a fighter does know if he's moving into a flank or provoking an AOO or facing an opponent with a very different BAB from his.




You can, actually
I agree but my sentence continued past that.



The internet is magic? :smallconfused: It's been around for a while now, you know;
It's totally unreasonable to expect a player to have done extensive research for a game. If you happen to know your player has done so, that's a different story, of course.


I'm not even touching the gender comment.
You just did. I said that was the case among the people I've played with. Your group may have a different gender breakdown - but mine is 50/50 primarily because we don't play gotcha games with RAW.


You can tell your players your houserules as they become relevant just fine - so long as you don't penalize them for not having known something they had no way of knowing. It's just plain decency. Is that really so onerous?
I totally agree with this. I just think it applies equally to non-house rules.
There are some people who love to read up on rules. For those people, it's extra important to point out houserules. There are some people who've played before with you. For those people, it's extra important to point out rules that differ from last game (houserule or otherwise). There are some people who have common sense. For those people it's extra important to point out nonsensical rules (houserule or otherwise).

There are of course some rules that need not be explained beforehand. These include those that aren't worth the mental space, those that you want to be surprises to the players (and would be surprises to the characters), those that are responses to unique situations, etc.

[Tinydwarfman]

As requested:
Mauther: Is it the DM's responsibility to point out to the fighter that he's moving into a position to be flanked?

Optimystik: No, because the rules on flanking are spelled out - i.e., not houserules.

Perhaps I misunderstood or you miscommunicated - but the fact is, failure to tell the fighter's player something she would definitely notice (that she's moving into a flank) is way worse than failure to tell a wizard's player something she might not (that there is a complex theoretical interaction between multidimensional spaces)

I think you should definitely warn a new player who doesn't know the rules very well - for a few sessions. But they need to learn the rules themselves. You should not have to tell a fighter that he is going to be flanked every time he could be, just like you shouldn't have to tell a wizard that casing fireball uses a spell slot. Consider your houserules like teaching you players a new game. Inform them of the rules the first 3 or 4 times, but after that, let them stumble into traps. For both flanking and rope trick.

[Optimystik]

Perhaps I misunderstood or you miscommunicated -

Definitely the former. How is that "blindsiding?"
Of course it's not the DM's responsibility to communicate the written rules to his players. It's a nice thing to remind them of, but not required. That is why the flanking rules are in the PHB - it's the player's job to read them.

However, your houserules are not in the PHB. I'm not sure how many other ways I can type this before it sinks in. You. Houserules. No PHB. Houserules. You. No PHB.



It's totally unreasonable to expect a player to have done extensive research for a game. If you happen to know your player has done so, that's a different story, of course.


It's one book!

[LibraryOgre]

My problem is with DMs that do not share their definitions with their players until it is too late for the knowledge to matter.

If the player would have behaved differently knowing your houserules, they deserve to know them ahead of time. I've left the RAW part of this discussion behind long ago. Can't we all move past that yet? Do you see me waving over here?

As I have said before, "Did the player ask?" If the player asked, and the DM didn't tell him, that's a problem. In 3.x, that would be an Arcana or Spellcraft check; in AD&D, an Int check or Spellcraft check.

However, if the player did not ask, and did something specifically noted as hazardous anyway, the DM is under no obligation to say "Before you do that, I actually use the text of the spell", any more than he's under an obligation to inform people that setting off a fireball at their feet will damage them. That's not "GOTCHA DMing." Complaining that a DM actually uses the text of the spell, and doesn't hold your hand when you're about to do something that is spelled out as being hazardous is prima donna gaming.

[Optimystik]

The problem, Mark, is not "using the text of the spell." The problem is that you now have carte blanche to pull whatever consequence you want out of your posterior at the players, because the spell doesn't specify one, or even give an acceptable range.

I have no problem with you "using the text of the spell." I have a problem with you hiding your houserules until the opportune moment to spring them.

[Riffington]

Definitely the former. How is that "blindsiding?"
Of course it's not the DM's responsibility to communicate the written rules to his players. It's a nice thing to remind them of, but not required. That is why the flanking rules are in the PHB - it's the player's job to read them.

Then you are indeed blindsiding the player and playing Gotcha DMing, if they didn't know or understand the rules completely, and you punish them for a mistake their character wouldn't have made. This is more often true of flanking rules than of Rope Trick/Bag of Holding interactions.
Of course it is the DM's responsibility to make sure the players understand the rules (written or otherwise). She can delegate it to someone else, but she is ultimately the person responsible for translating between drama and numbers.



However, your houserules are not in the PHB. I'm not sure how many other ways I can type this before it sinks in. You. Houserules. No PHB. Houserules. You. No PHB.
This is only relevant to a small subset of players (those who understand the rules after reading the whole PHB). There are many ways that a player gains information about the rules: reading them, listening to summaries of the rules, playing different games and analogizing, using common sense, etc. Reading the rules is not somehow more special than those other methods of gaining information about the rules. It's obviously your favorite way to learn them, but your learning type is not the only learning type.

(though it's obviously not your only learning type. I don't know for sure why you decided to houserule "Have it generate enough air to last for at least the spell's duration," for instance)





It's one book!
It's 320 dense pages, full of numbers, tables, and phrases in which the change of a single word would completely change the rules' meaning. I've never met a single person who understood it simply by reading it without in-play examples. Not even the writers understand it.

Look, one of the best roleplayers in a game I recently played, who contributed greatly to everyone's enjoyment, never got the hang of the interaction between Divine Might, Smite, and Power Attack. She needed reminders about 1/3 of the time, even after dozens of sessions. If we lost patience with the math or penalized her for failure to notice attacks of opportunity, we would have lost out.

[Optimystik]

Then you are indeed blindsiding the player and playing Gotcha DMing, if they didn't know or understand the rules completely, and you punish them for a mistake their character wouldn't have made. This is more often true of flanking rules than of Rope Trick/Bag of Holding interactions.
Of course it is the DM's responsibility to make sure the players understand the rules (written or otherwise). She can delegate it to someone else, but she is ultimately the person responsible for translating between drama and numbers.

I'm not saying you absolutely can't warn your players if they violate the written rules; just that you should definitely do so if they violate your secret houserules.


This is only relevant to a small subset of players (those who understand the rules after reading the whole PHB). There are many ways that a player gains information about the rules: reading them, listening to summaries of the rules, playing different games and analogizing, using common sense, etc. Reading the rules is not somehow more special than those other methods of gaining information about the rules. It's obviously your favorite way to learn them, but your learning type is not the only learning type.

(though it's obviously not your only learning type. I don't know for sure why you decided to houserule "Have it generate enough air to last for at least the spell's duration," for instance)

All right; pray tell, which learning type would apply to telepathically extracting the DM's houserules from his head?


It's 320 dense pages, full of numbers, tables, and phrases in which the change of a single word would completely change the rules' meaning. I've never met a single person who understood it simply by reading it without in-play examples. Not even the writers understand it.

Look, one of the best roleplayers in a game I recently played, who contributed greatly to everyone's enjoyment, never got the hang of the interaction between Divine Might, Smite, and Power Attack. She needed reminders about 1/3 of the time, even after dozens of sessions. If we lost patience with the math or penalized her for failure to notice attacks of opportunity, we would have lost out.

Then your definition of "extensive research" differs too significantly from mine for us to have common ground.

[Riffington]

All right; pray tell, which learning type would apply to telepathically extracting the DM's houserules from his head?


You think it takes telepathy to know you shouldn't open a bag of holding in a rope trick?

[LibraryOgre]

The problem, Mark, is not "using the text of the spell." The problem is that you now have carte blanche to pull whatever consequence you want out of your posterior at the players, because the spell doesn't specify one, or even give an acceptable range.

I have no problem with you "using the text of the spell." I have a problem with you hiding your houserules until the opportune moment to spring them.

It is not hiding a ruling if you're not asked about it. If, at any point, the player asks about "Hey, what about this line in Rope Trick?", the DM should give a reasonable chance of knowing it (I'd say 17-22 on Arcana or Spellcraft; either 15 or 20 + spell level). But someone who doesn't ask about the actual text of the spell is choosing not to know.

[Optimystik]

It is not hiding a ruling if you're not asked about it. If, at any point, the player asks about "Hey, what about this line in Rope Trick?", the DM should give a reasonable chance of knowing it (I'd say 17-22 on Arcana or Spellcraft; either 15 or 20 + spell level). But someone who doesn't ask about the actual text of the spell is choosing not to know.

Or it didn't occur to them. That can happen, you know. Ignorance does not have to be a conscious choice.

Let me ask you something - if your players did not ask you, and you say "Aha!" and they ask you to let them undo the move, would you let them?


You think it takes telepathy to know you shouldn't open a bag of holding in a rope trick?

No, it takes telepathy to know what happens if you do in your game, without you telling me.

[Riffington]

No, it takes telepathy to know what happens if you do in your game, without you telling me.

Maybe so, but I am far more likely to use Mauther's excellent anecdote than to give my players a "house rule list" including the interactions between bags of holding and rope tricks.

[Tinydwarfman]

So, lets get this straight. Scenario: the party is trekking through the jungle, feels it wouldn't be safe to rest outside, and so I, the party sorcerer cast rope trick. (just happened recently actually) We all go inside, including our friend the rogue, who happens to be carrying a bag of holding. This is first time we have had both rope trick and a bag of holding.
All of a sudden, you (DM) say: "The rope trick implodes! You all die/go to astral plane."
We shout: "What?!? Why?"
You: "You brought a bag of holding inside a rope trick!"
Party: "But we didn't know/that's not what the rules say!"
You: "Duh, should be obvious."

Is that how you'd run it with people you hadn't played with before?


Maybe so, but I am far more likely to use Mauther's excellent anecdote than to give my players a "house rule list" including the interactions between bags of holding and rope tricks.
You don't have to tell them beforehand, just a warning at the time, or at least let them take back the action.

Also from the FAQ:

Will extradimensional items rupture a bag of holding? The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide says that a bag of holding placed within a portable hole tears a rift to the Astral Plane. Bag and hole alike are then sucked into the void and forever lost. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide also says that when a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane. The hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, destroying the portable hole and bag of holding in the process. However, the description for Heward's handy haversack makes no mention of any rifts or gates. This implies that only the combination of a bag of holding and portable hole forms a rift or gate. Thus, a bag of holding could be placed inside another bag of holding with no
unusual effects.

It's a general rule that you can't mix items containing nondimensional or extradimensional spaces (things that are bigger inside than out) with each other or with portable holes. Such combinations tend to strain the fabric of the cosmos. Putting one bag of holding within another is just like putting the bag into a portable hole. Items that function like bags of holding, such as Heward's handy haversacks, cause the same mishaps when mishandled.

Note you can freely go plane hopping with portable holes, bags of holding, and the like. Spells that produce their own extradimensional spaces, such as rope trick, pose no danger to occupants who may be using portable holes, bags of holding, and the like.

[LibraryOgre]

Or it didn't occur to them. That can happen, you know. Ignorance does not have to be a conscious choice.

Actually, yes it does. If they have read their spell description, and choose not to ask about the big flashing warning sign (especially since it's one that is in no other spell to my knowledge), then that's a pretty willful ignorance.



Let me ask you something - if your players did not ask you, and you say "Aha!" and they ask you to let them undo the move, would you let them?


Maybe. I might be willing to just take the campaign in a completely different direction. It goes from being "stop the badguy" to "get home in time to stop the badguy."

Can be fun. I'd be more likely to let them undo if the entire party wasn't effected.

[Optimystik]

Actually, yes it does. If they have read their spell description, and choose not to ask about the big flashing warning sign (especially since it's one that is in no other spell to my knowledge), then that's a pretty willful ignorance.

Even though WotC recommends that you ignore it?


Maybe. I might be willing to just take the campaign in a completely different direction. It goes from being "stop the badguy" to "get home in time to stop the badguy."

Ah, so you're using a badly worded throwaway line as an excuse to railroad your players.

If you want to detour your campaign, then just do it. It seems passive-aggressive to hide fiat behind a vague clause. "You brought this on yourselves" it says, yet you are the one at the helm.


Can be fun. I'd be more likely to let them undo if the entire party wasn't effected.

If your net didn't catch all of them, you mean.
And now you are not only creating rules, you are applying them inconsistently. So the "hazard" of a rope trick and an extradimensional space only comes into play if it can snare all the players at once? Does your dimensional rift patiently wait until everyone is up the rope?

[Zeful]

Even though WotC recommends that you ignore it?

Only one designer is advocating ignoring it. I recall there being no such position on the part of WotC.

[Optimystik]

Only one designer is advocating ignoring it. I recall there being no such position on the part of WotC.

1) That's still one more than the other side has.

2) Skip Williams has just a teensy bit more authority than simply being "one designer." One presumes they have him writing Rules of the Game for a reason.

[Amphetryon]

WotC also recommends, by their mere publication, taking more than 2 levels of Monk or 6 levels of Fighter. They do so more officially than Skip's singular statement, too.

[Optimystik]

WotC also recommends, by their mere publication, taking more than 2 levels of Monk or 6 levels of Fighter. They do so more officially than Skip's singular statement, too.

You're right! That must mean every suggestion found on WotC's site ever is completely useless. You have opened my eyes.

My bathwater is now baby-free. Thank you.

[Koury]

My bathwater is now baby-free. Thank you.

Wait, you're supposed to take that thing out? :smalleek:

[Tinydwarfman]

Only one designer is advocating ignoring it. I recall there being no such position on the part of WotC.

Actually, there was an article that said to ignore it, a cust serve e-mail that said to ignore it, and the FAQ said to ignore it. I think you'll have a hard time finding something that WotC is more coherent on.

[Optimystik]

Actually, there was an article that said to ignore it, a cust serve e-mail that said to ignore it, and the FAQ said to ignore it. I think you'll have a hard time finding something that WotC is more coherent on.

Your facts and research are not welcome here.

[Gan The Grey]

Optimystik, I'm going to apologize before I say this if it comes across as disrespectful or hurtful in anyway, but I've carefully read every single one of your responses and I'm beginning to notice something about your feelings on this subject. I ask that, should you respond to this observation, you do so with a level of open-mindedness that you have yet to demonstrate in this thread.

So far, your responses have gone almost immediately to the most extreme end of the spectrum. You have yet to concede one single point to any of the well-thought out, evenly delivered responses of your fellow posters. There is a level of annoyance, sarcasm, defensiveness, and general malign to your responses that drives me to believe that this discussion touches, in some obscure way, some sensitive subject for you. Even your name for our choices of DMing style, 'Gotcha', is disrespectful. It seems that no amount of explaining our logic to you will couch this subconscious need to combat it.

I might be way off here, but I don't think so. I'm wondering if maybe your initial experiences with gaming dealt with what you call a 'Gotcha' DM, or something similar pertaining to real life. Am I off-base here, or are you really just that opposed to not knowing every little thing that will happen before you make an in-game decision?


From Killer Angel: Decisely is different from my DM's style, so I think we shall agree to disagree; if it works for your player, fine for you. If I were one of your players, maybe we would discuss too much, without having fun.
A style of play may be common or uncommon, but if all the players are fine with it, it's OK for the group.

I think I've finally figured out EXACTLY what I want to say on this subject. I'm been reading about the whole AoO discussion, and it finally clicked.

Sometimes, the best way for players to learn something is to make mistakes and suffer the consequences.

On AoO, I NEVER remind my players that an action will earn them an AoO. I just let them do it, and they get attacked. Next time they do the same thing? They ALWAYS remember that last AoO, and are prepared for it. That memory is burned in their mind because of their failure to know the rules. As such, we rarely have to go to the books based on a rule question.

This carries over in a different way to the Rope Trick argument. I could tell them what interesting, bad thing would happen to them if they took a bag of holding into a rope trick, and they would probably remember it and never take a bag of holding into a rope trick. And that would be the end of it.

However, if they read the hazardous part, disregard it, and take a bag of holding into a rope trick while they are traveling through some dark forest, I can have some crzy explosion occur, depositing them completely disoriented on the forest floor, the contents of the bag of holding scattered about, wondering what the duce just happened to them. Above them, an Astral tear blinks in and out of existence before healing itself.

Yes, this is a houserule. Yes, it kinda sucks. No, it is not a TPK. But I'll tell you this: My players will have that memory burned in their mind for all time, and never again will they cast a rope trick without asking all travelers involved if they have an extradimensional space on them. That is, once they figured out what happened. Then they'll be like, 'Crap, the spell SAID is was hazardous. Maybe I should have thought to ask about that.'

Bad things happening make for interesting gaming. We just have to look at it from a mature standpoint and choose to enjoy the bumps just as much as the smooth parts of the road. Of course, the DM has to come from an equally mature standpoint.

[Koury]

Bad things happening make for interesting gaming. We just have to look at it from a mature standpoint and choose to enjoy the bumps just as much as the smooth parts of the road. Of course, the DM has to come from an equally mature standpoint.

Yes, I agree that bad things can and do equal fun. You can't save the world if its not in danger, as it were.

But the thing is, this spell is meant to allow your group to rest in relative safety (compared to sleeping in not-a-ropetrick). Being unable to do that because I have purchased arguably the most common magic item in the game (sans, perhaps, weapons), is silly and slightly frusterating. Especially because it has been suggested multiple times by the publisher of the game to just ignore that little note on that spell anyway.

[Optimystik]

Gan, if I am making few concessions, it is because you and those who argue with you are making it very hard for me to do so.

For instance, you claim to have "carefully read every single one of my responses"; a claim which I am about to refute.

You asked me:


Am I off-base here, or are you really just that opposed to not knowing every little thing that will happen before you make an in-game decision?

But if you had really read my posts as you claimed to have, you would know that I already addressed this several posts ago.


That's a strawman. You don't have to elaborate down to specifics, merely warn the players that you have a houserule in place where rope trick and storage is concerned, and let them take the risk if they choose.

I don't think it's reasonable of you to expect me to concede to an argument for which I've already raised a counterargument.

I can somewhat understand you singling me out since I've been one of the more vocal participants in the thread, but I ask that you leave my personal play experiences outside this argument. I don't see you asking posters that agree with my position, like Yuki_Akuma or PId6, to show you on the doll where the bad DM touched them when they were little, so please do not do the same for me. Nor have you called their arguments "extreme" or "malign," despite the fact that they are putting forth much the same positions as I am.

Now, I am going to repeat this again: Application of the AoO rules is an extremely bad analogue for application of Rope Trick houserules. This is due to two fundamental points:

1) AoO rules are spelled out - not just the rules themselves in the SRD, but numerous articles and community threads explaining those rules. Your houserules for Rope Trick have no such resource. The closest you have managed to come is a legacy blurb on the interaction between bags of holding and portable holes - and even the posters on your side are not agreeing on the houserule they would put in place for a rope trick/BoH scenario.

2) WotC has advised players to ignore the line in Rope Trick - thus your players have a perfectly good reason to assume you won't be invoking it, even if you did want to surprise them. That doesn't have to stop you from using it anyway, but it does place the burden of warning them that you are using it on your shoulders. If you don't (and don't allow them to take back the move that would have resulted in punishment) you have violated the reasonable person standard. A reasonable person would expect you to follow WotC's advice concerning a vague, poorly-defined and arbitrary clause in the line of a spell. Again, your players might be fine with that, but your table cannot speak for all tables any more than mine can.

Rebut these two points, and then you will have your concession - not before.

[Gan The Grey]

Yes, I agree that bad things can and do equal fun. You can't save the world if its not in danger, as it were.

But the thing is, this spell is meant to allow your group to rest in relative safety (compared to sleeping in not-a-ropetrick). Being unable to do that because I have purchased arguably the most common magic item in the game (sans, perhaps, weapons), is silly and slightly frusterating. Especially because it has been suggested multiple times by the publisher of the game to just ignore that little note on that spell anyway.

But, see, you are misinterpreting the problem. The problem is not that I've houseruled something based on what's written in the spell, the problem is one of three things:

A) You, as the player, have read and discounted the hazardous portion of the spell. Whatever happens at this point is your fault. Yes, I made the house rule, but it was you that walked into avalanche territory. Bad things sometimes happen to people who ignore the signs.

B) You, knowing that you or someone else in the party has an extradimensional space, have prepared Rope Trick. This, again, is your fault. You failed to understand your situation before making preparations.

C) You prepared Rope Trick ahead of time, and then you found a Bag of Holding as treasure. This is no one's fault. Unexpected things happen in life all the time. Are you going to blame the DM for creating interesting aspects of his world because of some freak occurance, or are you going to decide that things happen and try to make the best of a situation.

Finally, just because the game's publisher says something doesn't mean we as players have to jump. Especially when ignoring them could make the game more interesting.

I agree that is sucks when you can't use a spell because of a magic item, but it also sucks when you can't fireball an area because there are innocents in the way. Should we be equally upset because the fireball spell doesn't tell you that situations like that might come up? Maybe we should be more angry. At least Rope Trick has the decency to warn us. Besides, now that attentive players CAN'T cast what has been argued to be an overly useful spell (my description of Rope Trick after reading earlier portions of this thread), new situations arise that may not have otherwise been possible.

And I like that! :smallsmile:

[Koury]

But, see, you are misinterpreting the problem. The problem is not that I've houseruled something based on what's written in the spell, the problem is one of three things:

A) You, as the player, have read and discounted the hazardous portion of the spell. Whatever happens at this point is your fault. Yes, I made the house rule, but it was you that walked into avalanche territory. Bad things sometimes happen to people who ignore the signs.

B) You, knowing that you or someone else in the party has an extradimensional space, have prepared Rope Trick. This, again, is your fault. You failed to understand your situation before making preparations.

C) You prepared Rope Trick ahead of time, and then you found a Bag of Holding as treasure. This is no one's fault. Unexpected things happen in life all the time. Are you going to blame the DM for creating interesting aspects of his world because of some freak occurance, or are you going to decide that things happen and try to make the best of a situation.

Finally, just because the game's publisher says something doesn't mean we as players have to jump. Especially when ignoring them could make the game more interesting.

I agree that is sucks when you can't use a spell because of a magic item, but it also sucks when you can't fireball an area because there are innocents in the way. Should we be equally upset because the fireball spell doesn't tell you that situations like that might come up? Maybe we should be more angry. At least Rope Trick has the decency to warn us. Besides, now that attentive players CAN'T cast what has been argued to be an overly useful spell (my description of Rope Trick after reading earlier portions of this thread), new situations arise that may not have otherwise been possible.

And I like that! :smallsmile:

But I don't think any of those are the problem, really. The problem is, unless I'm told otherwise, I have reason to believe that I am safe bringing a BoH into my Rope Trick.

Now, I'm OK with that not being the case, but you do need to tell me. It can be as simple as "I'm enforcing that 'hazardous' clause in Rope Trick," as long as you tell me. Preferably, you tell me upon my gaining the spell or getting a BoH.

But hey, maybe it slips your mind until I climb into my Rope Trick with my new bag. OK, no problem. Remind me then and let me retake my last action. Isn't that everyone being reasonable? The spell runs how you like it, I deal with and/or avoid 'hazardous'-ness, we move on.

[Malakar]

A) You, as the player, have read and discounted the hazardous portion of the spell. Whatever happens at this point is your fault. Yes, I made the house rule, but it was you that walked into avalanche territory. Bad things sometimes happen to people who ignore the signs.

No. This is entirely false.

I read the spell saying "Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one."

Then I proceeded to search for any hazardous warnings. Hmm. It's hazardous to combine extradimensional spaces. But it's also hazardous to sleep in forests. Obviously sleeping in every forest is not going to 100% of the time be hazardous, but instead, it is a reference to the possibility that sometimes it will result in misfortune.

So then, knowing that some but not all extradimensional interaction result in unfortunate results, I carefully read the description of Bag of Holding, because I have a Bag of Holding, and I discover that according to the rules, bag of holding in Rope Trick is not one of the unfortunate occurrences.

At this point, the rules have very clearly shown that nothing bad will happen, and for me to assume that something bad would happen would be to ignore the rules.

I did not walk into avalanche territory, I specifically saw a mountain range, and looked it up in the travel agency handbook, and was told "Don't worry, know avalanches here."

[Optimystik]

But I don't think any of those are the problem, really. The problem is, unless I'm told otherwise, I have reason to believe that I am safe bringing a BoH into my Rope Trick.

Now, I'm OK with that not being the case, but you do need to tell me. It can be as simple as "I'm enforcing that 'hazardous' clause in Rope Trick," as long as you tell me. Preferably, you tell me upon my gaining the spell or getting a BoH.

But hey, maybe it slips your mind until I climb into my Rope Trick with my new bag. OK, no problem. Remind me then and let me retake my last action. Isn't that everyone being reasonable? The spell runs how you like it, I deal with and/or avoid 'hazardous'-ness, we move on.

Oh gods, no. Being reasonable to players? Madness!

[Gan The Grey]

Opti, I've sent you a message outlining the reasons for my previous post as I feel it probably belongs outside the scope of this discussion. As for the part that does belong:


Now, I am going to repeat this again: Application of the AoO rules is an extremely bad analogue for application of Rope Trick houserules. This is due to two fundamental points:

1) AoO rules are spelled out - not just the rules themselves in the SRD, but numerous articles and community threads explaining those rules. Your houserules for Rope Trick have no such resource. The closest you have managed to come is a legacy blurb on the interaction between bags of holding and portable holes - and even the posters on your side are not agreeing on the houserule they would put in place for a rope trick/BoH scenario.

2) WotC has advised players to ignore the line in Rope Trick - thus your players have a perfectly good reason to assume you won't be invoking it, even if you did want to surprise them. That doesn't have to stop you from using it anyway, but it does place the burden of warning them that you are using it on your shoulders. If you don't (and don't allow them to take back the move that would have resulted in punishment) you have violated the reasonable person standard. A reasonable person would expect you to follow WotC's advice concerning a vague, poorly-defined and arbitrary clause in the line of a spell. Again, your players might be fine with that, but your table cannot speak for all tables any more than mine can.

Rebut these two points, and then you will have your concession - not before.

First, and the whole reason for this discussion and to discuss your 1, is the line in Rope Trick about it being hazardous. This line is RAW. By RAW, taking extradimensional spaces into one another is hazardous. I think we can both agree that the PHB says this. Ignoring this is ignoring RAW, regardless of what comes next, and, just like ignoring the RAW of AoO's, bad things CAN happen when you ignore it. Just like when you threaten an AoO against someone you don't know has reach. Is it my fault that they failed to know that I had given a normal monster natural reach? Something that they could have known with a simple Knowledge roll? A roll THEY have to tell me they are performing?

Second, and to discuss your 2 point, No, WotC have NOT told players to ignore something in the PHB. They have warned those players with an internet connection that actively attempt to search for the answer to that question, something that I doubt many people have done. Some people only play with SRD, and the warning is printed in the SRD. I can't expect my players to know anything more than what is printed in the books they own. Thus, my players have NO good reason for ignoring that line, and I have no good reason to assume they SHOULD ignore it.

[Gan The Grey]

No. This is entirely false.

I read the spell saying "Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one."

Then I proceeded to search for any hazardous warnings. Hmm. It's hazardous to combine extradimensional spaces. But it's also hazardous to sleep in forests. Obviously sleeping in every forest is not going to 100% of the time be hazardous, but instead, it is a reference to the possibility that sometimes it will result in misfortune.

So then, knowing that some but not all extradimensional interaction result in unfortunate results, I carefully read the description of Bag of Holding, because I have a Bag of Holding, and I discover that according to the rules, bag of holding in Rope Trick is not one of the unfortunate occurrences.

At this point, the rules have very clearly shown that nothing bad will happen, and for me to assume that something bad would happen would be to ignore the rules.

I did not walk into avalanche territory, I specifically saw a mountain range, and looked it up in the travel agency handbook, and was told "Don't worry, know avalanches here."

If double post, sorry.

Actually, like any other ambiguous or unclear rule, a wise player would ask the DM for his ruling on the subject. Expecting something that isn't defined well to work a specific way without asking is just asking for something to blow up in your face. A DM, just like the PHB, is a rules source. If you fail to consult the DM on something you don't know or understand, that's your fault.

What you have done here is placate your own concerns by seeking a half answer. Now, if the DM DOES enforce the clause, you have a defense. Basically, by saying that the spell doesn't tell you what happens, you are displacing the guilt for your mistakes. Own up. If I just got done cooking pasta in a pan and its still hot and you reach for it without knowing, if I tell you to be careful, but you don't ask why, is it REALLY my fault you burnt yourself? I warned you! Why didn't you ask me WHY?

[Koury]

If I just got done cooking pasta in a pan and its still hot and you reach for it without knowing, if I tell you to be careful, but you don't ask why, is it REALLY my fault you burnt yourself? I warned you! Why didn't you ask me WHY?

You'd be kinda a jerk-y friend. :smallamused:

"Hey, be careful in the kitchen."
"Er... Ok?"
*reaches into the sink for a spoon to wash and touches hot pan*
"Ouch! I didn't expect that at all!"
"I told you to be careful."
"Yeah, thanks for that helpful, detailed warning."

Intended for humor, not anything else.

[Optimystik]

I'll try to tone down the sarcasm. It gets very difficult to stay objective when your posts are being singled out and those of the people who share your position are not.

Gan, we differ on a fundamental issue: I can't even consider the "hazardous" line to be RAW. Oh, It's written, sure, but there is no actual rule there. You need both components for something to be RAW, not just one. RAW = Rules As Written.

As far as I'm concerned, that line is flavor text.


First, and the whole reason for this discussion and to discuss your 1, is the line in Rope Trick about it being hazardous. This line is RAW. By RAW, taking extradimensional spaces into one another is hazardous. I think we can both agree that the PHB says this. Ignoring this is ignoring RAW, regardless of what comes next, and, just like ignoring the RAW of AoO's, bad things CAN happen when you ignore it. Just like when you threaten an AoO against someone you don't know has reach. Is it my fault that they failed to know that I had given a normal monster natural reach? Something that they could have known with a simple Knowledge roll? A roll THEY have to tell me they are performing?

Defining "hazardous" is as much a departure from RAW as ignoring it. AoOs are poor comparison here - you can follow the RAW of an AoO, but not that of a Rope Trick/Bag of Holding combo, because there isn't any.

The difference? A houserule to ignore that clause requires no explanation to your players at all.


Second, and to discuss your 2 point, No, WotC have NOT told players to ignore something in the PHB. They have warned those players with an internet connection that actively attempt to search for the answer to that question, something that I doubt many people have done. Some people only play with SRD, and the warning is printed in the SRD. I can't expect my players to know anything more than what is printed in the books they own. Thus, my players have NO good reason for ignoring that line, and I have no good reason to assume they SHOULD ignore it.

Even without access to WotC's words on the subject, your players have two very good reasons to dismiss that blurb.

1) As Koury said, Rope Tricks are meant to be safe havens. That is the entire point of their existence. Suddenly making them unsafe is not something a reasonable person would expect to happen. The article makes it clear that this is, in fact, the reason behind Skip's recommendation.

2) The line is vague and poorly-defined. No player can be faulted for expecting you to ignore it, just like they can't be faulted for expecting you not to enforce that monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes.

The fact that WotC themselves have sanctioned throwing it out is just icing on the cake.

But more to the point - I get that you want to spice up your campaign by making something interesting happen. There's nothing wrong with that. (See? Concession.) The thing is, you don't need to passive-aggressively hide behind a poorly-worded spell to do it. You're the DM - you're already making a houserule, just go full bore. If you really want your PCs touring the Astral Plane, or losing all their gear, or whatever, then you're going to make that happen whether they painstakingly remove all their magic bags or not.

[Gan The Grey]

You'd be kinda a jerk-y friend. :smallamused:

"Hey, be careful in the kitchen."
"Er... Ok?"
*reaches into the sink for a spoon to wash and touches hot pan*
"Ouch! I didn't expect that at all!"
"I told you to be careful."
"Yeah, thanks for that helpful, detailed warning."

Intended for humor, not anything else.

No, no. PERFECTLY delivered. I lol'd. Mostly because you are describing my roomate to-a-tee. Frustrating as hell sometimes, but it does make for some interesting circumstances. I get wary of some of the most innocuous things because of him.

"Hey, what's in the box?"
Looks over his shoulder briefly. "Don't." Before going back to Call of Duty.
I freeze, raise an eyebrow. "Uhhhh, why?"
Silence.
I pace around the box like its about to explode with spiders.
"Dude?"
Looks over his shoulder like he's seeing me for the first time. "What's up?"
"What's in the box?"
"Oh, just some plates." Goes back to his game.

Whut.


I'll try to tone down the sarcasm. It gets very difficult to stay objective when your posts are being singled out and those of the people who share your position are not.

I feel that. That's why I apologized from the get-go, though history tells me that, if you apologize before you kick someone in the nuts, they are *probably* still gonna be pissed lol. Sorry, I didn't know any other way to go about it.


Gan, we differ on a fundamental issue: I can't even consider the "hazardous" line to be RAW. Oh, It's written, sure, but there is no actual rule there. You need both components for something to be RAW, not just one. RAW = Rules As Written.

As far as I'm concerned, that line is flavor text.

Now, see, THAT I can get on board with. I just have a problem ignoring something because of ambiguity. Especially something that presents such a tantalizing opportunity for interesting gameplay.


Defining "hazardous" is as much a departure from RAW as ignoring it. AoOs are poor comparison here - you can follow the RAW of an AoO, but not that of a Rope Trick/Bag of Holding combo, because there isn't any.

The difference? A houserule to ignore that clause requires no explanation to your players at all.

I agree. Defining hazardous is outside of RAW. But, IMHO, ignoring the warning is ignoring a rule. You say it isn't, but I see it as saying that this is an element of the spell, defined or not. My REAL interest lies in teaching my players to be aware of things, to be aware of the warning and curious as to its meaning. Devil's in the details is all.


1) As Koury said, Rope Tricks are meant to be safe havens. That is the entire point of their existence. Suddenly making them unsafe is not something a reasonable person would expect to happen. The article makes it clear that this is, in fact, the reason behind Skip's recommendation.

Alright, check this. Nitroglycerin and Viagra. Two things that are specifically designed to help people. For Viagra's first few years on the market, there were a few things they warned you about, priapism for one. Clearly defined warning. However, they also said that taking Viagra can have adverse side effects, some that couldn't be predicted. Check with your doctor and all that if you are taking other medications.

Enter elderly people with heart problems on Nitroglycerin. Guy wants to boink his wife, takes a Viagra, gets overexcited during coitus (don't we all!), has some heart palpatations, pops a Nitro, ends up dead. Took 'em awhile to figure out what went wrong. Now that they know this, they warn people who take both. But before? Similar to Rope Trick.

Taking Viagra can have adverse side effects, undefined = Taking or creating an extradimensional space in another is hazardous.

Nitroglycerin = Bag of Holding

Doctor = DM

Dead old man = tear in Astral Plane/violent explosion/other less deadly effect


2) The line is vague and poorly-defined. No player can be faulted for expecting you to ignore it, just like they can't be faulted for expecting you not to enforce that monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes.

The fact that WotC themselves have sanctioned throwing it out is just icing on the cake.

I guess that's the difference in our line of thinking. I'm an enforcer of ignored warnings. You ignore poorly worded fluff. Right on.


But more to the point - I get that you want to spice up your campaign by making something interesting happen. There's nothing wrong with that. (See? Concession.) The thing is, you don't need to passive-aggressively hide behind a poorly-worded spell to do it. You're the DM - you're already making a houserule, just go full bore. If you really want your PCs touring the Astral Plane, or losing all their gear, or whatever, then you're going to make that happen whether they painstakingly remove all their magic bags or not.

But I don't railroad. I much prefer a sandbox campaign, and in a sandbox campaign, you as the DM need to build a fairly thoroughly constructed world for it to work, in order to give players choices in what they want to do. Yes, I know that it is up to me to place some of those choices in the world, like where the dungeons are and what they hold, but it is much more player-driven and interesting (for us) my way. I don't 'force' certain occurrences on them, I just place the chance for things to happen in the world for them to stumble over. It isn't about what I want, it's about them. And it doesn't bother me if their Rope Trick spell never blows up in their face.

Oh and +1 for well-written post. I can clearly see your stance on the subject now.

[Killer Angel]

Gan, I've understood your points. In a certain way, I appreciate 'em: after all, you're trying to stimulate positively your players.
This, however, made me think:


Second, and to discuss your 2 point, No, WotC have NOT told players to ignore something in the PHB. They have warned those players with an internet connection that actively attempt to search for the answer to that question, something that I doubt many people have done. Some people only play with SRD, and the warning is printed in the SRD. I can't expect my players to know anything more than what is printed in the books they own. Thus, my players have NO good reason for ignoring that line, and I have no good reason to assume they SHOULD ignore it.

If (after you declare that it was a bad idea not asking about the hazard) it happens a new players had read the Faq, and point out that he rightfully didn't expect nothing bad to happen, you'll turn back on your decision?

[Gan The Grey]

Gan, I've understood your points. In a certain way, I appreciate 'em: after all, you're trying to stimulate positively your players.
This, however, made me think:



If (after you declare that it was a bad idea not asking about the hazard) it happens a new players had read the Faq, and point out that he rightfully didn't expect nothing bad to happen, you'll turn back on your decision?

Excellent question. I hadn't thought of it.

I think it would really depend. Is the situation the fault of the new player? Was it he who cast the spell, knowing the question had been leveled at WotC and expecting everything to be hunky-dory? Or was the fault from a player who hadn't read it?

If it was the fault of the new player because he cast the spell, I would most likely bring the issue up for discussion and a vote, after I describe the consequences to them. My players often decide on things not in their favor in order to place themselves in varied situations. If, as a group, everyone decided that they would NOT like it to happen, I would probably go back to a moment right before the person holding the bag went inside and give my new player a heroic moment of "HOLY CRAP DON'T FREAKIN DO THAT CUZ!!!!"

However, if it WASN'T the new player's fault, I would probably let the consequences stand.

[Amphetryon]

If (after you declare that it was a bad idea not asking about the hazard) it happens a new players had read the Faq, and point out that he rightfully didn't expect nothing bad to happen, you'll turn back on your decision?I would be most likely to point out the oft-cited board phrase 'FAQ is not RAW!', personally.

[Killer Angel]

I would be most likely to point out the oft-cited board phrase 'FAQ is not RAW!', personally.

Oh, please... Gan's position on this is more flexible than your.
In this specific case, we'd have an ambiguous spell text, that says "it can be hazardous" (leaving to the DM what is hazardous), and the Faq explaining and specifying "Nothing happens if you combine Rope Trick and Bag of holding".
If you wanna give an interpretation of a uncertain effect, different from Faq, you're free to do it, but you cannot penalize the player, if he acted accordingly with the most official position we have at disposal.

[Amphetryon]

'Cannot' is a fairly strongly worded position for what a specific DM might choose to find appropriate for his campaign.

[Yuki Akuma]

Okay, should not.

[Amphetryon]

That gets into a pretty slippery slope about which FAQ rulings should and should not be followed as canon, given the previously stated board position that FAQ is not RAW, in my opinion.

Personally, I find it better and less daunting for any new player in my campaign to deal with these issues as they come up than, for instance, to hand them an annotated notebook of house rules and printout of the FAQ articles highlighting all the bits that may or may not be pertinent in my campaign.

Opinions vary.

[Killer Angel]

'Cannot' is a fairly strongly worded position for what a specific DM might choose to find appropriate for his campaign.

Of course a DM can do what he think it's the best for the campaign and the group, I'm not advocating this.
But if a rule is ambiguous or too vague, and the faq expain it, if you choose (legitimaly) to not follow the "official" interpretation, you should advise before your players and, if don't, at least you should give them the benefit, the first time the issue arise ("OK, the Faq says so, I'm not following their advice, now you get a free pass, but remember it for the next time")

[Gnaeus]

Alright, check this. Nitroglycerin and Viagra. Two things that are specifically designed to help people. For Viagra's first few years on the market, there were a few things they warned you about, priapism for one. Clearly defined warning. However, they also said that taking Viagra can have adverse side effects, some that couldn't be predicted. Check with your doctor and all that if you are taking other medications.

Enter elderly people with heart problems on Nitroglycerin. Guy wants to boink his wife, takes a Viagra, gets overexcited during coitus (don't we all!), has some heart palpatations, pops a Nitro, ends up dead. Took 'em awhile to figure out what went wrong. Now that they know this, they warn people who take both. But before? Similar to Rope Trick.

Taking Viagra can have adverse side effects, undefined = Taking or creating an extradimensional space in another is hazardous.

Nitroglycerin = Bag of Holding

Doctor = DM

Dead old man = tear in Astral Plane/violent explosion/other less deadly effect


I would spend some time examining and refining that argument before springing it on players.

1. Dead old man (DOM) probably did not have an intelligence higher than most Nobel winning scientists. His partner probably did not have wisdom far beyond the normal human range. He probably didn't have advanced training in biochemistry, whereas your Wizard is likely to have relevant knowledges.

2. What happened to DOM was hazardous, but was also unfair and not fun. Most players expect their game to be hazardous, but also fair and fun. If I go into "spooky woods", I expect to be challenged by monsters, not to be killed without save or more specific warning by a random falling tree.

[Starbuck_II]

Alright, check this. Nitroglycerin and Viagra. Two things that are specifically designed to help people. For Viagra's first few years on the market, there were a few things they warned you about, priapism for one. Clearly defined warning. However, they also said that taking Viagra can have adverse side effects, some that couldn't be predicted. .

Bad example. Viagra was invented for heart conditions not erectile issues. People just found it solves both (not made for it). So using it for wrong reasson makes it unsafe.

[Malakar]

Actually, like any other ambiguous or unclear rule, a wise player would ask the DM for his ruling on the subject. Expecting something that isn't defined well to work a specific way without asking is just asking for something to blow up in your face. A DM, just like the PHB, is a rules source. If you fail to consult the DM on something you don't know or understand, that's your fault.

What you have done here is placate your own concerns by seeking a half answer. Now, if the DM DOES enforce the clause, you have a defense. Basically, by saying that the spell doesn't tell you what happens, you are displacing the guilt for your mistakes. Own up. If I just got done cooking pasta in a pan and its still hot and you reach for it without knowing, if I tell you to be careful, but you don't ask why, is it REALLY my fault you burnt yourself? I warned you! Why didn't you ask me WHY?

But once again, you are completely wrong. The ruling is not ambiguous or unclear, it is crystal clear, some extradimensional interactions, but not others, produce unfortunate results. Bag of Holding in Rope Trick is not one of them.

It is well defined. I do know and understand that some interactions are produce unfortunate results, and others do not. And I know which ones do and do not by reading the item descriptions.

You are making up very bad analogies. Here is a good analogy.

There are two pans and a pot. Someone told me long ago "sometimes, hot pans can result in burns."

So I very carefully put on oven mitts and begin handling the pans to put them away, clean them, whatever.

Then a violent crazy man runs into the room with a flamethrower and lights me up.

It was not the pans that caused this problem. It was not me failing to be aware of the pans. It was a violent crazy man who really wanted to burn me so badly that he did so regardless of the fact that my actions would never ever ever ever result in being burned.

[LibraryOgre]

Even though WotC recommends that you ignore it?

One designer, who I have long considered to have a tenuous grasp of game systems (his tenure as the Sage is laughable) suggests that we ignore it, but not with enough force to remove it from the book, or include it in the official errata.


Ah, so you're using a badly worded throwaway line as an excuse to railroad your players.

If you want to detour your campaign, then just do it. It seems passive-aggressive to hide fiat behind a vague clause. "You brought this on yourselves" it says, yet you are the one at the helm.

No. I am inflicting upon them a hazard that they embraced without asking about. I don't spare them from traps if they fail to find them, and I don't pull punches because they don't ask what "hazardous" means in context.

Usually, I won't want to detour my campaign... I've worked hard on it. However, if the actions of the players detour the campaign... from opening a Rift to the Astral Plane to saying "Ahh, to Hell with it... we're going to Undermountain"... the campaign detours.

You may view this as passive-aggressive. I view this as "leaving choices in the hands of players."


If your net didn't catch all of them, you mean.
And now you are not only creating rules, you are applying them inconsistently. So the "hazard" of a rope trick and an extradimensional space only comes into play if it can snare all the players at once? Does your dimensional rift patiently wait until everyone is up the rope?

No, I am applying them with a very clear consistency: The game must go on. If I take half the party and throw them into the astral plane, the game doesn't go on smoothly... either I have to run two sessions, or half the group has to make new characters.

[LibraryOgre]

1) That's still one more than the other side has.

I'm a game designer. Been published, by multiple companies, for more than a decade, in addition to two decades as an amateur.

So, right now, the designer list is about even.

[Optimystik]

That gets into a pretty slippery slope about which FAQ rulings should and should not be followed as canon, given the previously stated board position that FAQ is not RAW, in my opinion.

"Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy for a reason.

Furthermore, of course FAQ is not RAW. In this instance, there is no RAW.


One designer, who I have long considered to have a tenuous grasp of game systems (his tenure as the Sage is laughable) suggests that we ignore it, but not with enough force to remove it from the book, or include it in the official errata.

So you're ignoring the FAQ and Custserv responses supporting him then? Or was Skip manning the e-mail/phones those days too?


You may view this as passive-aggressive. I view this as "leaving choices in the hands of players."

An unconscious choice is very much not in their hands.
Let me ask you this. If your players, upon finding out about your "detour," say "oh, then we didn't mean to do that" - would you allow them to take the move back? Or would you "leave the choice in the hands of your players" by not allowing them to choose at all?


No, I am applying them with a very clear consistency: The game must go on. If I take half the party and throw them into the astral plane, the game doesn't go on smoothly... either I have to run two sessions, or half the group has to make new characters.

That's a very good reason not to use the clause at all, is it not?


I'm a game designer. Been published, by multiple companies, for more than a decade, in addition to two decades as an amateur.

So, right now, the designer list is about even.

Great, show me where your name is in my PHB.

[Koury]

You may view this as passive-aggressive. I view this as "leaving choices in the hands of players."

See, for me personally, I dislike being punished for not knowing the rules. That's what it kinda feels like would be happening here, to me.

[LibraryOgre]

So you're ignoring the FAQ and Custserv responses supporting him then? Or was Skip manning the e-mail/phones those days too?

I don't know. However, these answers never got included in the rules, did they? They're house rules.


An unconscious choice is very much not in their hands.
Let me ask you this. If your players, upon finding out about your "detour," say "oh, then we didn't mean to do that" - would you allow them to take the move back? Or would you "leave the choice in the hands of your players" by not allowing them to choose at all?

They did what they did. One thing I have learned from RPGs is that actions have consequences... even actions done in ignorance (and, in some cases, willful ignorance). "Let the dice fall where they may", as they say.


That's a very good reason not to use the clause at all, is it not?

Sure... if you want to make actions not have consequences.




Great, show me where your name is in my PHB.

When you show me where the FAQ or Customer Service responses got incorporated into mine. Until then, you're standing on just as much validity... less, since I have an actual line in the official rules of the game to back me up.

[LibraryOgre]

See, for me personally, I dislike being punished for not knowing the rules. That's what it kinda feels like would be happening here, to me.

I can somewhat see that point of view, but I disagree with it. You are being "punished" (if a change in game setting is actually punishment) for failing to heed a warning sign in the spell description... or, if you heeded to, for failing to ask what it meant.

If you push into the section of the map that says "Here there be dragons", you can hardly get upset when there's wyverns.

[Amphetryon]

The RAW says 'hazardous', regardless of whether 'hazardous' is a technical game term*. You may choose to ignore it. It's there. You may choose to accept the FAQ. It's an option. It's not the RAW.

*D&D works with people accepting lots of things not being 'technical game terms.' 'Dead' is a notoriously humorous condition in D&D. 'Injured' isn't even a listed condition in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm), and yet we manage to describe injuries in combat with some regularity. At least, in the games I've seen. You're free to play without describing them, since they have no technical game definition. It might make a better game; I wouldn't know from my own experience.

[Optimystik]

BIG EDIT:

I don't see either side getting convinced by the other, so I'm going to take my leave.

[Koury]

I can somewhat see that point of view, but I disagree with it. You are being "punished" (if a change in game setting is actually punishment) for failing to heed a warning sign in the spell description... or, if you heeded to, for failing to ask what it meant.

If you push into the section of the map that says "Here there be dragons", you can hardly get upset when there's wyverns.

But "Here there be dragons" is very clear. I know that there be dragons here if I go there.

But the thing is, if I had asked and you'd have told me "Yeah, you could end up on the Astral Plane" then I'd assume my character knows that info as well. But since I forgot to ask/didn't notice/whatever, my character suddenly makes a potentially fatal mistake?

It certainly feels like being punished for not knowing. If you'd be willing to allow a mulligan just once, I'd consider it more than fair.

I think that just getting that one chance for a do-over is all anyone really has asked for.

[Gan The Grey]

BIG EDIT:

I don't see either side getting convinced by the other, so I'm going to take my leave.

I'm with you here buddy. I've got people picking apart my analogies now because they can't really think of another way to 'win'. If they would stop the argumentfest and just try a little empathy, they might understand them better.

Peace.

[LibraryOgre]

But "Here there be dragons" is very clear. I know that there be dragons here if I go there.

But did I mean "dragons" or did I mean "creatures with the type of dragons"? If you went dragon-hunting and found the place full of pseudodragons, it's not technically incorrect.


But the thing is, if I had asked and you'd have told me "Yeah, you could end up on the Astral Plane" then I'd assume my character knows that info as well. But since I forgot to ask/didn't notice/whatever, my character suddenly makes a potentially fatal mistake?

Your character also knows to check for traps; sometimes he doesn't. Your character knows to never trust an elf; sometimes he does. Your character knows to never cut a deal with a dragon; sometimes, he does.


It certainly feels like being punished for not knowing. If you'd be willing to allow a mulligan just once, I'd consider it more than fair.

In my view, the warning in the spell is your chance for a mulligan. If you don't heed the warning in the spell and say "Hey, what is this hazardous thing I am exposing myself to?", then you've stepped in it yourself. If you've not READ your spell, and thus don't know, you've stepped in it yourself.

Very new players are a different case, especially if we started above 1st level. But if you choose to charge blindly into danger because you didn't ask a question... that's a choice you made.

[Lycar]

People, it is quite simple really:

In absence of a clear and definite ruling, the DM decides.

The players have two choices:

A) Accept the ruling.

B) Find another DM.

That is the long and short of it.

Lycar

[Viskocity]

Sure... if you want to make actions not have consequences.



For the record, you are establishing that it is an intentional act of the DM to cause nothing to happen, correct? In this case, would it not be more accurate to say that for anything to happen, the DM must make a conscious choice for it to make it so?

Sure, you could use the random encounter tables to choose encounters, but at that point, you might as well be playing a video game. The DM is supposed to provide a narrative for the players to interact with. Therefore, it follows that they should make narrative choices which support an interesting game.

You seem to be of the opinion that a game should involve trial and error learning, regardless of the ramifications, for the sake of universal coherency. Optimystic seems to believe that players should be able to have a certain amount of insight into the way the game works based off of things that would have logically happened (in game) outside the campaign.

I believe that the disagreement lies outside the scope of RAW vs. RAI. It comes down to a fundamental difference in opinion over what the game is, including how much agency DMs and players have and how they should express it. I personally just hope that we can all agree that no matter which side the RAW supports, enjoyment should be of the foremost concern.

[Koury]

But did I mean "dragons" or did I mean "creatures with the type of dragons"? If you went dragon-hunting and found the place full of pseudodragons, it's not technically incorrect. But if I'm prepared for a bunch of Ancient Reds, I'm not in any trouble when a pseudodragon finds me. (Unless you advanced the crap outta it :smallbiggrin: )


Your character also knows to check for traps; sometimes he doesn't. Your character knows to never trust an elf; sometimes he does. Your character knows to never cut a deal with a dragon; sometimes, he does. Wait, if I'm the guy whos supposed to be looking for traps, I AM always looking for traps. I'm, at the very least, taking 10. As for the elf/dragon thing, thats not mechanical/rules based.


In my view, the warning in the spell is your chance for a mulligan. If you don't heed the warning in the spell and say "Hey, what is this hazardous thing I am exposing myself to?", then you've stepped in it yourself. If you've not READ your spell, and thus don't know, you've stepped in it yourself.

Very new players are a different case, especially if we started above 1st level. But if you choose to charge blindly into danger because you didn't ask a question... that's a choice you made. Whats the difference between being a new player and being a new player under you? If I've always played one way, and your way is different, then the rules are just as new for me, right?

[Zore]

People, it is quite simple really:

In absence of a clear and definite ruling, the DM decides.

The players have two choices:

A) Accept the ruling.

B) Find another DM.

That is the long and short of it.

Lycar

This is all true, but I believe the point of contention was more along the lines of what responsibility a DM had to inform their players before they took an action that would result in catastrophe.

[LibraryOgre]

But if I'm prepared for a bunch of Ancient Reds, I'm not in any trouble when a pseudodragon finds me. (Unless you advanced the crap outta it :smallbiggrin: )

You're ready for nigh-invisible tricksters? Muwha-ha-ha-ha!


Wait, if I'm the guy whos supposed to be looking for traps, I AM always looking for traps. I'm, at the very least, taking 10.

If you've told me you're doing so... but that's an act on your part. I'm not going to assume that you're always looking for traps, especially if you don't alter your speed to deal with it.


As for the elf/dragon thing, thats not mechanical/rules based.

Go read some Shadowrun novels. ;-) It's an old joke.


Whats the difference between being a new player and being a new player under you? If I've always played one way, and your way is different, then the rules are just as new for me, right?

A new player is assumed to not have familiarity with the rules. A person who has experience, but is new to playing under me, doesn't really have an excuse for taking things for granted, especially when the text of the spell says otherwise.

[Malakar]

I'm with you here buddy. I've got people picking apart my analogies now because they can't really think of another way to 'win'. If they would stop the argumentfest and just try a little empathy, they might understand them better.

Peace.

Wow, way to passively aggressively snipe, and still get it all wrong again.

Stop attacking the person and try the argument for once. Your analogies do not become correct because of some empathy, I have plenty of empathy, just not for jerk DMs who try to punish players for not asking about their houserules. This isn't about argumentfests and winning except that you resort to various fallacies in your attempt.

Stop attacking people because you have no argument.

[Zeful]

jerk DMs who try to punish players for not asking about their houserules.

What about jerk players who are used to one style of DMing and then whine when you are not playing in that style.

This argument goes both ways. If the DM is expected to define every poorly worded instance in the rules and inform the players of them before hand, then the players are expected to, at length, detail their expectations on everything (rules interpretations, houserules, variants (such as fractional Bab and PrCs) theme, genre, spell availability and guild associations, everything) before the game starts.

[Gan The Grey]

Wow, way to passively aggressively snipe, and still get it all wrong again.

Stop attacking the person and try the argument for once. Your analogies do not become correct because of some empathy, I have plenty of empathy, just not for jerk DMs who try to punish players for not asking about their houserules. This isn't about argumentfests and winning except that you resort to various fallacies in your attempt.

Stop attacking people because you have no argument.

Umm...welcome to the thread sir. Had you been paying attention the entire time, you would have seen that many of us have arguments, arguments that, until you had come along, we had come to an understand of each other. We've been 'trying the argument'. And my analogies ARE correct based on the way I see the problem. I am not WRONG because you see the problem differently.

Unfortunately for you, you seem to think that you are the only one around capable of understanding what we are talking about, and those of us supporting a particular position are incapable of forming a coherent argument, mostly because we don't know what we are doing and we're wrong.

Grow up. Yes, I called you out. Get over it. I understand that you have a certain position. Learn how to discuss it, because so far all you've succeeded in doing make yourself look like a pompous jerk. People who pick apart other people's analogies show both a lack of understanding of their position and an inability/unwillingness to argue the actual point at hand.

You wanna bring something to the argument? Read, understand my point, and counterargue. Screaming "you're wrong" all over the place when the discussion is about an opinion doesn't further anything but the inflation size of your own head.

Thank you for your time.

[Koury]

If the DM is expected to define every poorly worded instance in the rules and inform the players of them before hand, then the players are expected to, at length, detail their expectations on everything (rules interpretations, houserules, variants (such as fractional Bab and PrCs) theme, genre, spell availability and guild associations, everything) before the game starts.

Wait, you don't try to figure out what variants and houserules are in effect? I can understand spell availability if you're not a caster, I guess, but the rest of it you should be trying to figure out the moment you join a game, right?

[Zeful]

Wait, you don't try to figure out what variants and houserules are in effect? I can understand spell availability if you're not a caster, I guess, but the rest of it you should be trying to figure out the moment you join a game, right?

I do, but that's not what I'm saying.

The player in this instance is not asking what they are, they are instead, explaining to the DM the assumptions and expectations they hold for those things.

[Koury]

I do, but that's not what I'm saying.

The player in this instance is not asking what they are, they are instead, explaining to the DM the assumptions and expectations they hold for those things.

I'm sufficently lost, I think.

The player is telling the DM how to run the world? As in, "We're using these variants, these spells, etc"? Or is merely laying out what they'd like from the campaign?

I thought you meant the second one. Explaining what you'd like from the game is a good thing.

Also, excuse my lack of comprehension here, I'm 99% sure that what you meant is clear, I just haven't slept for quite a while.

[Malakar]

Unfortunately for you, you seem to think that you are the only one around capable of understanding what we are talking about, and those of us supporting a particular position are incapable of forming a coherent argument, mostly because we don't know what we are doing and we're wrong.

No, I think that some people have different good arguments, but that you personally refuse to deal with other people's arguments and instead decry my lack of empathy, or accuse Optimystik of having personal experiences color him with prejudice, or say "It's all opinions that are equally valid." or whatever else you can think of to avoid actually addressing arguments, because you have nothing other than bald false assertions and poor analogies that don't represent anything close to the situation.

This not anyone who disagrees with me. This is you and you specifically.


Learn how to discuss it, because so far all you've succeeded in doing make yourself look like a pompous jerk. People who pick apart other people's analogies show both a lack of understanding of their position and an inability/unwillingness to argue the actual point at hand.

No. What I've done is demonstrate that your analogies have nothing to do with the situation and presented a strong counterargument to the idea that the spell in any way justifies DM actions under the presumption that PCs should have just mind read the DM was going to houserule something.

Contrary to the beliefs of people who argue by analogy, the usual reason that people pick apart analogies is because the analogy fails to represent the situation at hand, and instead fundamentally misrepresents the case in a direction favorable to the person making the analogy.

It's not a lack of understanding of specifically how your analogy attempts to frame players who have scoured the rules and been careful to take precautions as ignorant clods who ignore good advice. It is precisely that understanding of your attempts to misrepresent that causes me to call out your poor analogies as they are.

It is not an unwillingness to argue the actual point that caused me to rip up your smoke screen, it was your unwillingness to argue the point that caused you to make an analogy so that you could argue an entirely different point that is only loosely related, and is specifically different in ways that are designed to make you appear correct where you are not.


You wanna bring something to the argument? Read, understand my point, and counterargue.

You want to bring something positive to the argument besides misrepresentations and evasions, stop trying to hide behind false analogies, and stop trying to weasel away from debate by whining about how other people's arguments aren't real arguments because... you don't like them. They are still real arguments, even if you wish they weren't.


What about jerk players who are used to one style of DMing and then whine when you are not playing in that style.

This argument goes both ways. If the DM is expected to define every poorly worded instance in the rules and inform the players of them before hand, then the players are expected to, at length, detail their expectations on everything (rules interpretations, houserules, variants (such as fractional Bab and PrCs) theme, genre, spell availability and guild associations, everything) before the game starts.

I'm going to start with a premise. This premise is that any time a Player is forced to get up and walk out of a game mid session, never to return, because of irreconcilable differences, that's a bad thing.

Now, in a hypothetical situation, involving a player who owns a Haversack and casts Rope Trick, lots of things can happen:

1) The Player can ask in advance about the spell vs Haversack. Or not.

2) Having not asked, the player can walk into a Rope Trick, and then the DM can make different rulings, like: a) Nothing happens, just like the book says and the PC expects. b) The universe implodes and kills the PC.

3) Having made a ruling, the DM can allow the fact that this ruling applies to the base rules that already exist, and is a houserule, completely and 100% without and justification in the rules the player could actually have been expected to know, can allow the player to perform different actions, or he can declare that the character dies from something the player had a 0% chance of knowing before hand because it exists no where in the rules.

The player can specifically ask about one specific houserule, true. But you know what, if I have a houserule that anyone who casts Color Spray instantly dies, I'm not going to expect that houserule to be expected. Maybe, Maybe, there is a place, like Gate or Wish, where a PC should be expected to expect houserules, but since DMs make up houserules for all kinds of things, it is generally not the Players responsibility to ask about specific houserules.

On the other hand, it is the DM's responsibility to notify people of changes, and more than that, to accommodate such situations. If the DM finds that he forgot to notify someone of something, he can always just admit to it and offer a mulligan.

So yes, there is no jerk player who's being a jerk when exposed to different DM styles. There is only a not jerk player who is calmly leaving the game when exposed to the DM dickery of making a houserule to kill the PCs, not informing them of this houserule, and the refusing to allow them to reset character actions/builds to accommodate the houserule.

[LibraryOgre]

Now, in a hypothetical situation, involving a player who owns a Haversack and casts Rope Trick, lots of things can happen:

1) The Player can ask in advance about the spell vs Haversack. Or not.

2) Having not asked, the player can walk into a Rope Trick, and then the DM can make different rulings, like: a) Nothing happens, just like the book says and the PC expects. b) The universe implodes and kills the PC.

3) Having made a ruling, the DM can allow the fact that this ruling applies to the base rules that already exist, and is a houserule, completely and 100% without and justification in the rules the player could actually have been expected to know, can allow the player to perform different actions, or he can declare that the character dies from something the player had a 0% chance of knowing before hand because it exists no where in the rules.

Your point two is fallacious, on several levels. First of all, the book does not say that nothing happens; it does not define what happens. Secondly, if the PC has read the spell, they should expect something to happen, as it does mention hazards involved; the player may have preconceived notions about what will or will not happen, but the PC should expect the possibility, given the clear warning in the text.

Lastly, you establish a false duality: either nothing happens, or the PCs are killed. This is quite clearly not the case; the DM may define "hazardous" as anything from "turned into a smurf and summons Azrael" to "implodes existence", or any number of other options. In many of these options, the PCs are not killed.

Your point three also contains an unwarranted assumption: That the player had no way of knowing that this would happen. This is patently false. He could have opened his mouth and said "What happens when you put a HHH in a rope trick?" That would be an opportunity for the player to know the rules. If he does not do this due to his own preconceived notions of how things "should" work, he is at fault for acting on his own prejudices, rather than the information at hand. While you present "ask about the word 'hazardous'" as a separate option, the fact remains that its existence AS an option negates your assertion that it is outside the rules the player is expected to know.

[Tinydwarfman]

Actually, isn't a bag of holding a non-dimensional space? So why does it have any interaction with a rope trick at all?

Relevant text (bag):

This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size. The bag of holding opens into a nondimensional space: Its inside is larger than its outside dimensions. Regardless of what is put into the bag, it weighs a fixed amount. This weight, and the limits in weight and volume of the bag’s contents, depend on the bag’s type, as shown on the table below.

Relevant text (rope trick)

Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.

Forgive me if this has already been brought up before, but I don't see why bringing a bag of holding into a rope trick is hazardous at all.

[LibraryOgre]

Forgive me if this has already been brought up before, but I don't see why bringing a bag of holding into a rope trick is hazardous at all.

You missed a bit of relevant text, from portable hole:


When spread upon any surface, it causes an extradimensional space 10 feet deep to come into being. ... Each portable hole opens on its own particular nondimensional space.

"Extradimensional" and "nondimensional" are used interchangeably; barring a specific definition of the two elsewhere, the bag of holding could equally be called extradimensional space.

[Tinydwarfman]

You missed a bit of relevant text, from portable hole:



"Extradimensional" and "nondimensional" are used interchangeably; barring a specific definition of the two elsewhere, the bag of holding could equally be called extradimensional space.

Actually, extradimensional means to be or travel outside of our plane. The term is used in many spells that involve planar travelling. A nondimensional space is a space without dimensions (size, weight, ect.). It still exists in our dimension though. A portable hole creates an extradimensional space that is also nondimensional. They are two completely different terms.

[Malakar]

Your point two is fallacious, on several levels. First of all, the book does not say that nothing happens; it does not define what happens. Secondly, if the PC has read the spell, they should expect something to happen, as it does mention hazards involved; the player may have preconceived notions about what will or will not happen, but the PC should expect the possibility, given the clear warning in the text.

Once again if the book doesn't say that something happens, then by definition nothings happens. Undefined is nothing. It also doesn't say that the player automatically levels, but yet, that's not a reasonable expectation either, because it doesn't say that they do level.

Secondly, if they had read the spell, they would have read that it may be hazardous. If they had read the DMG they would know that sleeping may be hazardous. Do you expect players to ask you about your houserules on what happens when people go to sleep? Do you think that people being sent to the astral is a reasonable assumption for something that occurs when players go to sleep? You are purposefully ignoring the crux of my argument.

X is hazardous means that some situations of X result in bad things, and many do not. So when you see something about how X may be hazardous, followed by a list of hazards, it is not incumbent on you to then ask the DM about what sort of houserules he makes regarding every single possible imaginable X that is not on that list.

The fact that X is hazardous, and then I name the hazards does not mean that I am warning you against Xs not on the list of hazards. It means very obviously that I am not.

It is technically a preconceived notion that haversacks in Rope Tricks don't implode the universe. It is also a preconceived notion that going to sleep does not result in instant brain death and rerolling. But anyone with half a brain would recognize that not only should players act on that preconception, if they don't act on it, they have serious problems, and need to devote much more of their time to thinking about how to eat without choking to death.


Lastly, you establish a false duality: either nothing happens, or the PCs are killed. This is quite clearly not the case; the DM may define "hazardous" as anything from "turned into a smurf and summons Azrael" to "implodes existence", or any number of other options. In many of these options, the PCs are not killed.

Actually, I present two, but not the only two, possible rulings. I did in fact pick the far extremes, because I wanted to emphasize the range of choice.


Your point three also contains an unwarranted assumption: That the player had no way of knowing that this would happen. This is patently false. He could have opened his mouth and said "What happens when you put a HHH in a rope trick?" That would be an opportunity for the player to know the rules. If he does not do this due to his own preconceived notions of how things "should" work, he is at fault for acting on his own prejudices, rather than the information at hand. While you present "ask about the word 'hazardous'" as a separate option, the fact remains that its existence AS an option negates your assertion that it is outside the rules the player is expected to know.

No, it contains the warranted assumption that if the playeres only way of knowing that they won't die from going to sleep is to ask the DM if he has a houserule about dieing from going to sleep, that it is not their responsibility to do so.

Even against a DM who refuses to provide information, they always have the opportunity of stealing his notes, or beating him to a bloody pulp until he tells them all his houserules. The mere existence a method of determining what the DM's numerous and arbitrary houserules are does not make it the players responsibility to perform any action within their power to obtain that information. At some point the lazy, ignorant, thoughtless, irresponsible DM needs to stop shirking responsibility and admit that it is in fact entirely incumbent on him to explain his houserules to the player.

Did you take offense at the idea that the DM is lazy, ignorant, thoughtless and irresponsible? Probably should have used that empathy before when you were applying all those adjectives to any player who dared to not ask specifically about each of your infinite possible houserules by subsection.

[Lamech]

You missed a bit of relevant text, from portable hole:



"Extradimensional" and "nondimensional" are used interchangeably; barring a specific definition of the two elsewhere, the bag of holding could equally be called extradimensional space.
Err... no? A tiger is a mammal. A tiger is a predator. Mammal and predator are NOT interchangable. The DM could decide to rule


Actually, extradimensional means to be or travel outside of our plane. The term is used in many spells that involve planar travelling. What spell does that?


2) Having not asked, the player can walk into a Rope Trick, and then the DM can make different rulings, like: a) Nothing happens, just like the book says and the PC expects. b) The universe implodes and kills the PC.The book does not say nothing happens, it is simply ill defined. Just like the "other" on reincarnate is ill-defined or how reincarnate exactly affects a dragon. DM needs to make something up. And it doesn't need to be lethal. The DM could roll on the random encounters table for example.

That something bad might happen is clearly in the rules, the DM has to decide what it is. The DM probably won't make it lethal, just as a DM probably won't throw level 4 kobold adepts at a first level party.


3) Having made a ruling, the DM can allow the fact that this ruling applies to the base rules that already exist, and is a houserule, completely and 100% without and justification in the rules the player could actually have been expected to know, can allow the player to perform different actions,I do agree that it is unreasonable to expect the player to know a random obscure factoid of the rules. The DM should obviously warn the player about stuff like that, especially if they have skills like Know: arcana or Know: planes.

If a player decides to say... crossbow a planar bound creature to death, a DM should warn the player for the same reasons. Its an obscure random rules.

[Gan The Grey]

No, I think that some people have different good arguments, but that you personally refuse to deal with other people's arguments and instead decry my lack of empathy, or accuse Optimystik of having personal experiences color him with prejudice, or say "It's all opinions that are equally valid." or whatever else you can think of to avoid actually addressing arguments, because you have nothing other than bald false assertions and poor analogies that don't represent anything close to the situation.

I have conceded other people's points and attempted to understand their specific points of view in many of my posts. It seems you are refusing to either notice or acknowledge that fact.

I decry your lack of empathy because you refuse to try to see things as I present them. I am using an analogy to better explain my line of thinking on the subject at hand. By picking apart my analogy and adding in references to aspects of that analogy that I did not address, you are effectively attempting to inject falsehoods in my line of thinking that are not there. You then use those falsehoods to justify calling me wrong. Analogies are used to teach. I am trying to teach you why I think the way I think. You are refusing to attempt to stand in my shoes to understand why I see it the way I do.

If you will read back to my conversation with Opti, you will see that, after he and I got back on track with the discussion, I regularly accepted his point of view as understandable, but told him that it did not fit with the way I see things. This is how you discuss opinions.

My analogies are not 'poor', as others have already said they understand and respect my position, regardless of whether or not they agree with it. Thus, the analogy has been successful.


No. What I've done is demonstrate that your analogies have nothing to do with the situation and presented a strong counterargument to the idea that the spell in any way justifies DM actions under the presumption that PCs should have just mind read the DM was going to houserule something.

No. What you've done is demonstrate that you don't agree. Not that they are wrong. That you do not agree. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Your problem is that you are so caught up with trying to be right, that you are refusing to put yourself in my position.


Contrary to the beliefs of people who argue by analogy, the usual reason that people pick apart analogies is because the analogy fails to represent the situation at hand, and instead fundamentally misrepresents the case in a direction favorable to the person making the analogy.

No. The reason many people pick apart analogies is because analogies do not perfectly represent a situation at hand. They are used as a generality to better convey intent and meaning. The people that do the picking often see a chance to expose this 'weakness' to further their own agenda and to muddy the waters of the discussion. It makes them look better and the other person look worse.

However, I will give you the fact that some people try to use an analogy to 'break' the argument, using them unscrupulously to win. Regardless of whether or not you believe me, I am just trying to show you my point of view. I don't want you to say, 'Hey Gan. That's exactly how it is. You are right.' I just want people to open their mind to other possibilities beyond their own ways of thinking.


It's not a lack of understanding of specifically how your analogy attempts to frame players who have scoured the rules and been careful to take precautions as ignorant clods who ignore good advice. It is precisely that understanding of your attempts to misrepresent that causes me to call out your poor analogies as they are.

You, like Opti before we came to an understanding, are suffering from taking things to the extreme in order to win. You are choosing to paint me in a negative light in your example here to 'smear' my opinion. You can't know how I interact with my players or they with me. You can't know my intentions beyond what I've said in this thread. And, as I've said many times, my reasons for ruling as I do is to enrich the game play experience, not to 'pull a fast one'.


It is not an unwillingness to argue the actual point that caused me to rip up your smoke screen, it was your unwillingness to argue the point that caused you to make an analogy so that you could argue an entirely different point that is only loosely related, and is specifically different in ways that are designed to make you appear correct where you are not.

Had you ACTUALLY tried to step into my shoes, you would have done so without bias, someone you have shown yourself to be incapable of. Everything you have said about who I am and the way I run a game has been negative, yet you have no first-hand knowledge of my DMing style. All of my analogies so far have been on topic. And, again, I am not using them in order to 'be correct', I am using them to convey my line of thinking. This isn't a win-lose argument as you seem to want it to be. It is a matter of opinion.


You want to bring something positive to the argument besides misrepresentations and evasions, stop trying to hide behind false analogies, and stop trying to weasel away from debate by whining about how other people's arguments aren't real arguments because... you don't like them. They are still real arguments, even if you wish they weren't.

It's not that I don't like your arguments. I don't like the fact, that while we are discussing the finer details of an analogy, we are ignoring the actual debate at hand, especially when I'm not trying to use an analogy to 'win' as you seem to think, I'm trying to use it to find a common ground from which to build on.


I'm going to start with a premise. This premise is that any time a Player is forced to get up and walk out of a game mid session, never to return, because of irreconcilable differences, that's a bad thing.

I have NEVER experienced this, and I have had many varied people join my games over the 15 years that I've run. I could assume that's because:

A) I'm a fairly decent DM.

B) I'm a fair and understanding DM.

C) My players are mature adults.


1) The Player can ask in advance about the spell vs Haversack. Or not.

2) Having not asked, the player can walk into a Rope Trick, and then the DM can make different rulings, like: a) Nothing happens, just like the book says and the PC expects. b) The universe implodes and kills the PC.

You, like Opti before we came to an understanding, are jumping to extremes to win your argument. I believe that's called Strawmaning?

First, the book doesn't say that nothing happens. The book doesn't ADDRESS what DOES happen. This allows the hazardous clause to be left up to the DM.

Second, you are assuming the absolute worst case scenerio to show that 'I'm a horrible, unjust, childish DM.' And you are doing this after I have spelled out that I WOULD NOT do this. Read a few posts back. Never did anything I say suggest that the universe implodes or the PCs die.


3) Having made a ruling, the DM can allow the fact that this ruling applies to the base rules that already exist, and is a houserule, completely and 100% without and justification in the rules the player could actually have been expected to know, can allow the player to perform different actions, or he can declare that the character dies from something the player had a 0% chance of knowing before hand because it exists no where in the rules.

There is a problem with this. This situation is an If...Then...clause. Either they took it into the Rope Trick, or they didn't. If you allow them to choose, most likely they won't do it, depriving their characters of that experience and the situation resulting from it. I view this as bad.

Again, you are going to extremes to prove your point. The characters don't HAVE to die. But you know that.


The player can specifically ask about one specific houserule, true. But you know what, if I have a houserule that anyone who casts Color Spray instantly dies, I'm not going to expect that houserule to be expected. Maybe, Maybe, there is a place, like Gate or Wish, where a PC should be expected to expect houserules, but since DMs make up houserules for all kinds of things, it is generally not the Players responsibility to ask about specific houserules.

And you call my analogies bad? Rope Trick specifically spells out that it is hazardous to bring or create an extradimensional space into another. Just because it doesn't say WHY, doesn't mean the warning shouldn't give an intelligent person cause to want to find out. IF they ignore the warning, it is well within my right to punish them. Next time they are warned about something, they will be more attentive. JUST LIKE IN REAL LIFE.


So yes, there is no jerk player who's being a jerk when exposed to different DM styles. There is only a not jerk player who is calmly leaving the game when exposed to the DM dickery of making a houserule to kill the PCs, not informing them of this houserule, and the refusing to allow them to reset character actions/builds to accommodate the houserule.

An immature player will leave a game because he doesn't get things his way. An immature DM will pick on his players and delight when their characters 'cause the universe to implode and they die'.

A mature player will take his knocks and move on, and his mature DM will have only placed them in this situation to make the game more fun for all players involved. A mature DM will also field complaints in a mature way, seeking to reconcile the problems at the table in the best way possible.

[Tinydwarfman]

What spell does that?


Dimensional Anchor/Lock and Maze by a quick google search. I'm pretty sure I've seen more elsewhere though...

[LibraryOgre]

Once again if the book doesn't say that something happens, then by definition nothings happens.

Ridiculous on its face. The book does not prescribe a definition of "hazardous", but that doesn't mean that the word hazardous disappears, or that it changes from its standard English meaning.


Secondly, if they had read the spell, they would have read that it may be hazardous. If they had read the DMG they would know that sleeping may be hazardous. Do you expect players to ask you about your houserules on what happens when people go to sleep? Do you think that people being sent to the astral is a reasonable assumption for something that occurs when players go to sleep? You are purposefully ignoring the crux of my argument.

I am not ignoring the crux of your argument, I am declaring it irrelevant. The hazards of going to sleep are not only well within our experience, the mechanical effects of being asleep are defined... sleeping is one of the things that can cause the helpless condition (i.e. Dex of 0, +4 to melee attacks against the target, vulnerable to coup de grace), and the Listen skill includes a specific penalty for being asleep. These things are defined. The hazards of introducing an extra-dimensional space into a Rope Trick are NOT specifically defined, except obliquely (by inferring from the interaction of Bags of Holding and Portable Holes), but are explicitly hazards, and thus they are up to the DM to define.

[Gan The Grey]

Hey Mark, I can't remember, did you start off from this position or did you reverse it at some point?

[LibraryOgre]

Actually, extradimensional means to be or travel outside of our plane. The term is used in many spells that involve planar travelling. A nondimensional space is a space without dimensions (size, weight, ect.). It still exists in our dimension though. A portable hole creates an extradimensional space that is also nondimensional. They are two completely different terms.

Yeah, I gotta go with that.... a bag of holding or HHH isn't going to be a specific problem, but a portable hole (or a mirror of life trapping) would be.

However, that then begs the question of why a bag of holding and a portable hole interact so poorly.

[LibraryOgre]

Hey Mark, I can't remember, did you start off from this position or did you reverse it at some point?

Which position? Despite my recent reversal on the nature of HHH and bags of holding, and whether or not they'd trigger a cascade in a Rope Trick, I've had a fairly steady position: That the word "hazardous" means something, and that a DM doesn't have to warn people "Uh... that might not be a good idea" if they do something specifically noted as hazardous... he can just inflict appropriate consequences.

[Gan The Grey]

Which position? Despite my recent reversal on the nature of HHH and bags of holding, and whether or not they'd trigger a cascade in a Rope Trick, I've had a fairly steady position: That the word "hazardous" means something, and that a DM doesn't have to warn people "Uh... that might not be a good idea" if they do something specifically noted as hazardous... he can just inflict appropriate consequences.

Yeah, that one. That answers my question.

[Zeful]

I'm sufficently lost, I think.

The player is telling the DM how to run the world? As in, "We're using these variants, these spells, etc"? Or is merely laying out what they'd like from the campaign?

I thought you meant the second one. Explaining what you'd like from the game is a good thing.

Also, excuse my lack of comprehension here, I'm 99% sure that what you meant is clear, I just haven't slept for quite a while.
I meant neither, though the second one is close to what I am saying, I'll be more clear.

What I am suggesting as a counter argument is for the player to laboriously account for his assumptions about the game. For example, taking what I have gleamed from this forum, a hypothetical player would assume that the game is as follows and thus inform the DM of this:
Wizards are allowed and expected to trade spells between eachother.
The above Wizards are to both expected to "sell" this service at identical, listed, prices.
The NPC Wizard is not supposed to have any spell the PCs have, to facilitate this trading more effectively.
Fractional Bab and Saves are in effect.
Prestige Classes are in play
Any character meeting the requirements for any Prestige Class may take a level in them at any time.
Level ups require no down time.
Multi-classing Penalties are removed.
Magic Items are readily available at any town which can "afford" them (See the DMG for relevant rules).
All prices are not to deviate from the listed price.
All encounters are able to be overcome by the party through combat.
The DM is not allowed to attack player gear.
The DM is not allowed to steal player gear.
Enemy gear, when sold, should account for the lion's share of the parties Wealth By Level
The DM should expect that the players will never attack enemy gear and plan encounters appropriately.
Tome of Battle is in play.
Spell Compendium is in play.
The Magic Item Compendium is in play.
The Expanded Psionic's Handbook is in play.
There is no reason to disallow any of the above books.
The DM, under no circumstances should cause a Paladin or Cleric to fall.
If the party's Paladin is being a jerk, the above is redacted.
The DM is not allowed to change player alignment to better correspond to their actions.
If the player in question is being a jerk, instead he becomes Chaotic Evil.
The DM should not punish players for the 15 minute workday by having others complete their work despite, to anyone in the setting, the PCs appear to be totally incompetent.
The DM should not "spontaneously" have "encounter resolution" through roleplaying.
The DM is allowed no recourse when the player begin to use badly worded spells to their advantage for infinite money/power.
The DM is especially not allowed to provide this recourse through other badly worded spells.
Player abilities are sacrosanct.
This explanation of assumptions are the player equivalent of the what people here are expecting the DM to do which, while not totally unreasonable as a method of communication, is unreasonable as an expectation. Every player should, under a new DM throw his old assumptions about the game itself away, everything they took for granted from their last game is not a given and they shouldn't expect it to be especially when it comes to interpretation of rules.


I'm going to start with a premise. This premise is that any time a Player is forced to get up and walk out of a game mid session, never to return, because of irreconcilable differences, that's a bad thing.For the purpose of this premise I will agree.


Now, in a hypothetical situation, involving a player who owns a Haversack and casts Rope Trick, lots of things can happen:

1) The Player can ask in advance about the spell vs Haversack. Or not.

2) Having not asked, the player can walk into a Rope Trick, and then the DM can make different rulings, like: a) Nothing happens, just like the book says and the PC expects. b) The universe implodes and kills the PC.This is a fallacy, there are dozens of things which can happen that are instead humiliating rather than deadly.
Second the book itself says that these things are hazardous, expecting it not to be when you have no reason to is just plain silly.


3) Having made a ruling, the DM can allow the fact that this ruling applies to the base rules that already exist, and is a houserule, completely and 100% without and justification in the rules the player could actually have been expected to know, can allow the player to perform different actions, or he can declare that the character dies from something the player had a 0% chance of knowing before hand because it exists no where in the rules.Except for two things.
First: Ignoring the line is more extreme houseruling than expanding what could happen, as ignoring the line changes the spell. Expanding on the line does not necessitate a change in the spell as it can be an extension of the Portable hole/Bag of Holding issue.
Second: The player can read, both his character sheet and the spell. Again expecting nothing to happen, when the spell warns you that it is dangerous, is silly.


The player can specifically ask about one specific houserule, true. But you know what, if I have a houserule that anyone who casts Color Spray instantly dies, I'm not going to expect that houserule to be expected. Maybe, Maybe, there is a place, like Gate or Wish, where a PC should be expected to expect houserules, but since DMs make up houserules for all kinds of things, it is generally not the Players responsibility to ask about specific houserules.Except this is nothing like what you equate this too.


On the other hand, it is the DM's responsibility to notify people of changes, and more than that, to accommodate such situations. If the DM finds that he forgot to notify someone of something, he can always just admit to it and offer a mulligan.It is the DM responsibility to notify his players of important changes to the game through his house rules (general things like Class, Skill and Feat changes, then as it becomes relevant changes to other subsystems). Expanding on how abilities and items interact, is not a change, nor is it important. At best the player should be reminded that the line in rope trick is in play and let him think for himself.


So yes, there is no jerk player who's being a jerk when exposed to different DM styles. There is only a not jerk player who is calmly leaving the game when exposed to the DM dickery of making a houserule to kill the PCs, not informing them of this houserule, and the refusing to allow them to reset character actions/builds to accommodate the houserule.Except no, this is nothing at all like you suggest. And there are jerk players who would leave games over things far more important than rope trick's interaction with other extra dimensional spaces. I've seen this community tell players to leave games in which the only thing the DM has done "wrong" is keep multiclassing penalties.

[Zore]

What I am suggesting as a counter argument is for the player to laboriously account for his assumptions about the game. For example, taking what I have gleamed from this forum, a hypothetical player would assume that the game is as follows and thus inform the DM of this:
Wizards are allowed and expected to trade spells between eachother.
The above Wizards are to both expected to "sell" this service at identical, listed, prices.
The NPC Wizard is not supposed to have any spell the PCs have, to facilitate this trading more effectively.
Fractional Bab and Saves are in effect.
Prestige Classes are in play
Any character meeting the requirements for any Prestige Class may take a level in them at any time.
Level ups require no down time.
Multi-classing Penalties are removed.
Magic Items are readily available at any town which can "afford" them (See the DMG for relevant rules).
All prices are not to deviate from the listed price.
All encounters are able to be overcome by the party through combat.
The DM is not allowed to attack player gear.
The DM is not allowed to steal player gear.
Enemy gear, when sold, should account for the lion's share of the parties Wealth By Level
The DM should expect that the players will never attack enemy gear and plan encounters appropriately.
Tome of Battle is in play.
Spell Compendium is in play.
The Magic Item Compendium is in play.
The Expanded Psionic's Handbook is in play.
There is no reason to disallow any of the above books.
The DM, under no circumstances should cause a Paladin or Cleric to fall.
If the party's Paladin is being a jerk, the above is redacted.
The DM is not allowed to change player alignment to better correspond to their actions.
If the player in question is being a jerk, instead he becomes Chaotic Evil.
The DM should not punish players for the 15 minute workday by having others complete their work despite, to anyone in the setting, the PCs appear to be totally incompetent.
The DM should not "spontaneously" have "encounter resolution" through roleplaying.
The DM is allowed no recourse when the player begin to use badly worded spells to their advantage for infinite money/power.
The DM is especially not allowed to provide this recourse through other badly worded spells.
Player abilities are sacrosanct.

Some of these are a bit egregious and run counter to the suggestions I see in most threads here. The prevailing attitude in the recent thread on infinite money/power is in fact to completely disallow it with almost no voices in support of letting a player do it in game. Likewise there have been many threads on how to stop the 'fifteen minute work day', including one that was on the front page yesterday. I believe you are being disingenuous with this list and choosing to exaggerate certain tendencies of the forum for some sort of reductio ad absurdium argument.

To be fair some of these points are correct, especially the prevailing view on Tome of Battle and Psionics, but some are blatantly false or espoused by a tiny minority rather than a quorum of forumers.

[Gan The Grey]

Some of these are a bit egregious and run counter to the suggestions I see in most threads here. The prevailing attitude in the recent thread on infinite money/power is in fact to completely disallow it with almost no voices in support of letting a player do it in game. Likewise there have been many threads on how to stop the 'fifteen minute work day', including one that was on the front page yesterday. I believe you are being disingenuous with this list and choosing to exaggerate certain tendencies of the forum for some sort of reductio ad absurdium argument.

To be fair some of these points are correct, especially the prevailing view on Tome of Battle and Psionics, but some are blatantly false or espoused by a tiny minority rather than a quorum of forumers.

Actually, the combination of his/her post and your response serves to show the reason for this argument rather nicely. The problem here is with 'assumption'. Zeful has taken his/her experience of the forums and boiled down those experiences to a list of assumptions. You, however, have done the exact same thing, yet come up with a different set of assumptions.

The danger here is in the assumptions. A player is only in danger if they make and then act on assumption without checking with their DM.

Well, at least, that's the way I see it.

[Zeful]

Gan got it in one.


Some of these are a bit egregious and run counter to the suggestions I see in most threads here. The prevailing attitude in the recent thread on infinite money/power is in fact to completely disallow it with almost no voices in support of letting a player do it in game. Likewise there have been many threads on how to stop the 'fifteen minute work day', including one that was on the front page yesterday. I believe you are being disingenuous with this list and choosing to exaggerate certain tendencies of the forum for some sort of reductio ad absurdium argument.

To be fair some of these points are correct, especially the prevailing view on Tome of Battle and Psionics, but some are blatantly false or espoused by a tiny minority rather than a quorum of forumers.

Every example I listed was chosen for a reason. Most were views held by this community at sometime during my time here on the forums. Some are not current views, but they were all views that someone said they would leave over.

Also: Some people are poor/don't have a FLGS. Those are reason enough to disallow books.

[Koury]

I meant neither, though the second one is close to what I am saying, I'll be more clear.

What I am suggesting as a counter argument is for the player to laboriously account for his assumptions about the game. For example, taking what I have gleamed from this forum, a hypothetical player would assume that the game is as follows and thus inform the DM of this:
Wizards are allowed and expected to trade spells between eachother.
The above Wizards are to both expected to "sell" this service at identical, listed, prices.
The NPC Wizard is not supposed to have any spell the PCs have, to facilitate this trading more effectively.
Fractional Bab and Saves are in effect.
Prestige Classes are in play
Any character meeting the requirements for any Prestige Class may take a level in them at any time.
Level ups require no down time.
Multi-classing Penalties are removed.
Magic Items are readily available at any town which can "afford" them (See the DMG for relevant rules).
All prices are not to deviate from the listed price.
All encounters are able to be overcome by the party through combat.
The DM is not allowed to attack player gear.
The DM is not allowed to steal player gear.
Enemy gear, when sold, should account for the lion's share of the parties Wealth By Level
The DM should expect that the players will never attack enemy gear and plan encounters appropriately.
Tome of Battle is in play.
Spell Compendium is in play.
The Magic Item Compendium is in play.
The Expanded Psionic's Handbook is in play.
There is no reason to disallow any of the above books.
The DM, under no circumstances should cause a Paladin or Cleric to fall.
If the party's Paladin is being a jerk, the above is redacted.
The DM is not allowed to change player alignment to better correspond to their actions.
If the player in question is being a jerk, instead he becomes Chaotic Evil.
The DM should not punish players for the 15 minute workday by having others complete their work despite, to anyone in the setting, the PCs appear to be totally incompetent.
The DM should not "spontaneously" have "encounter resolution" through roleplaying.
The DM is allowed no recourse when the player begin to use badly worded spells to their advantage for infinite money/power.
The DM is especially not allowed to provide this recourse through other badly worded spells.
Player abilities are sacrosanct.
This explanation of assumptions are the player equivalent of the what people here are expecting the DM to do which, while not totally unreasonable as a method of communication, is unreasonable as an expectation. Every player should, under a new DM throw his old assumptions about the game itself away, everything they took for granted from their last game is not a given and they shouldn't expect it to be especially when it comes to interpretation of rules.

Well, some of those (although only a few) are actually RAW (the price a mage will sell his services to you, level ups requiring no downtime and magic items being available if the town is large enough), and others I would personally consider bad form (sundering the fighters new sword or stealing gear from the party without giving them rolls to know it was happening).

Players under a new DM are equally responsible for discovering the DMs expectations as the DM is for finding out his players expectations.

All I've really advocated here is that when there is a misunderstanding about the rules, the DM clarifies and allows the party to change actions, if appropriate.

[Zore]

Actually, the combination of his/her post and your response serves to show the reason for this argument rather nicely. The problem here is with 'assumption'. Zeful has taken his/her experience of the forums and boiled down those experiences to a list of assumptions. You, however, have done the exact same thing, yet come up with a different set of assumptions.

The danger here is in the assumptions. A player is only in danger if they make and then act on assumption without checking with their DM.

Well, at least, that's the way I see it.

I was specifically critiquing what assumptions he thought people would get from the forums because I felt they were inaccurate. But, you're right I have boiled my experiences down to a series of assumptions. Because to a greater or lesser degree that is necessary to do anything, and every single person on earth does it unconsciously. Sometimes we will be mistaken true, but it is literally impossible to rid oneself of assumptions because they are so integrated into life and necessary for it.

Every time I breathe I assume not only is the air breathable but also that my body is in perfect working condition. People make thousands of these assumptions each day because they facilitate every aspect of our lives. Your players make assumptions that you abide by when you tell them you will be playing D&D, like that the rules of the game will have some relevance.

I think your threshold for assumptions may just be different from some people. It would never occur to me to ask about that line simply because I have played so many games where it is a non-issue I don't think about it. Without this thread I may never have thought of it. Is that right? It has worked out well for me so far, saved me a lot of time and effort. If I was your player that assumption would have backfired. You are okay with this, others in this thread are not. I like to work with my players assumptions because I often play with wildly disparate groups of people and few consistently. If it were a longer running group I would have an attitude more similar to yours.

Maybe that clarifies where I'm coming from.

EDIT:

Every example I listed was chosen for a reason. Most were views held by this community at sometime during my time here on the forums. Some are not current views, but they were all views that someone said they would leave over.

Also: Some people are poor/don't have a FLGS. Those are reason enough to disallow books.

I wasn't passing judgement on whether the forum was right or wrong, merely commenting on what I felt was a misrepresentation of what I had read and the common consensus. I understand reasons to disallow books and didn't mean to come off as someone who didn't.

[Gan The Grey]

I was specifically critiquing what assumptions he thought people would get from the forums because I felt they were inaccurate. But, you're right I have boiled my experiences down to a series of assumptions. Because to a greater or lesser degree that is necessary to do anything, and every single person on earth does it unconsciously. Sometimes we will be mistaken true, but it is literally impossible to rid oneself of assumptions because they are so integrated into life and necessary for it.

Every time I breathe I assume not only is the air breathable but also that my body is in perfect working condition. People make thousands of these assumptions each day because they facilitate every aspect of our lives. Your players make assumptions that you abide by when you tell them you will be playing D&D, like that the rules of the game will have some relevance.

I think your threshold for assumptions may just be different from some people. It would never occur to me to ask about that line simply because I have played so many games where it is a non-issue I don't think about it. Without this thread I may never have thought of it. Is that right? It has worked out well for me so far, saved me a lot of time and effort. If I was your player that assumption would have backfired. You are okay with this, others in this thread are not. I like to work with my players assumptions because I often play with wildly disparate groups of people and few consistently. If it were a longer running group I would have an attitude more similar to yours.

Maybe that clarifies where I'm coming from.


Well said. And you've brought up a point that I didn't think about up until this point. One of the things mentioned on this forum is the general instability of their groups, and how often they play with newer or different players. This isn't something I'm accustomed to, persae. Now, I have a large group of people I play with, and never do I play with all of them at once (the group composition changes back and forth), but that's not really the same as what people would experience in a PbP game. I can see how, in that situation, taking my stance on Rope Trick would be more problematic and, as has been said, could easily be construed as 'dickish'.

I may very well still do as I have said, but I would be alot more vocal with my warnings about in game assumptions. Something along the lines of:

"I want you to understand - I am not 'every other DM.' Things in my world will be different. My views on generally ambiguous or unclear rules will be different. I will require things of you that other DM's do not, and I will make some parts of your life easier that other DM's. Keep all of this in mind before you make assumptions regarding how things work in the world. You always have the right to ask questions, but do not be upset if you make an assumption and suffer the consequences of doing so. Alright, we cool? Bump the fist. Okay, let's play."

Something like that. But I definitely get what you're saying now, and having it described this way makes your's (and maybe others) hangups much easier to understand.

[Killer Angel]

Actually, isn't a bag of holding a non-dimensional space? So why does it have any interaction with a rope trick at all?


Yes, this was already addressed. It appears that, by RAW, Extradimensional and Non-dimensional are (improperly) used interchangeably:


When opened fully, a portable hole is 6 feet in diameter, but it can be folded up to be as small as a pocket handkerchief. When spread upon any surface, it causes an extradimensional space 10 feet deep to come into being.

Each portable hole opens on its own particular nondimensional space. If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole, a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in that place.

[Tinydwarfman]

Yes, this was already addressed. It appears that, by RAW, Extradimensional and Non-dimensional are (improperly) used interchangeably:

See my follow-up post:

Actually, extradimensional means to be or travel outside of our plane. The term is used in many spells that involve planar travelling. A nondimensional space is a space without dimensions (size, weight, ect.). It still exists in our dimension though. A portable hole creates an extradimensional space that is also nondimensional. They are two completely different terms.

[ericgrau]

This topic commonly gets into circles about dimensional spaces so I'll leave that up to the DM and cut to the easier solution.

Step 1: DM also starts using rope tricks against player
Step 2: Players start preparing detect magic and dispel magic
Step 3: DM says wait a second, why aren't monsters doing the same. 8 hours is enough time to track you down, figure out you hid, find the rope trick and get the entire dungeon to gather up, surround you and force your surrender.

Bam, no more issues. Later it becomes teleport vs. dimensional anchor / dimensional lock. There are monsters who are already famous for having the same tricks.

[Gan The Grey]

This topic commonly gets into circles about dimensional spaces so I'll leave that up to the DM and cut to the easier solution.

Step 1: DM also starts using rope tricks against player
Step 2: Players start preparing detect magic and dispel magic
Step 3: DM says wait a second, why aren't monsters doing the same. 8 hours is enough time to track you down, figure out you hid, find the rope trick and get the entire dungeon to gather up, surround you and force your surrender.

Bam, no more issues. Later it becomes teleport vs. dimensional anchor / dimensional lock. There are monsters who are already famous for having the same tricks.

Yeah, most of the earlier portions of this thread was focused around exactly this.

You know, Tiny Dwarf, now that you've pointed out the difference between the extradimensional and nondimensional spaces, it really makes me wonder at the initial intent of including that hazardous clause in the spell description. It ALMOST sounds like they were trying to discourage casting a Rope Trick inside another Rope Trick.

Of course, I don't know what anyone would do this. But it sorta makes sense. If we look at it like this, we don't really have to go outside the text of the spell to justify the hazardous clause.

[2xMachina]

Step 1: Cast Rope Trick
Step 2: Cast Rope Trick
Step 3: BOOM??? Kills/Transport BBEG
Step 4: Profit

[Lycar]

This is all true, but I believe the point of contention was more along the lines of what responsibility a DM had to inform their players before they took an action that would result in catastrophe.

Again, very simple answer: Whatever he/she/it damn well pleases. Either the players accept that or they find another game. The DM has to make a game that people are willing to play if he wants a game.

But the players have to accept the DM's authority. The DM is not the player's whipping boy. They aren't entitled to anything but what the normal, unwritten social contract between friends or maybe only acquaintances prescribes.

DM's table, DM's rules. Take it or leave it.

Lycar

[Randalor]

Just a few quick questions from reading this thread.

1) Several people have said that the FAQ says to disregard bags of holding/portable holes in Rope Tricks, but I can't find that in the official FAQs from the Wizards site. Now granted, the last official FAQ was June 30, 2008, so it is almost 2 years old by now, but the only refrences to rope trick in it are dealing with teleporting into/out of interdimensional spaces that you've created, and briefly mentioned in the section talking about healing in the Mournland.

2) For thoses saying that the GM has to tell the players what exactly would happen, otherwise he's pulling a "Gotcha," would you say that it would be fair to have a "minor accident" the first time they take a portable hole/bag of holding in? For example, someone takes in the bag of holding, they hear a loud roar as the air in the bag suddenly turns into a minor windstorm, then they find themselves being dropped unceramoniously to the ground, possibly missing a few minor things from the bag of holding/portable hole *maybe a few days worth of rations, or some arrows from a quiver, ect.* And tell the wizard that "Luckily, whatever just happened seemed to boot you out of the hole just before the space collapsed. You believe that if you had remaind in, it would be a one-way trip to the Astral Plane/other bad thing you have planned." Would that work for you, as you're letting the players experience a minor version of the "Hazard" with minimal loss, while also letting the wizard know exactly what will happen next time?

[Irreverent Fool]

I can't find that in the official FAQs from the Wizards site.

It's actually in a "Rules of the Game" article, all of which are still on the WotC website.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20051101a

"Rope Trick" "Bag of holding" rules (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22Rope+Trick%22+%22Bag+of+holding%22+rules)
Second entry.

[Randalor]

But that's not an FAQ. That's an article that someone wrote, and people have mentioned it alongside the FAQ. Also, he doesn't say that the line has been removed, he just recommends ignoring that reference *Wait... is he refering to that paragraph reference, or the reference in the book? It could be read either way...*

[Irreverent Fool]

But that's not an FAQ. That's an article that someone wrote, and people have mentioned it alongside the FAQ. Also, he doesn't say that the line has been removed, he just recommends ignoring that reference *Wait... is he refering to that paragraph reference, or the reference in the book? It could be read either way...*

As mentioned before, that "someone" is Skip Williams.

[Yuki Akuma]

As mentioned before, that "someone" is Skip Williams.

Hint: read the cover of your PHB. Especially the author credits.

[QuantumSteve]

As mentioned before, that "someone" is Skip Williams.

It's still a House Rule. The fact that it's Skip Williams House Rule does lend it some tremendous weight; but regardless of author, this article is neither the Official Errata, or the FAQ.

This still doesn't change the fact that this little piece of RAW is at best ambiguously ineffective and at worst nonsensical. (Perhaps why this House Rule was suggested)

[Randalor]

I know he wrote the PHB, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not an official rule change, and is only a recommendation.

Edit: Ninja'd

[Amphetryon]

Skip's rulings are not always consistent (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/6933-half-dragons-sage-advice.html). Usually, perhaps (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040629a). Exercise discretion (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19569578/Two_Weapon_Fighting_38;_Flurry_of_Blows&post_num=9#332626586).

If following Sage's advice on Rope Trick makes your game better, by all means, do so. Likewise, if Skip's ruling on the interaction of FoB and TWF enhances the game experience for you and your players, please, follow that ruling.

Whatever works best for your group.

[Tinydwarfman]

Skip's rulings are not always consistent (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/6933-half-dragons-sage-advice.html). Usually, perhaps (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040629a). Exercise discretion (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19569578/Two_Weapon_Fighting_38;_Flurry_of_Blows&post_num=9#332626586).

If following Sage's advice on Rope Trick makes your game better, by all means, do so. Likewise, if Skip's ruling on the interaction of FoB and TWF enhances the game experience for you and your players, please, follow that ruling.

Whatever works best for your group.

Are you saying you don't agree with the TWF ruling? I think it's pretty reasonable. I'm inclined to disagree with skip on the Half Dragon thing, simply for balance though. And what was the point of the movement article? Too lazy to read through it... :smallsigh:

[Irreverent Fool]

It's still a House Rule. The fact that it's Skip Williams House Rule does lend it some tremendous weight; but regardless of author, this article is neither the Official Errata, or the FAQ.

This still doesn't change the fact that this little piece of RAW is at best ambiguously ineffective and at worst nonsensical. (Perhaps why this House Rule was suggested)

The FAQ isn't RAW either, so I fail to see why this is a relevant distiction.