Rules Q&A When fluff/RAI overrule actual rules/RAW [Archive]

GAA

2014-12-03, 06:24 PM

English isn't my primary language and argumentation isn't my forte. I hope you get my both points and can start discussing right away.

Fluffy:

RAW:

How do you play such situations? I like the fluffy version but I can see where the DM wants to draw the line. Still, most spells are borderline useless, dangerous or make stories more difficult rather than easier if played by RAW.

One player in our group dislikes when we substitute RAW and actual rules with logic and fluff. And you can't houserule every single rules interpretation beforehand. How are you dealing with stuff like this? Because I CAN see the point of a player that mostly prefers mundanes that whole plot points shouldn't revolve around "cheated powers" and instead be solved by teamwork and the whole group.

As danger free as casting spells are, you should know that the spell can put you far off from your inteded destination. If you want to you can always tell them they landed just on, or fudge the rules for some cercumstances, but these sorts of things thas the player should know. If you want to have a version of teleport that never mishaps, tell the player. If you want te have it succeed some time, Go for it. The main thing is that if you are a caster, you should be aware of the risks associated with any spell, and that if you want spells to work differently, let your players know.

Also, while that is a ways off, at that point you should have phantom steed, or some other abilities to allow faster travel. Besides, you are traveling to another plane, I see nothing wrong with making that a long traveling situation. Just be prepared, and it wont be bad. The cleric should know it could be a treck, and with a knowledge religion or planes check, should know how to prepare for a jurney to said plane.

Jay R

2014-12-03, 06:42 PM

Plane Shift is a 5th level spell. Word of Recall is a 6th. Your fluff version is attempting to use a 5th level spell to get the results of a 6th level spell.

Chronos

2014-12-03, 06:48 PM

If the DM wants you to arrive in a particular place, he can so decree. Beyond that, though (and you shouldn't count on the DM's decrees), those spells have risks, and you shouldn't be casting them if you can't deal with the risks.

OldTrees1

2014-12-03, 07:55 PM

The Rule of Cool overrides RAW unless it threatens to break Suspension of Disbelief.
The DM has permission to override RAW when it makes a better experience for the group.

ZamielVanWeber

2014-12-03, 07:59 PM

I would be careful massively buffing spells like that. The reason Plane Shift is un-tempting to spam is because it will send you wildly off base. If you want them to be able to plop right into a villain's lair or summat give them a scroll of Great Teleport and some way of scrying into his base so it works.

Jay R

2014-12-03, 08:40 PM

The Rule of Cool overrides RAW unless it threatens to break Suspension of Disbelief.

The Rule of Cool is to about doing impressive things in encounters, and can never be applied to avoid encounters for a safe, boring, trip.

Plane Shift is not intended to get you home without adventures. It is to get you into a new sort of adventure. A DM who lets you simply freeze to death before finding anything on that plane is depriving you of just as much cool adventure as the DM who lets you choose your exact destination yourself.

When you show up in a random area, you won't freeze. You'll fight.

SiuiS

2014-12-03, 09:01 PM

I personally have used the first one because no one wants to deal with having to wait several days in game to get to the part they want to play.

My personal justification is, deific events don't make mortal sense. I've had an epic sorcerer travel at different speeds in different directions, and it was always "three days north". Even when he went one direction, learned where to go, and turned around 180°, he was heading north and he traveled for three days. Because that's what sort of journey was being given to him. If anyone had complained, I would open the books to Alter Reality and Wish, and then move on. If they insist on knowing how something happened, I ask them how they go about finding out in character.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-12-03, 09:14 PM

So, first of all, I think the OP is looking for Greater Plane Shift from the SpC. Seventh level, functions kinda like Greater Teleport for planes. My high level Cleric tended to prep one Plane Shift to go to a generally-friendly plane, and one Greater Plane Shift, for what was effectively a two-round Greater Teleport. Very good for ambush tactics.
I don't see the logical connection between "I rolled 345 miles for you" and "you don't find anyone and will freeze to death." That just sounds like an unimaginative DM being railroady. The upper planes are supposed to be very hospitable too.Definitely this. I'm AFB but I highly doubt there's a place on the upper planes where you freeze to death in no time just by accidentally porting there. And if there is, I'd be much more inclined to change that dumb bit of the cosmology than to change Plane Shift.

I actually ran a game where the PCs needed to get to a certain part of Celestia as soon as possible. They had Plane Shift, but they were actually out of slots for Teleport. Their solution was to look for a Celestial where they ended up, and wouldn't you know, they're all over that plane. And most Celestials either cast high level spells or know someone who casts high level spells, so they just asked a buddy to get them where they needed to go. Now, that method doesn't work if you're not allied with the denizens of that plane, but in that case you shouldn't just be able to pop into the court without more difficulty/higher level spells (see above).

Jeff the Green

2014-12-03, 09:29 PM

OldTrees1

2014-12-03, 09:33 PM

The Rule of Cool overrides RAW unless it threatens to break Suspension of Disbelief.

The Rule of Cool is to about doing impressive things in encounters, and can never be applied to avoid encounters for a safe, boring, trip.

I do not believe we are in disagreement.
1) Where the Rule of Cool is not applicable, it does not override RAW.
2) A safe trip is not mutually exclusive with the Rule of Cool. (one example would be the DM using it as a plot device) The example in the OP did not sound like the Rule of Cool but that is not true for every case.

Jay R

2014-12-03, 09:34 PM

A bad example is still just an example, how about we focus on what he wanted to discuss? Like situations that fluff overrides rules (from a logical/cool/convenient for the dm or story point of view).

Two fundamental principles:
1. If the DM thinks something should override the rule, it probably should, and it will. (Of course, that's part of the rules.)
2. If the player wants something to override the rules, it's almost always a rule that is intended to work in this situation to make things challenging for him.

Duke of Urrel

2014-12-03, 10:38 PM

I proposed a house rule in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386282-Temporary-Revival-from-a-Dying-Condition) that has everything to do with my feeling that fluff or "flavor" should in some cases merit alterations in a standard game rule. My "argument from fluff" was that whereas you should pay a price in Hit Points after you polymorph into a big creature, such as a dragon, you shouldn't have to risk death from loss of Hit Points when you polymorph yourself into a small creature, such as a rat, which has a lower Constitution score than yours. This argument is all about fluff. I even wrote at one point that if the Baleful Polymorph spell turns you into a dead toad rather than a living toad, it is "less flavorful" for me.

My own "argument from fluff" is admittedly a completely different argument from the one that you are making, Sporeegg.

I agree with Psyren that the result of the Plane Shift spell should not be either glorious success or horrible failure. It should be somewhere in between. It should be possible, after you use the Plane Shift spell to transport yourself to your deity's own home plane, to arrive at your destination eventually, even if you must travel far and have some interesting adventures along the way. Maybe your dungeon master wasn't well enough prepared to give you this kind of intermediate outcome, but I believe it is the best and satisfies both fluff and the RAW, or at least strikes a fair balance between them.

***

There are three kinds of fluff.

1. There is fluff that harmonizes perfectly with the RAW. If you're lucky, the fluff that you imagine only makes the mechanics of the game more flavorful.

2. There is fluff that is inconsequential, so that however you choose to imagine it, you don't have to change the RAW. An example of this is the color of magic auras that you gain the power to see when you use the Detect Magic spell. It really makes no difference at all.

3. And then there is fluff that conflicts with the RAW. Maybe you just don't like the way the rules work, because you imagine a different fantasy world from the one that emerges when you strictly follow the rules. Many arguments about "tiers," for example, are motivated by a feeling that spellcasters shouldn't be so much more powerful than mundane characters that they dominate the whole story. In many fantasies, mentally powerful characters and physically powerful characters are more evenly balanced. This fluff conflicts with the RAW that effectively make spellcasters much more powerful than sword-swingers.

Psyren

2014-12-04, 12:27 AM

The Rule of Cool overrides RAW unless it threatens to break Suspension of Disbelief.
The DM has permission to override RAW when it makes a better experience for the group.

This is a false dichotomy. It's easily possible to have cool things happen within the boundaries of RAW, and that displays your DMing skill even more.

A bad example is still just an example, how about we focus on what he wanted to discuss? Like situations that fluff overrides rules (from a logical/cool/convenient for the dm or story point of view).

My issue is that I see very few situations where fluff needs to do this. Generally when people see a conflict between flavor and rules, I find that they are lacking imagination, rules-savvy, or both.

TypoNinja

2014-12-04, 01:40 AM

I have a problem with being willing to ignore a rule because "reasons" as a default position. The game needs to function the way everybody expects it to, or you risk a host of problems. D&D's rulesets are far too integrated and cross referential for isolated rule changes to stay isolated. Even for rule of cool I'd be very leery of ignoring RAW text.

There are in game solutions to most of the rules of cool stuff though, like most things the answer is magic. For example when Plane Shifting to Mount Celestia you always arrive in roughly the same spot, its a feature of the plane. Knee deep in the holy water ocean at the first layer.

When traveling to just about any divine realm your point of origin will probably be predetermined by the God/s who live there.

Psyren

2014-12-04, 01:50 AM

There's also one of my favorite lines:

Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible.

While this is part of the Teleport spell's entry, the term "teleportation" also refers to a subschool, one to which other spells (like Plane Shift) belong. So the DM can mess with any teleportation effect that has less precision than GT, GPS and Gate. (Gate too can get messed with, if there happens to be a "deity or other being who rules a planar realm" aware of the attempt, and why wouldn't they be?)

SiuiS

2014-12-04, 01:56 AM

I have a problem with being willing to ignore a rule because "reasons" as a default position. The game needs to function the way everybody expects it to, or you risk a host of problems.

The really good DMs, or really good games, or however you want to qualify it, look identical. A very good GM can keep every rules decision and interaction secret and you'll never know if they had a bunch of cool rules interactions that led to neat things, or if the DM let things slide and played loosey goosey with rules and numbers. And that's fine. Hel, that's ideal. A game run so well the players never have enough issues with the rules to question them and never have enough doubt in the DM not to trust them.

This falls apart in Internet discussions when people want to know which you do, but in practice it's phenomenal. And if someone wants to work on broadening their toolbox by honing their loosey goosey craft, after the first "I doubt this because of these reasons", it saddens me that there are few to no "but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let's work together to see what we can come up with for you".

ahenobarbi

2014-12-04, 02:13 AM

Still, most spells are borderline useless, dangerous or make stories more difficult rather than easier if played by RAW.

I don't agree with this. Spells are extremely powerful and useful in d&d 3.5. For the example you gave: while it's true Plane Shift transports you some 5 to 500 miles away from specified destination which may be dangerous it's hardly "useless" or "making story more difficult". Without the spell you'd still be stuck in a different plane (and looking for portal(s) to take you to destination plane, with no guarantee of finding them or how far from target you will arrive when (if) you make it to your target plane). In fact the spell was extremely useful and made the story much simpler. Sure it didn't remove all hurdles but it shouldn't (as other posters pointed out there are ways to handle them: travelling the plane, casting Teleport, getting scroll of PLaneshift, Greater, ...).

I would be extremely wary of giving power ups to casters - they are very powerful they way they are.

One player in our group dislikes when we substitute RAW and actual rules with logic and fluff. And you can't houserule every single rules interpretation beforehand. How are you dealing with stuff like this? Because I CAN see the point of a player that mostly prefers mundanes that whole plot points shouldn't revolve around "cheated powers" and instead be solved by teamwork and the whole group.

And so I fully understand the player: not only their character is weaker by RAW (lacking ability to transport party to the target plane in 6 seconds) but the already stronger characters get sudden power-up (possibly stealing spotlight from the character... maybe helping everyone survive in less friendly parts of higher planes would let the character shine? or maybe something similar happened earlier?)

OldTrees1

2014-12-04, 02:23 AM

This is a false dichotomy. It's easily possible to have cool things happen within the boundaries of RAW, and that displays your DMing skill even more.

I do not see a dichotomy in my post. When Rule of Cool and RAW agree, then go with RAW. Otherwise, go with Rule of Cool unless(see other qualifier in previous post).

ahenobarbi

2014-12-04, 02:35 AM

The Rule of Cool overrides RAW unless it threatens to break Suspension of Disbelief.
The DM has permission to override RAW when it makes a better experience for the group.

I don't like so called "Rule of Cool" - in my experience it tends to heavily favor some players over others. And players that were doing (comparatively) well in the game too. I think it happens because DMs usually build games that favor certain play styles and if they break rules on top of their natural tendencies... it goes from (for example) favoring melee over magic users by making most enemies highly resistant to magic (so they can be only taken down by making full attacks) to letting barbarian kill it in one strike (because natural 20).

OldTrees1

2014-12-04, 03:13 AM

I don't like so called "Rule of Cool" - in my experience it tends to heavily favor some players over others. And players that were doing (comparatively) well in the game too. I think it happens because DMs usually build games that favor certain play styles and if they break rules on top of their natural tendencies... it goes from (for example) favoring melee over magic users by making most enemies highly resistant to magic (so they can be only taken down by making full attacks) to letting barbarian kill it in one strike (because natural 20).

A good example of this failing of the Rule of Cool is the Other Player(a non caster IIRC) in the OP's story. This failing is part of the reason I had a qualifier to my statement(marginalizing a player will quickly break their immersion*).

Everything can be overdone/taken beyond reason. In my experience, DMs can adjust the rules to improve the game for the group without marginalizing anyone. This DM tool/technique is technically part of the Rule of Cool. That is why the Rule of Cool should not be followed without qualifiers to avoid using it when it would marginalize someone or would hurt the game.

*I do recognize that my qualifier was indirect as a consequence of being more general. I am sorry for it being less clear.

ahenobarbi

2014-12-04, 03:44 AM

A good example of this failing of the Rule of Cool is the Other Player(a non caster IIRC) in the OP's story. This failing is part of the reason I had a qualifier to my statement(marginalizing a player will quickly break their immersion*).

Everything can be overdone/taken beyond reason. In my experience, DMs can adjust the rules to improve the game for the group without marginalizing anyone. This DM tool/technique is technically part of the Rule of Cool. That is why the Rule of Cool should not be followed without qualifiers to avoid using it when it would marginalize someone or would hurt the game.

*I do recognize that my qualifier was indirect as a consequence of being more general. I am sorry for it being less clear.

If you actually manage to do this then great!

I'm just saying I think it's really easy to mess up. Or maybe I only noticed when DMs messed up. So anyone using Rule of Cool should be cautious.

OldTrees1

2014-12-04, 04:03 AM

If you actually manage to do this then great!

I'm just saying I think it's really easy to mess up. Or maybe I only noticed when DMs messed up. So anyone using Rule of Cool should be cautious.

I was saying "Only use ___ when using ___ would not be messing up" so we are in agreement. Personally I found that the small things(usually not talked about as the RoC they are) work better than the large things.

ahenobarbi

2014-12-04, 04:18 AM

I was saying "Only use ___ when using ___ would not be messing up" so we are in agreement.

Yes, we are in agreement. I should have made that clear.

Personally I found that the small things(usually not talked about as the RoC they are) work better than the large things.

Sounds reasonable.

Psyren

2014-12-04, 04:28 AM

I do not see a dichotomy in my post. When Rule of Cool and RAW agree, then go with RAW. Otherwise, go with Rule of Cool unless(see other qualifier in previous post).

In my opinion, for a sufficiently-skilled DM, the "otherwise" should be so rare as to be easily dismissed.

Curmudgeon

2014-12-04, 04:37 AM

This is a false dichotomy. It's easily possible to have cool things happen within the boundaries of RAW, and that displays your DMing skill even more.
I agree completely here. I'll let fluff override RAW (with a house rule) to make Monks proficient with their unarmed strikes. I won't let spellcasters wave their hands and relegate non-spellcasters into supernumeraries/pets. Even if you take the straightforward position that spells do only what they say they do (and never more), you've still got the situation where spellcasters have dozens or hundreds of tools (spells) compared to non-spellcasters with just a handful of tools (other class features).

Still, most spells are borderline useless, dangerous or make stories more difficult rather than easier if played by RAW.
Your argument is that spellcasters, who already have the most toys in D&D, should have those toys improved ad hoc so they can drive the plot. I'm not buying what you're shoveling.

OldTrees1

2014-12-04, 04:43 AM

In my opinion, for a sufficiently-skilled DM, the "otherwise" should be so rare as to be easily dismissed.

We disagree on the frequency and how it correlates with DM skill(see fixes for 3.5 as an example). However those details are irrelevant, there was no dichotomy in my statement.

Psyren

2014-12-04, 04:47 AM

We disagree on the frequency and how it correlates with DM skill(see fixes for 3.5 as an example). However those details are irrelevant, there was no dichotomy in my statement.

Agree to disagree it is.

NichG

2014-12-04, 05:41 AM

It seems like the OP simply cannot win. He posted an example which essentially amounts to 'okay, I get the point, instead of doing a solo adventure in Valhalla for you for the next 2 hours while everyone else is twiddling their thumbs, lets handwave over that, have you get the information you needed, and get back to gaming together' and people are complaining that he's buffing casters. I imagine that if he had posted an example of preventing a spell from doing what RAW technically permits it to do, we'd have another set of posters jump down his throat about being an overly controlling DM and being afraid to let players have any agency or cool toys.

...

Anyhow, on this topic, I take the stance that fluff should always overrule RAW. Fluff is only interesting if it matters, e.g. if it has the weight of causation behind it. If I'm going to fully engage with a game, I want to be able to take what is described to me as an indication of the state of reality within the game - that means it's a thing that I can interact with, but most importantly its a thing I can take to be true in the game world, and the game world should behave as if it is true.

If the fluff is that 'vampires are monsters with an insatiable craving for blood', I want to be able to make plans that involve playing off of that bloodlust. I do not want to see vampires who shrug it off because the rules don't say there are consequences for not partaking, so there's no rational reason for them to go for the bait. To me, that is a failure of the rules to accurately portray the fluff, which is a big part of their job. If you tell me 'this is a horribly lethal poison', but its incapable of killing the average commoner, then again that's a failure of the rules. Often those failures are not visible until they come up, and so a good DM must be prepared to improvise to provide fixes so that the flow of the game is not disrupted.

Spore

2014-12-04, 07:08 AM

Your argument is that spellcasters, who already have the most toys in D&D, should have those toys improved ad hoc so they can drive the plot. I'm not buying what you're shoveling.

I am not requesting an improvement where it doesn't belong. However I AM requesting an improvement where it would fit into the story. If my oracle would planeshift into the Abyss I could see my DM hurling me onto a battlefield. Or if I abused my plot-given precision teleporting powers to avoid having the wizard cast teleport by just planeshifting off and onto the prime material.

If I am using planeshift to talk to a RANDOM servant of my deity and then be sent back (not by my power but the power of the deity) for a whoping 2 minutes of roleplaying I shouldn't be punished with having to spend the rest of the campaign duration hiking back to the main story. Keep in mind that this didn't really drive the main plot but just imprisoned a rather unimportant and unknowing servant of the BBEG because I wanted to save him from being sacrificed.

I am NOT abusing the spells to circumvent encounters, adventures and whole parts of the story. I am NOT trying to be a scrying/teleporting assassin.

It seems like the OP simply cannot win. He posted an example which essentially amounts to 'okay, I get the point, instead of doing a solo adventure in Valhalla for you for the next 2 hours while everyone else is twiddling their thumbs, lets handwave over that, have you get the information you needed, and get back to gaming together' and people are complaining that he's buffing casters.

Do you think the DM felt "bullied" into dropping RAW out of the equation? I knew full well that I needed the NPC's powers to return to the main story before casting Planeshift.

ahenobarbi

2014-12-04, 07:29 AM

It seems like the OP simply cannot win. He posted an example which essentially amounts to 'okay, I get the point, instead of doing a solo adventure in Valhalla for you for the next 2 hours while everyone else is twiddling their thumbs, lets handwave over that, have you get the information you needed, and get back to gaming together' and people are complaining that he's buffing casters.

And where exactly the "solo adventure in Valhalla" comes from? There is no reason for rest of the party not to be there. And if they are you can have a nice adventure for the whole party (potentially giving exposition to those characters who can't freely travel planes a few times a day).

Anyhow, on this topic, I take the stance that fluff should always overrule RAW. Fluff is only interesting if it matters, e.g. if it has the weight of causation behind it. If I'm going to fully engage with a game, I want to be able to take what is described to me as an indication of the state of reality within the game - that means it's a thing that I can interact with, but most importantly its a thing I can take to be true in the game world, and the game world should behave as if it is true.

But the example OP gave looks like opposite of that: everyone, always arrives at least 5 miles away from their target (or possibly at 1st level of mt. Celestia as some poster claimed) but you somehow did hit your mark exactly, because it's more convenient.

If the fluff is that 'vampires are monsters with an insatiable craving for blood', I want to be able to make plans that involve playing off of that bloodlust. I do not want to see vampires who shrug it off because the rules don't say there are consequences for not partaking, so there's no rational reason for them to go for the bait. To me, that is a failure of the rules to accurately portray the fluff, which is a big part of their job. If you tell me 'this is a horribly lethal poison', but its incapable of killing the average commoner, then again that's a failure of the rules. Often those failures are not visible until they come up, and so a good DM must be prepared to improvise to provide fixes so that the flow of the game is not disrupted.

Yes. Fluff and rules should match. Sad fact is that they don't. To fix this you can change rules to match fluff, change fluff to match rules or both. The solution you suggest (changing rules to match fluff) is extremely hard to implement so many reject it and instead implement the third (mixed) as it is the easiest to implement (some rules (drown healing) are ridiculous and are easy to fix; some fluff demands huge rule revisions (fighter being an effective combatant) and thus is easier to rewrite).

NichG

2014-12-04, 07:34 AM

Do you think the DM felt "bullied" into dropping RAW out of the equation? I knew full well that I needed the NPC's powers to return to the main story before casting Planeshift.

I guess it depends on detail I don't have. Did you explicitly request the change, or did the DM just decide to run it this way spontaneously?

ahenobarbi

2014-12-04, 07:38 AM

I am not requesting an improvement where it doesn't belong. However I AM requesting an improvement where it would fit into the story. If my oracle would planeshift into the Abyss I could see my DM hurling me onto a battlefield. Or if I abused my plot-given precision teleporting powers to avoid having the wizard cast teleport by just planeshifting off and onto the prime material.

If I am using planeshift to talk to a RANDOM servant of my deity and then be sent back (not by my power but the power of the deity) for a whoping 2 minutes of roleplaying I shouldn't be punished with having to spend the rest of the campaign duration hiking back to the main story. Keep in mind that this didn't really drive the main plot but just imprisoned a rather unimportant and unknowing servant of the BBEG because I wanted to save him from being sacrificed.

I am NOT abusing the spells to circumvent encounters, adventures and whole parts of the story. I am NOT trying to be a scrying/teleporting assassin.

Try looking at this from other player's perspective: you do something he can't AND you do get to break rules while doing it. While there are other solutions to the problem. You could wait 8 hours and cast Planar Ally, Lesser to have some servant of your god come to advise you for a few gp. You could look for a more mundane solution (like other's player character has to). But no, you decide you should be able to solve it *now*, even if rules don't allow it. How would you feel if other player demanded for something similar (say summoning servant of *his* god to give advice simply because it's more convenient)?

atemu1234

2014-12-04, 07:56 AM

I'd have them find an interesting NPC who I'd prepared for them going off course (seeing it is fairly likely) rather than handing them a death sentence and a blank character sheet.

Also, celestial ice trolls. Always fun.

Spore

2014-12-04, 10:07 AM

Also, celestial ice trolls. Always fun.

Ah, template stacking. Still making myself a celestial frost giant feels more munchkiny than a short trip into the nether for me.

Try looking at this from other player's perspective: you do something he can't AND you do get to break rules while doing it.

So what about the rogue having an entire secret anti-undead cult at his disposal?
What about the evil priestess whose secret base we're using for shelter?
The witch who has a free wish granted by a freed Marid?
Or the fighter who was ressed for free (from the Avatar of Death no less) from heroically charging into a monster and saving everyone?

There's diversity in any character concept not covered by rules. And honestly if every character provided the same benefit, we might as well skip the character creation and all play token heroes like they do in sandbox RPGs like Skyrim where an iron-clad warrior can do secret jobs for the thieves' guild.

Our DM is pretty lenient. And still I can understand the fighter's complaint (since any and all boons granted support the idea of empowerment while the free ress was just kind of a convenience thing).

You could wait 8 hours and cast Planar Ally

Nope, I play spontaneous.

And where exactly the "solo adventure in Valhalla" comes from? There is no reason for rest of the party not to be there.

Well I would have taken the party with me but as I wanted to save the guy from our priestess I would not have taken her with me. It was safer for my character to keep everyone out and the evil priestess under constant watch rather than having a field trip with the good and neutral guys while having the evil cleric run rampant.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-12-04, 11:02 AM

Spore

2014-12-04, 11:11 AM

I just don't see the need to bend the rules here.

There was never a NEED for it. It's not like not being able to do that solved any particular plot point.

But I get both points now. Thanks for painting such a colorful picture for both opinions.

Psyren

2014-12-04, 11:19 AM

Magma Armor0

2014-12-04, 12:35 PM

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and post based on the title rather than the example in the first post.

When should fluff/rule of cool override RAW? I understand there's no hard and fast rule "If _____ then ______" but are there tips/tricks from the playground? So far all I see is "it works better with the little things rather than the big things."

I know a few years back on the wotc forums there was this huge push for the "yes, and...." style of roleplaying. This discussion feels related: the dm shouldn't outright deny the players, but shouldn't just give them everything they want all the time. Thoughts?

Or, if this is off topic, please ignore.

SiuiS

2014-12-04, 01:31 PM

If the problem is convenience, then a friendly planar denizen could have showed up help the oracle to his destination once he arrived.

If the problem is that the spell doesn't do what it should do in certain RP situations, Greater Plane Shift exists (or could be ported easily into PF).

If the problem is that your Oracle is so special that his god should take notice and bring him exactly where he needs to be, then perhaps that would be true had his god granted him the power to Greater Plane Shift.

I just don't see the need to bend the rules here.

The only difference between an oracle's god doing Deus Ex Machina stuff and the DM 'bending the rules' in a way you say should never happen is nil. In one the player accepts it and in the other the player throws a fit and demands an explanation. Both are rationalizing changes to the rules.

Why do you accept some rules bending but not others? Because it seems okay or like something you would do? Because you came up with the justification before the rules bend? But you can't know that didn't happen here.

Telok

2014-12-04, 03:56 PM

Urpriest

2014-12-04, 04:00 PM

I don't think the OP's example could ever take place. The caster and the player would both know that Plane Shift is an inaccurate spell, and would only cast if it they were prepared for a long-ish journey. While there are spells that get you exactly where you want to go (aforementioned Greater Plane Shift), Plane Shift is not one of them, and there is no reason why any of the parties involved would mistake it for such.

Curmudgeon

2014-12-04, 04:06 PM

I, personally, am totally cool with a huge giant who throws eighty pound rocks with a 120 foot rang increment, being able to pick up a fourty pound halfling and chuck him through a window.
There are at least two RAW ways of doing this:

a 1-level dip into Hulking Hurler (Complete Warrior, page 40) for their Really Throw Anything class feature
the feat Fling Enemy (Races of Stone, page 140)
There's no need for fluff to override RAW, and this sort of "totally cool" action is available to DMs who aren't comfortable coloring outside the lines.

OldTrees1

2014-12-04, 04:33 PM

There are at least two RAW ways of doing this:

a 1-level dip into Hulking Hurler (Complete Warrior, page 40) for their Really Throw Anything class feature
the feat Fling Enemy (Races of Stone, page 140)
There's no need for fluff to override RAW, and this sort of "totally cool" action is available to DMs who aren't comfortable coloring outside the lines.

However DMs are also allowed to assume martial characters have basic competency without investing specific levels and feats. In that case a Str check(possibly modified by BAB) against a DM set DC is a fitting alternative resolution.

Jay R

2014-12-04, 04:44 PM

The Rule of Cool overrides RAW unless it threatens to break Suspension of Disbelief.
The DM has permission to override RAW when it makes a better experience for the group.

These are two very different statements. The first one is completely untrue, and can give players the idea that when the DM does not accept their idea of what cool thing their player can do, the DM is somehow messing up, rather than exercising his duty.

In fact, the "Rule of Cool" never overrides RAW. The DM overrides RAW when he believes it is the right thing to do. What convinced him may be the "Rule of Cool". But it didn't override anything. Only the DM does. And telling the palyers that the "Rule of Cool" does gives them a false expectation.

OldTrees1

2014-12-04, 05:01 PM

These are two very different statements. The first one is completely untrue, and can give players the idea that when the DM does not accept their idea of what cool thing their player can do, the DM is somehow messing up, rather than exercising his duty.

In fact, the "Rule of Cool" never overrides RAW. The DM overrides RAW when he believes it is the right thing to do. What convinced him may be the "Rule of Cool". But it didn't override anything. Only the DM does. And telling the palyers that the "Rule of Cool" does gives them a false expectation.

I think we must have different understandings of the Rule of Cool and Suspension of Disbelief. I find the 2 sentences to be equivalent. However I did list both since the first one can be indirect.

1) Just because one player finds something to be cool, does not mean the group would find it neat nor does it mean that it would not be disruptive to the game.

2) The false expectation does not occur to anyone that parses the sentence logically without assumptions. Yes the DM overrides RAW. One of the various reasons for a DM to override RAW is the Rule of Cool. There are cases where using the Rule of Cool to override RAW would lead to breaking Suspension of Disbelief. Those cases should be avoided. None of that contradicts my statement and my statement contradicts none of that.

Curmudgeon

2014-12-04, 06:01 PM

However DMs are also allowed to assume martial characters have basic competency without investing specific levels and feats. In that case a Str check(possibly modified by BAB) against a DM set DC is a fitting alternative resolution.
I don't believe you've thought this through. If that's all it takes, the party risks TPK from a level 1 Warrior (with sufficient Strength, of course) guarding a bridge, when the Warrior tosses them all into the canyon. Similarly, the party Fighter can take out a group of enemies solo simply by picking such an advantageous location, swapping easy Strength checks (no failure on rolled 1, no action requirement listed) instead of attack rolls.

A DM who introduces on-the-fly changes to the rules in this manner has to live with the consequences. It is not cool to screw with game mechanics forever by hand-waving this "cool" scenario (enemy throws Halfling through window). It's also not cool to say that the hand-waved rules enabling this "cool" mechanic don't apply when the PCs want to use them, too.

I suggest you think things through and find RAW ways to accomplish these "cool" maneuvers. A lazy DM ends up being a frustrating DM when they screw with the rules ad hoc.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-12-04, 06:35 PM

OldTrees1

2014-12-04, 06:39 PM

I don't believe you've thought this through. If that's all it takes, the party risks TPK from a level 1 Warrior (with sufficient Strength, of course) guarding a bridge, when the Warrior tosses them all into the canyon. Similarly, the party Fighter can take out a group of enemies solo simply by picking such an advantageous location, swapping easy Strength checks (no failure on rolled 1, no action requirement listed) instead of attack rolls.

A DM who introduces on-the-fly changes to the rules in this manner has to live with the consequences. It is not cool to screw with game mechanics forever by hand-waving this "cool" scenario (enemy throws Halfling through window). It's also not cool to say that the hand-waved rules enabling this "cool" mechanic don't apply when the PCs want to use them, too.

I suggest you think things through and find RAW ways to accomplish these "cool" maneuvers. A lazy DM ends up being a frustrating DM when they screw with the rules ad hoc.

Perhaps you haven't heard of Bull Rush? Seriously, take the environmental hazards into account when estimating the challenge of the encounter. Being able to throw a _smaller_ _held_ person as an _attack option_ does not make that encounter any more dangerous than it already was.

You are correct that physics apply to both PCs and NPCs. So of course the PCs would be able to use the throwing mechanic(originally I thought the example was of a Giant with a Halfing ally).

NichG

2014-12-04, 07:53 PM

The rules as written have no real value or special position in their own right as far as questions of balance. Ten+ years of community experience with 3.5 means that these days, the average forum goer has access to more careful thought, analysis, and playtesting of the rules than the designers originally did when they wrote them. So there's no excuse anymore to be afraid to deviate from them.

You're just as likely to risk a TPK by following the CR system to the letter and ignoring what the monsters can actually do. Nothing is a substitute for actually thinking about the details of the party's abilities, the abilities of those foes you put them up against, and the details of the scenario. Blindly following RAW will get you in trouble just as much as blindly making ad-hoc decisions and then not taking them into account later on. The problem isn't about the choice to ad-hoc, its about the choice to do it 'blindly'.

An unwillingness to deviate from RAW even in situations where RAW is damaging the game is, to me, a sign of a mediocre DM. It means they are either a very inflexible or dogmatic thinker in general (and that inflexibility will often translate to other areas, like when PCs try to go off the tracks or do something unexpected), or that they lack confidence and understanding of how things in the game interact with each-other. If its a lack of confidence, then it often puts a limit on their creativity - they won't do something surprising, because they're afraid of scenarios that don't look like scenarios they're familiar with. If its a lack of understanding, then they're heading for a That Damn Crab moment, or alternately for a situation where someone breaks the game over their knee because of one of the multitude of holes in RAW and the DM doesn't know how to adjust.

ZamielVanWeber

2014-12-04, 08:09 PM

In this case we're not worrying about a hole in RAW or some sort of balance error. He specifically wants a spell to do something the spell does not say it does. What this means practically is he wants a buff to casters, the most powerful class. There are RAW solutions to his problems that wouldn't need anyone to buff his spells, so buffing his spells is not a good idea here.

Ad-hocing decisions, even if they seem "cool" is a recipe for trouble since you will ultimately end up justifying holding them back later when players want to use them and suddenly this does not seem like such a good idea. The only time I ever did it was in the middle of combat where I did not want to disrupt flow by trying to figure out if it was even possible and the situation I created was so narrow that it was not abusable. Plane Shift dropping half its downside does not seem to compare, at least in my eyes.

Also a little late but: There are a few planes of the Abyss and Cania in Baator that are frozen wastelands where an unprepared adventurer could freeze to death. If you plane shift to these locations without adequate protection I doubt anyone would have sympathy though, since the lower planes are notorious for being dangerous.

ahenobarbi

2014-12-04, 08:42 PM

Perhaps you haven't heard of Bull Rush? Seriously, take the environmental hazards into account when estimating the challenge of the encounter. Being able to throw a _smaller_ _held_ person as an _attack option_ does not make that encounter any more dangerous than it already was.

It does. If you want to bullrush someone through an edge of canyon you end up at the edge. Thus becoming more vulnerable to being bullrushed through the edge yourself. When you throw them you can stay in a much safer position. Also there are all kinds of deffences against bullrushing and none against being thrown as you proposed.

So yes, it does make the situation much morze dangerous (and the rule is very abusable).

ThisIsZen

2014-12-04, 08:42 PM

Well actually it seems to me that the intent wasn't "let's buff casters hooray" or even "let's buff Plane Shift, hooray!" but rather "hey I'm already splitting the party for IC reasons and don't really want to detract from major events with a solo adventure so how about this particular Plane Shift roll put me conveniently close to my target so everyone can get on with the game". It didn't seem to me that what was going on was necessarily precedent-setting or an actual alteration of the rules. "Hm, looks like I totally rolled a 1 on the d% roll. Guess you're a scant five miles from your destination, on the outskirts of your God's domain."

This is just fixing a die roll, for expediency's sake, because the intended scene isn't supposed to take a lot of table time. If the DM had opted to do that themselves, behind the screen ("Oh, well that's lucky! You arrive close to your God's domain, shouldn't take long at all.") then there wouldn't even be any issue 'cause it's as possible to roll a 1 on a d% as it is to fudge the roll to 1. In cases like this, if the discussion was out in the open, then I'd expect the player to realize that this was a fudge case specifically to avoid taking up a lot of time - it wasn't a hard and fast ruling on the function of Plane Shift. It'd be kind of rude, honestly, for a player to turn around and then expect Plane Shift to always work this way.

I guess I don't understand the hideously adversarial tone expected in this thread between the DM and the players? This game is held together by spit, duct tape and good will already, if you don't have at least some degree of trust running both ways across a table then you should really play a different system that WON'T break into splinters at the slightest provocation.

ahenobarbi

2014-12-04, 08:49 PM

ahenobarbi

2014-12-04, 08:59 PM

NichG

2014-12-05, 04:12 AM

Sure, RAW os abusable. But by now it's easy to make an agreement in your group to avoid abuse (and define what you think is abuse). When you start making ad hoc rules it becomes very hard again. Because you don't have them analyzed the way RAW is (in most cases; some popular houserules have been didcussed a lot). So you make an encounter a little more challenging by throwing a halfling out of a window. A few sessions later you're in trouble when your BBEG gets thrown into a volcano/Cloudkill/Sphere of Annihilation/...

Why does that mean 'you are in trouble'? I mean, you put the battle the battle at the site of a volcano/Cloudkill/Sphere of Annihilation, and you didn't expect someone to get thrown/shoved/teleported/etc in? That speaks to me more of the DM being naive than anything about rules.

If you do anything without thinking about the consequences, it can and will burn you. That doesn't mean 'don't do things', it means 'think about the consequences, and be prepared to accept them'.

Because you don't need someone taking advantage of an adhoc ruling to oneshot your BBEG. When you put the BBEG in the range of player abilities and in the initiative order, you are accepting that 'BBEG dies' is a possible outcome of that situation. There's always the possibility of the BBEG rolling a 1, or the players coming up with a brilliant plan, or even you just forgetting that a particular ability existed (Web slows them to a crawl even if they make the save?! Crap!). If that would mean that 'you're in trouble', that means you shouldn't have had your BBEG be there in the first place.

Don't blame it on ad-hocing, blame it on the DM being inexperienced in general.

TypoNinja

2014-12-05, 05:53 AM

The only difference between an oracle's god doing Deus Ex Machina stuff and the DM 'bending the rules' in a way you say should never happen is nil. In one the player accepts it and in the other the player throws a fit and demands an explanation. Both are rationalizing changes to the rules.

Why do you accept some rules bending but not others? Because it seems okay or like something you would do? Because you came up with the justification before the rules bend? But you can't know that didn't happen here.

Your are completely wrong here. Both situations are not equivalent. One is the DM intervening outside the rules, which is risky.

The other situation is explicitly within the rules, and the entire point of several posts here.

If you think you as DM need to break rules for a given result, you probably just need to think harder about a rules defined option.

This also helps with suspension of disbelief, did an event happen because of applied handwavium or did an event happen because of a series of events in universe? While its true that a DM can hand wave away anything they want to happen, needing to do so is sloppy story telling. Making up some things (like your McGuffin) is expected, but once you have your plot points in place, once you established your universe, your universe should be able to handle the why's in your story telling.

Jay R

2014-12-05, 12:44 PM

I think we must have different understandings of the Rule of Cool and Suspension of Disbelief. I find the 2 sentences to be equivalent. However I did list both since the first one can be indirect.

No, we have different understandings of grammar. The Rule of Cool does not override RAW. The DM does.

The first sentence is confusing the legal argument with the judge. They aren't the same thing.

Spore

2014-12-05, 01:55 PM

This game is held together by spit, duct tape and good will already, if you don't have at least some degree of trust running both ways across a table then you should really play a different system that WON'T break into splinters at the slightest provocation.

May this be an addition to my signature?

Except that didn't happen. PC arrived 0 miles from target, not 5 miles from target. Which takes it from "lucky" to "impossible". Which is bad because it makes it obvious that DM is breaking rules.

To be 100% precise I should say that neither the time flow of the plane in question has been set in comparison to the material plane (homebrew) nor has the DM said "You arrive at your destination." but rather "You walk through snow covered plains until you find some sort of weird frozen garden." So neither time nor distance is specifically set for the specific plane.

Shall I make a game comparison? For people still wishing to enjoy the main quest of Skyrim: SPOILER AHEAD

When you enter Sovngarde through a portal you don't arrive randomly in an area and have to fight several hours to get to the quest objective. And while this spell would be simulated in D&D by other magic than Plane Shift this only shows storytelling that is focussed on fluff rather than 100% mechanical backgrounds. Such an portal should not be possible - because even the mightiest archmage of the land basically casts empowered 3-5th evocation blasts lon his spell slots.

OldTrees1

2014-12-05, 02:16 PM

No, we have different understandings of grammar. The Rule of Cool does not override RAW. The DM does.

The first sentence is confusing the legal argument with the judge. They aren't the same thing.

Wait, you are nitpicking between phrasing it like "Subject A should have Argument D override Argument B" vs "Argument A should have Subject D override Argument B"? I am not an English Major, but isn't it easier to communicate an unstated subject that it is to communicate an unstated reason?

TypoNinja

2014-12-05, 03:56 PM

Wait, you are nitpicking between phrasing it like "Subject A should have Argument D override Argument B" vs "Argument A should have Subject D override Argument B"? I am not an English Major, but isn't it easier to communicate an unstated subject that it is to communicate an unstated reason?

The distinction is subtle but important I think. The DM is not the rule maker, he is the rule enforcer and judge. Lacking text that says "Rule of Cool overrides RAW" or something similar, any use of rule of cool to excuse changes becomes Rule 0.

A DM can use rule 0 to do literally anything, but I hold this to be risky. Everybody signed up to play D&D, over using rule 0 (without prior agreement, obviously) undermines the amount of D&D you are playing. Much like Deus Ex Machina is a poor literary device, leaning on rule zero too often is a poor DMing choice. Even your custom content should have known rules and behave consistently, so that everybody is always aware of what they are playing.

Jay R

2014-12-05, 05:35 PM

Milo v3

2014-12-05, 07:16 PM

Shall I make a game comparison? For people still wishing to enjoy the main quest of Skyrim

That would work via a different spell than planeshift, planar travel in elder scrolls has never worked like planeshift and has always effectively been a gate spell, except for the one or two astral projections.

OldTrees1

2014-12-05, 07:37 PM

No., not at all. I am nitpicking the difference between "Argument A overrides Argument B" without stating a subject from "Subject C can decide to override argument B because of argument A."

I hear you nitpick but disagree. Unstated subjects are a part of the colloquial English language. The audience reading these threads has enough context(knowledge of DMs and Rule 0) to be able to see the unstated subject.

However this is devolving into a semantics argument that only English Professors could love.

@TypoNinja
I see. I was not trying to include the entirety of general case(Rule 0). I was giving advice about a specific subset(Rule of Cool).

I like how your second paragraph reiterates the qualifying clause I included("your custom content should have known rules and behave consistently").

ThisIsZen

2014-12-05, 07:49 PM

May this be an addition to my signature?

Certainly.

NichG

2014-12-05, 07:51 PM

A DM can use rule 0 to do literally anything, but I hold this to be risky. Everybody signed up to play D&D, over using rule 0 (without prior agreement, obviously) undermines the amount of D&D you are playing.

Why do you assume that 'everybody signed up to play D&D' as opposed to, say, 'everybody signed up to play the campaign that this DM pitched' or 'everybody signed up to play with each-other'? or even just 'everyone signed up to have a good time playing a tabletop game'? What does it matter if its 100% authentic D&D, or a 60/20/10/10 blend of D&D, L5R, Werewolf, and Serenity?

ahenobarbi

2014-12-05, 09:30 PM

Why does that mean 'you are in trouble'? I mean, you put the battle the battle at the site of a volcano/Cloudkill/Sphere of Annihilation, and you didn't expect someone to get thrown/shoved/teleported/etc in? That speaks to me more of the DM being naive than anything about rules.

The big differences is that there are defenses against being bullrushed, teleported and moved in other ways permitted by RAW. There are none for your houseruled throwing. And the worst part is you did not need houserule in the first place - there are feats for that. This also adds to complexity of the game and may make some players unhappy (because they made decisions based on rules different than those actually used (taking useless feats, deciding not to play cool character because it would need a few feats too many (and it turns out those feats are not needed, ...)).

So you are potentially causing a lot of trouble for very little gain.

Sometimes it may be worth it (making Monks proficient with unarmed strikes or saying drown healing does not work is ok) but I'm really sure you should be cautious when introducing house rules (especially if doing so in heat of the moment, chances are you didn't think that through).

If you do anything without thinking about the consequences, it can and will burn you. That doesn't mean 'don't do things', it means 'think about the consequences, and be prepared to accept them'.

It seems we agree :) I just have some bad experiences with houserules so I'm trying to warn others about the danger ().

To be 100% precise I should say that neither the time flow of the plane in question has been set in comparison to the material plane (homebrew) nor has the DM said "You arrive at your destination." but rather "You walk through snow covered plains until you find some sort of weird frozen garden." So neither time nor distance is specifically set for the specific plane.

Ok, it's fine then. You don't have to roleplay walking 5d100 miles. But as the other player I'd want mechanical effects to be reflected in game (so your character not being there for appropriate amount of time)(especially if there is some tension between characters and I plan to use it (probably otherwise too so in the future I can plausibly deny having ulterior motive in similar situations :smallamused:)).

Shall I make a game comparison? For people still wishing to enjoy the main quest of Skyrim: SPOILER AHEAD

When you enter Sovngarde through a portal you don't arrive randomly in an area and have to fight several hours to get to the quest objective. And while this spell would be simulated in D&D by other magic than Plane Shift this only shows storytelling that is focussed on fluff rather than 100% mechanical backgrounds. Such an portal should not be possible - because even the mightiest archmage of the land basically casts empowered 3-5th evocation blasts lon his spell slots.

As pointed out this is not breaking rules of the game, because we are not presented with anything like Plane Shif in Elder Scrolls series (to best of my knowledge). Also you don't arrive right at the desired spot, you have a little traveling to do :smallwink:

Why do you assume that 'everybody signed up to play D&D' as opposed to, say, 'everybody signed up to play the campaign that this DM pitched' or 'everybody signed up to play with each-other'? or even just 'everyone signed up to have a good time playing a tabletop game'? What does it matter if its 100% authentic D&D, or a 60/20/10/10 blend of D&D, L5R, Werewolf, and Serenity?

It probably depends on the group. My group currently signed up to play D&D by RAW (with a few known houserules and an agreement on power level).

Jay R

2014-12-05, 09:41 PM

It probably depends on the group. My group currently signed up to play D&D by RAW (with a few known houserules and an agreement on power level).

That certainly depends on the group. I had six people jump in when I said I'd run a game, before I even decided what system it would be. It wound up being 2E with an additional one 3E Feat each, and several other exceptions. I signed up to play Mike's game despite the system. When Dirk announced he would run a game, five of us said, "Yes" before he finished the sentence.

But my largest group was definitely based on the rules. I said I'd run original D&D, and suddenly six players swelled to twelve.

TypoNinja

2014-12-05, 09:49 PM

Why do you assume that 'everybody signed up to play D&D' as opposed to, say, 'everybody signed up to play the campaign that this DM pitched' or 'everybody signed up to play with each-other'? or even just 'everyone signed up to have a good time playing a tabletop game'? What does it matter if its 100% authentic D&D, or a 60/20/10/10 blend of D&D, L5R, Werewolf, and Serenity?

I specifically addressed this already, with my "without prior agreement" clause. If that's what your table wants to play, obviously you should play it.

You are missing a small distinction though, when I say everybody signed up to lay D&D I'm not saying everybody signed up to play Forgotten Realms. The campaign setting and the rules the game is based on are two different subsections, and different settings add their own twists to the rules.

Setting sourced rules, and their changes are different than say deciding to change how grappling works because you don't like it.

And, as I also noted if you have setting based rules they need to be actual rules. If your settings changes things these changes need to be specific, and consistent. A fighter is a fighter is a fighter, and if hes not why hes not needs to be communicated to the players, and you need to stick with it. Your new rules should be as hard cast as RAW, because you are making those the rules of your new world.

When I say everyone signed up to play D&D, I mean that everybody at your table has expectations based on experience (and certain fantasy tropes) on how the game system will function. Changing how that system functions should not be undertaken lightly.

NichG

2014-12-05, 11:18 PM

The big differences is that there are defenses against being bullrushed, teleported and moved in other ways permitted by RAW. There are none for your houseruled throwing. And the worst part is you did not need houserule in the first place - there are feats for that. This also adds to complexity of the game and may make some players unhappy (because they made decisions based on rules different than those actually used (taking useless feats, deciding not to play cool character because it would need a few feats too many (and it turns out those feats are not needed, ...)).

So you are potentially causing a lot of trouble for very little gain.

All of this seems predicated on assuming a worst-case scenario: a DM who is not just house-ruling, but one who is making poorly-considered house rules and at the same time expecting that they can be fire-and-forget and at the same time creating situations which sit on a knife-edge already and then being unable to deal with what happens when things get pushed over. But, fundamentally, I think its more important to actually take chances as a DM and learn to run the game better rather than worry about worst-cases like this.

Because, really, even the worst case scenario here can be fixed by saying to the group 'Sorry guys, I messed up and did something dumb, mind if we retcon?' and that is not the end of the world.

On the other hand, the flexibility you gain by being comfortable with ad-hocing and learning to do it well is huge, and that skill extends to other kinds of improvisation too. I find that your particular example is particularly indicative of this difference.

If your BBEG gets one-shotted by mistake, if you are a DM with improvisation skill and flexibility, then it's no big deal. You can pick that up and run with it, and make it even more awesome. The BBEG was actually doing things which kept some other situation in balance so he could milk it for power - now that he's gone, all of that power he was shepherding becomes a set of loose ends to tie up. Maybe it falls into the hands of weaker villains, but many more of them across the land, and now its a challenge to be at many places at one time to stop all the consequences. Or maybe that power goes to one of the PCs, and you let the players distract themselves while you think of something new. Maybe there was someone worse behind the BBEG who was using him as a pawn. Maybe the heroes win and there's a decade of peace and prosperity, and you pick things up after a timeskip. Maybe the BBEG had something really cool in their treasury like a map to ancient secrets or a portal to some other plane, and you have an exploration arc.

What it comes down to is, it really shouldn't be a big deal if you're quick on your mental feet. But you can't become quick on your mental feet unless you're willing to practice that skill and take risks.

It probably depends on the group. My group currently signed up to play D&D by RAW (with a few known houserules and an agreement on power level).

I specifically addressed this already, with my "without prior agreement" clause. If that's what your table wants to play, obviously you should play it.

You are missing a small distinction though, when I say everybody signed up to lay D&D I'm not saying everybody signed up to play Forgotten Realms. The campaign setting and the rules the game is based on are two different subsections, and different settings add their own twists to the rules.

Setting sourced rules, and their changes are different than say deciding to change how grappling works because you don't like it.

And, as I also noted if you have setting based rules they need to be actual rules. If your settings changes things these changes need to be specific, and consistent. A fighter is a fighter is a fighter, and if hes not why hes not needs to be communicated to the players, and you need to stick with it. Your new rules should be as hard cast as RAW, because you are making those the rules of your new world.

When I say everyone signed up to play D&D, I mean that everybody at your table has expectations based on experience (and certain fantasy tropes) on how the game system will function. Changing how that system functions should not be undertaken lightly.

Whereas for me, I actively seek out DMs who are willing to deviate from RAW and modify the game, so that should give some idea where I'm coming from. I tend to insist on two things in my DMs:

- They should be adding stuff of their own to the game before it even begins. E.g. homebrew, house rules, etc. Even better if a lot of this has to be discovered dynamically in game rather than just being handed out as a rulebook to start.
- They should not be dogmatic or inflexible. If something isn't working, they must be willing fix it right then and there. It's so easy to do this in a way that's fair to players (e.g. by offering a retrain of any class levels/feats/etc nerfed by the change), and it makes the game so much better.

If I want to play something with a specific set of iron-clad rules I'll play a computer game. I play tabletop specifically because it has the flexibility to adapt to situations which the game designers didn't envision.

ahenobarbi

2014-12-05, 11:48 PM

All of this seems predicated on assuming a worst-case scenario: a DM who is not just house-ruling, but one who is making poorly-considered house rules and at the same time expecting that they can be fire-and-forget and at the same time creating situations which sit on a knife-edge already and then being unable to deal with what happens when things get pushed over. But, fundamentally, I think its more important to actually take chances as a DM and learn to run the game better rather than worry about worst-cases like this.

It was worst-case scenario to make it easy (for me to write and others to understand). I could go on a long rant how one of houserules in my group is endless source of frustration for me while being something relatively minor (which probably is the reason I can't convince other guys it's bad) but it would be long, boring and not very convincing (probably).

Because, really, even the worst case scenario here can be fixed by saying to the group 'Sorry guys, I messed up and did something dumb, mind if we retcon?' and that is not the end of the world.

This doesn't fix when the problem your player has when they learn that they could have played that extremely cool character idea they had to drop because there was no way to fit two more feats into a build (and it turns out they did not need those feats).

This does not fix problem your player has when they learn the feat they were waiting to get for last X levels is in fact useless - they could have been doing the cool thing the whole time only no one bothered to tell them.

I'm not saying changing rules is something that should never be done. I'm saying it's something that's way harder to do properly that you seem to think.

Also it seems this post is really similar to the previous one... agree to disagree?

NichG

2014-12-06, 01:29 AM

This doesn't fix when the problem your player has when they learn that they could have played that extremely cool character idea they had to drop because there was no way to fit two more feats into a build (and it turns out they did not need those feats).

Again, this feels like worst-case fearmongering to me. There might happen to be a player whose entire reason for playing might happen to be that they wanted to play this one particular build that might happen to be made impossible by the DM's house rule. And, for whatever reason, the most important thing is that that particular player get to play that particular 'extremely cool character idea'. Even worse, this is a story about a player who is griping that they 'could have done something cool' that the rules wouldn't allow them to do anyhow! So this isn't even an issue with the game, this is an issue with that player being unable to let go of some idea they had a month ago and now they're fixating on what could have been rather than the game in front of them.

Personally, I'd say the player is the problem in this story, not the game. Some people are just impossible to satisfy, and can't help but see everything in terms of keeping up with others. That's just going to lead to disappointment and strife. You know the expression 'this is why we can't have nice things'? This seems to be a perfect example of that. It's an unhealthy attitude, and whatever can be done to help the player change it should be done.

But okay, lets say for whatever reason you're not okay with trying to change the player or whatever. If you're living in an inflexible world, then all you can do then is throw up your hands and cry. But if you're a flexible person and gaming with other flexible people, you have as many options to resolve that situation as there are 'mights' in constructing it.

- The player now knows he can do the cool thing without the feats. Let him rebuild. Problem solved.
- Give everyone three extra feats and let them rebuild. Now the original complaint is completely irrelevant - the player doesn't have to even depend on your house rule to make the cool thing he wants.
- Allow homebrew and work with each player to make classes that do what they want to enable their character ideas. Make it clear that this is an option for everyone.

This does not fix problem your player has when they learn the feat they were waiting to get for last X levels is in fact useless - they could have been doing the cool thing the whole time only no one bothered to tell them.

Frankly, in this scenario the player needs to get over themselves. They can now do the cool thing they've wanted to do. They should be happy about being able to do the cool thing that they didn't think they were going to be able to, not perseverating over the fact that they could have been doing it. I'm all for running a game to give everyone what they want, but you can't make someone who is obsessed about the past more than the future happy - because no matter what you do going forward to try to meet them halfway, they're more concerned with the things that can't be changed.

Its sad for the player, but there's no helping it without changing that attitude first. As long as they're the one carrying this kind of baggage around, the solution has to start with them.

I'm not saying changing rules is something that should never be done. I'm saying it's something that's way harder to do properly that you seem to think.

Its really not at all hard, and I say that with experience as a DM and as a player. What is hard is dealing with difficult players or DMs - people who insist on being unhappy, people who have to 'keep up with the Joneses', people who refuse to take the enjoyment of others at the table into consideration when they play, etc. But even if you leave the rules perfectly alone, those situations are still problematic situations.

The hypothetical player in your post is going to have problems even if you never ad-hoc'd the halfling throwing gimmick, and those problems are not problems that have anything to do with the rules.

Afgncaap5

2014-12-06, 01:46 AM

I think that a GM running a game where there are fluff or lore-based differences in circumstances can avoid the basic rules, but that they should also know what else that change in rules means.

Case in point, one of the core differences between my campaign world and the core rules is that there are different versions of the same spell. A necromancer might cast a Lightning Bolt by pulling that energy from the tortured soul of someone who died from a literal bolt of lightning, while a druid's more likely to actually create the natural conditions required to generate the form of energy discharge that occurs in nature. One of the side effects of this is that there are chances to describe spell castings, and their results, differently.

So, an NPC of mine was a very physical caster, who relied on strength (and had a custom prestige class, Wrathwight, that allowed him to add his Strength modifier to attacks, etc.) As a protective thing, I had Protection From Arrows on him, but described the spell's effects as granting him a "supernatural speed", letting him physically grab the arrows and cast them aside.

Later, a player surprised me by shooting an arrow, asking if the guy caught it, and then handed me a note explaining the poison he'd coated the shaft of the arrow in. Now, according to the spell rules, the arrow shouldn't have hurt that guy at all (by the rules, he didn't even touch the spell, despite the visual.) The players hadn't rolled a spellcraft to figure out that that's what was happening, though. I maintain that by following the rules there and telling the player that "Actually, your clever plan doesn't hurt him because of the spell description that violates everything you saw before," I would have been cheating the players by stopping the story and telling them what the rules had to say on the matter. (And oh boy was I tempted to, I'd spent a week on that bad guy.)

Effectively, I'd changed the rules of the one spell to make his particular version "weaker" at the expense of "looking more awesome."

That runs in the face of typical optimization, I suppose, but the players loved the moment. No way I was gonna take it away from them.

ahenobarbi

2014-12-06, 03:01 AM

Again, this feels like worst-case fearmongering to me. There might happen to be a player whose entire reason for playing might happen to be that they wanted to play this one particular build that might happen to be made impossible by the DM's house rule. And, for whatever reason, the most important thing is that that particular player get to play that particular 'extremely cool character idea'. Even worse, this is a story about a player who is griping that they 'could have done something cool' that the rules wouldn't allow them to do anyhow! So this isn't even an issue with the game, this is an issue with that player being unable to let go of some idea they had a month ago and now they're fixating on what could have been rather than the game in front of them.

Personally, I'd say the player is the problem in this story, not the game. Some people are just impossible to satisfy, and can't help but see everything in terms of keeping up with others. That's just going to lead to disappointment and strife. You know the expression 'this is why we can't have nice things'? This seems to be a perfect example of that. It's an unhealthy attitude, and whatever can be done to help the player change it should be done.

But okay, lets say for whatever reason you're not okay with trying to change the player or whatever. If you're living in an inflexible world, then all you can do then is throw up your hands and cry. But if you're a flexible person and gaming with other flexible people, you have as many options to resolve that situation as there are 'mights' in constructing it.

- The player now knows he can do the cool thing without the feats. Let him rebuild. Problem solved.
- Give everyone three extra feats and let them rebuild. Now the original complaint is completely irrelevant - the player doesn't have to even depend on your house rule to make the cool thing he wants.
- Allow homebrew and work with each player to make classes that do what they want to enable their character ideas. Make it clear that this is an option for everyone.

Nah. This one actually happened to me. I had an idea for a character, worked hard trying to implement it, gave up when I decided it was impossible and went with something else. I wouldn't have a problem with that, there are characters you can't play. Some time later I learned DM decided to change some rules without bothering to let me (and possibly others) know. If I knew about those changes it would save me some hours of character building and would let me play character concept I liked better (it wasn't D&D and changes went a little deeper than what you suggested but principle is the same).

And it made me rather angry. And not because I'm "impossible to satisfy" (I'm mostly happy with last 10 years of my RPGs experience) but because the way DM implemented those changes (mid game or before but not bothering to tell anyone) I wasted significant effort (and rebuilding was a very bothersome option at that point). And it didn't have anything to do with keeping up with others (the character was doing very well) but everything to do with wasting my effort and not allowing me to play the character I wanted (despite rules allowing it).

So yes, it can happen and you should take that into account (or at least tell your players before game that rules are flexible and to what extent, this may help avoiding similar problems).

Maybe there were good ways for DM to handle this but none were used (rebuilding or bonus character traits wouldn't be enough, character concepts were very different, replacing character with another one would mess up the story pretty bad (to the extent I can know this - maybe it was possible but DM didn't do it anyways)).

Frankly, in this scenario the player needs to get over themselves. They can now do the cool thing they've wanted to do. They should be happy about being able to do the cool thing that they didn't think they were going to be able to, not perseverating over the fact that they could have been doing it. I'm all for running a game to give everyone what they want, but you can't make someone who is obsessed about the past more than the future happy - because no matter what you do going forward to try to meet them halfway, they're more concerned with the things that can't be changed.

What about the (now wasted) time that went to planning things that will not happen? What about all the wrong choices you made (and now to spend time re-thinking them)? What about immersion (why didn't I do this earlier in situations when it would be very useful)? Again there are ways to deal with this (like letting players know in advance that rules can change; it's really good one and if you do this it helps with most/ all the problems I see) but you need to do something, just changing rules during game and saying it's good DMing doesn't work.

Its sad for the player, but there's no helping it without changing that attitude first. As long as they're the one carrying this kind of baggage around, the solution has to start with them.

So what's correct attitude for when makes hours of your time useless?

Its really not at all hard, and I say that with experience as a DM and as a player. What is hard is dealing with difficult players or DMs - people who insist on being unhappy, people who have to 'keep up with the Joneses', people who refuse to take the enjoyment of others at the table into consideration when they play, etc. But even if you leave the rules perfectly alone, those situations are still problematic situations.

Sounds like you're describing a DM who changes rules midgame to have this cool action [s]he wants without regard for how it affects fun of other players :smalltongue:

The hypothetical player in your post is going to have problems even if you never ad-hoc'd the halfling throwing gimmick, and those problems are not problems that have anything to do with the rules.

Nah, I was happy playing with the group until they started changing rules mid game (and enjoyed playing with other groups too (incidentally all other groups had a clear agreement to how rules will change mid-game)) so I say it's a safe bet to say (at least sometimes) it's rule-changing that causes problems.

I think that a GM running a game where there are fluff or lore-based differences in circumstances can avoid the basic rules, but that they should also know what else that change in rules means.

Case in point, one of the core differences between my campaign world and the core rules is that there are different versions of the same spell. A necromancer might cast a Lightning Bolt by pulling that energy from the tortured soul of someone who died from a literal bolt of lightning, while a druid's more likely to actually create the natural conditions required to generate the form of energy discharge that occurs in nature. One of the side effects of this is that there are chances to describe spell castings, and their results, differently.

So, an NPC of mine was a very physical caster, who relied on strength (and had a custom prestige class, Wrathwight, that allowed him to add his Strength modifier to attacks, etc.) As a protective thing, I had Protection From Arrows on him, but described the spell's effects as granting him a "supernatural speed", letting him physically grab the arrows and cast them aside.

Later, a player surprised me by shooting an arrow, asking if the guy caught it, and then handed me a note explaining the poison he'd coated the shaft of the arrow in. Now, according to the spell rules, the arrow shouldn't have hurt that guy at all (by the rules, he didn't even touch the spell, despite the visual.) The players hadn't rolled a spellcraft to figure out that that's what was happening, though. I maintain that by following the rules there and telling the player that "Actually, your clever plan doesn't hurt him because of the spell description that violates everything you saw before," I would have been cheating the players by stopping the story and telling them what the rules had to say on the matter. (And oh boy was I tempted to, I'd spent a week on that bad guy.)

Effectively, I'd changed the rules of the one spell to make his particular version "weaker" at the expense of "looking more awesome."

That runs in the face of typical optimization, I suppose, but the players loved the moment. No way I was gonna take it away from them

There are a few significant differences from some other examples in the thread, most significant is that your players seemed to know that rules can change in this way (others being: it's extremely unlikely to cause problems by unseen rule interaction (because it's pretty easy to never ever have anyone using the same fluff), it unlikely to cause hard feelings (if it happens rarely; if every fight was won by the same player who happens to come with "realistic" exploits that bypass rules everyone else follows then I would understand others not being fine with it)).

SiuiS

2014-12-06, 03:01 AM

I, personally, am totally cool with a huge giant who throws eighty pound rocks with a 120 foot rang increment, being able to pick up a fourty pound halfling and chuck him through a window. This applies whether I am DMing the giant or playing the halfling.

The rules don't make the game awesome, the people playing do.

That's 100% rules legal, innit? Grapple checks aren't possible at that size difference, the halfling is within the weight limits for a light load, the halfling cannot grapple his way out of it, the example of a spider falling on Mialee establishes the execution of the omnipresent but often understated rule play it like reality, guys, it's not a physics engine from the DMG which allows for physical interactions on a logical scale without needing strict rules backing.

The giant doesn't need any feats or special abilities to do this. He needs to be able to grab the halfling, lift him, and chuck him. That's a touch attack or a reflex save depending on how the DM adjudicates the size difference, a comparison of weight to strength score, and a roll with a grenade-like weapon that you're not proficient with (-8 I believe).

I don't think the OP's example could ever take place.

You do not believe that the spellcaster could appear in front of a divine emissary of a god who specifically wants to have this happen, because the spell does not do that in all cases?

Do deities have no power in your games? Do they have no agendas? Can divine powers not interfere with mortal magic? Could a wish/miracle/alter reality not have set this specific plane shift to take them with better precision where they need to go? Is there literally no way as a Dungeon Master you could justify this happening? Literally no way as a player you could trust your DM is within their purview to have this happen?

There are at least two RAW ways of doing this:

a 1-level dip into Hulking Hurler (Complete Warrior, page 40) for their Really Throw Anything class feature
the feat Fling Enemy (Races of Stone, page 140)
There's no need for fluff to override RAW, and this sort of "totally cool" action is available to DMs who aren't comfortable coloring outside the lines.

There's no need for a feat or dip to do something the rules can already handle. One just needs to remember that the rules are cataphatic, not apophatic. They do not describe the utter limits and only their word of allows all things; they describe the framework and you can cross reference within it willy nilly, as well as use the framework in a logical manner to achieve basic ends when they only reason not to is "the rules don't say".

My favorite example; say you have pounce, and you have multiple attacks, and you have multiple enemies, and you have spring attack. Can you run through, hitting one enemy, then another, then Another? If your answer is a strict "no, because you need the feats for that" or "no, because a charge is strictly moving in a staight line to the nearest scare adjacent to a target and ending in an attack", then you've missed the spirit of thegame entirely. This isn't a computer simulation. It's a game specifically designed to use human faculty and trying to excuse human faculty is lunacy.

What rules bending am I accepting, exactly?

That a DM can change the way a spell works – but only if he gives you the right excuse In The right way.

The DM is a black box. Information goes in, results come out. You should never have to know whether he fudged something, or used an obscure rule, or had another actor adjust something. Because that's not your purview, it's theirs.

In this case we're not worrying about a hole in RAW or some sort of balance error. He specifically wants a spell to do something the spell does not say it does. What this means practically is he wants a buff to casters, the most powerful class.

This is asinine. Making one specific casting (out of hundreds) of one specific spell (out of hundreds) do something useful to one game (out of dozens) without specifically giving a justification that works by RAW (out of dozens) does not and cannot equate to casters are buffed melee cannot have nice things. That kind of kneejerk reaction is the sort of thing that ruins verisimilitude.

A cleric is what? Someone so in tune with their god that they recieve divine power and miracles directly from said god. A divine spell is what? A miracle or the capacity to perform a miracle bestowed by divine power. Plane shift is what? Breaching the mortal limits of the universe with magic.

So it's going to ruin the game forever and all casters somehow gain a boost because, as has been in the game for over thirty years, a god takes an active interest in the usage of their miraculous power a chosen servant they are always aware of is using?

No. That's not a stance or argument. That's hysteria.

Except that didn't happen. PC arrived 0 miles from target, not 5 miles from target. Which takes it from "lucky" to "impossible". Which is bad because it makes it obvious that DM is breaking rules.

Poppycock. How is "my god wanted me to find their servant when I used borrowed power from said god, so he interceded" breaking the rules? You're artificially limiting a system and then exclaiming that someone is being bad because they use things from outside that system. The spellcaster in question is not a discrete entity in vacuum; he is a spell caster with an agenda and a vast swathe of mystical and divine allies who can and do interact with him in direct and indirect ways behind the scenes. Your argument is the same as people who declare trapping the other guy in a corner in street fighter is cheating. You're limiting the view of things and denying he utility of the entire rest of the 3.5 game engine, which is defined by exceptions to it's rules and gods with broad discretionary narrative altering powers.

Your are completely wrong here. Both situations are not equivalent. One is the DM intervening outside the rules, which is risky. The other situation is explicitly within the rules, and the entire point of several posts here.

I am completely right. Both situations are 100% identical, it's just that one justification (Odin wanted it to happen") doesn't cause kneejerk reactions while the other ("I wanted it to happen") does. The DM is a black box. They do not need to justify themselves to you. Getting upset because they have you one, incomplete and non-conclusive explanation and just so happening to give you the one you don't like – especially when there are likely many, and all are equally true – is reflective of the player, not the DM.

Suspension of disbelief cannot be boiled down to "rules are better". It's about trust. You trust them to be balanced, to act as if they were another actor and not themselves, to act within the constraints of the system, to act fairly; the OP does not violate any of that. It seems to artificially, because the presentation gives a look into the black box, but on a pure math level it's a non-issue. It's like opening up a programming and seeing "+2-2". Sure, it's inelegant compared to just leaving that spot blank, but it's exactly the same.

I hear you nitpick but disagree. Unstated subjects are a part of the colloquial English language. The audience reading these threads has enough context(knowledge of DMs and Rule 0) to be able to see the unstated subject.

Yes. Any discussion of applied rules is perforce talking about the DM applying those rules. Unless you suspect players can equally apply and enforce rules?

ahenobarbi

2014-12-06, 03:30 AM

That's 100% rules legal, innit? Grapple checks aren't possible at that size difference, the halfling is within the weight limits for a light load, the halfling cannot grapple his way out of it, the example of a spider falling on Mialee establishes the execution of the omnipresent but often understated rule play it like reality, guys, it's not a physics engine from the DMG which allows for physical interactions on a logical scale without needing strict rules backing.

The giant doesn't need any feats or special abilities to do this. He needs to be able to grab the halfling, lift him, and chuck him. That's a touch attack or a reflex save depending on how the DM adjudicates the size difference, a comparison of weight to strength score, and a roll with a grenade-like weapon that you're not proficient with (-8 I believe).

I hope you don't mind me using minor creation to create enough of antimatter turninps to force a campaign reboot?

Rules and real world physics (and common sense) interact poorly and you should expect trouble when you start mixing them.

You do not believe that the spellcaster could appear in front of a divine emissary of a god who specifically wants to have this happen, because the spell does not do that in all cases?

I could happen. But then I demand explanation why normally clerics don't get to cast miracle form their 0th level slot (since they can cast Greater Planeshift from lower level slot than PHB says).

Do deities have no power in your games? Do they have no agendas? Can divine powers not interfere with mortal magic? Could a wish/miracle/alter reality not have set this specific plane shift to take them with better precision where they need to go? Is there literally no way as a Dungeon Master you could justify this happening? Literally no way as a player you could trust your DM is within their purview to have this happen?

The problem is that the more dieties act the less relevant PCs are. If dieties can't do anything (outside their domain) except work through mortals (because celestial politics or something) it's clean, raises no questions and leaves a lot of room for PCs to be relevant. The more can do outside of that the more irrelevant PCs become (or immersion is broken - if one day you get free upgrade of 2 spell levels to save some random creature why don't you get it another day when it could change outcome of fight with BBEG?).

There's no need for a feat or dip to do something the rules can already handle. One just needs to remember that the rules are cataphatic, not apophatic. They do not describe the utter limits and only their word of allows all things; they describe the framework and you can cross reference within it willy nilly, as well as use the framework in a logical manner to achieve basic ends when they only reason not to is "the rules don't say".

I don't say you can't do anything outside rules. I'm saying it's hard. Sometimes a lot of fun. Sometimes you have to. But when there are rules for something (like throwing creatures or how Planeshift works) then you should think really hard before changing them (chances are people at WoTC were better game designers than you are).

My favorite example; say you have pounce, and you have multiple attacks, and you have multiple enemies, and you have spring attack. Can you run through, hitting one enemy, then another, then Another? If your answer is a strict "no, because you need the feats for that" or "no, because a charge is strictly moving in a staight line to the nearest scare adjacent to a target and ending in an attack", then you've missed the spirit of thegame entirely. This isn't a computer simulation. It's a game specifically designed to use human faculty and trying to excuse human faculty is lunacy.

I would be rather angry if you used that trick against me without any working this might happen. I plan under some assumptions about how rules work and if those rules change to render my tactics garbage. Say I decided to use a row of low HP trippers to become safe from your attacks thinking you can pounce one and stop there or try to charge me (and pounce) but then they'll trip you on your way. Instead you charged, killed my bodyguards with your reach weapon and used remaining attacks on me. I'd be pretty angry (unless someone gave me heads up on how / that rules can change).

The DM is a black box. Information goes in, results come out. You should never have to know whether he fudged something, or used an obscure rule, or had another actor adjust something. Because that's not your purview, it's theirs.

I disagree. I want a fair game, not one where I'm a prop for DM to make happen what [s]he wants.

A cleric is what? Someone so in tune with their god that they recieve divine power and miracles directly from said god. A divine spell is what? A miracle or the capacity to perform a miracle bestowed by divine power. Plane shift is what? Breaching the mortal limits of the universe with magic.

So why don't you lower level of all cleric spells by 2? It would definitely help agenda of the god.

So it's going to ruin the game forever and all casters somehow gain a boost because, as has been in the game for over thirty years, a god takes an active interest in the usage of their miraculous power a chosen servant they are always aware of is using?

No. That's not a stance or argument. That's hysteria.

No. It wan't the first time if I understand OP. And in my experience when it happens it happens often. And favors some players. Which spoils the game.

SiuiS

2014-12-06, 04:05 AM

I hope you don't mind me using minor creation to create enough of antimatter turninps to force a campaign reboot?

Rules and real world physics (and common sense) interact poorly and you should expect trouble when you start mixing them.

Obfuscation and a terrible comparison. Throwing objects, carrying capacity, and creatures acting also as objects exist in D&D. Antimatter does not. There is no book example of antimatter — or of molecular physics whatsoever. On fact, you have every reason to believe alchemical elemental composition exists instead.

I could happen. But then I demand explanation why normally clerics don't get to cast miracle form their 0th level slot (since they can cast Greater Planeshift from lower level slot than PHB says).

This is, frankly, a stupid argument. If a character recieved help from another in combat, he gets a bonus. If a character receives positional assistance from another, he gets flanking. If a character receives positive energy from another, he gets healing. If a character gets pulled up a rope by another, he gets climbing. If a character receives divine intervention, he is breaking the rules and using 0-level miracles and casting greater plane shift? What?

I trust the next time an NPC tries to hire your character for a job you'll refuse, because it's cheating to find that job out from someone else.

The problem is that the more dieties act the less relevant PCs are.

This is rarely true and easily disproven. Deities are active in the god of war series, and Kratos matters. Deities are involved in Greek myth, and Greek heroes matter. Deities are involved in The adventures of Abernathy's Company and the characters matter.

I don't say you can't do anything outside rules. I'm saying it's hard.

It is not hard at all for Player A to benefit from character B's actions.

(chances are people at WoTC were better game designers than you are).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I would be rather angry if you used that trick against me without any working this might happen. I plan under some assumptions about how rules work and if those rules change to render my tactics garbage. Say I decided to use a row of low HP trippers to become safe from your attacks thinking you can pounce one and stop there or try to charge me (and pounce) but then they'll trip you on your way. Instead you charged, killed my bodyguards with your reach weapon and used remaining attacks on me. I'd be pretty angry (unless someone gave me heads up on how / that rules can change).

That's not a rules change. It's just not something you've thought of or expected. And what would be your gripe? You don't know how it happened? Maybe a feat. Maybe a maneuver. Maybe a skill trick. Maybe a spell or class feature. It could be replicated in many ways.

If I was going to charge you past your trippers I would use tumble, likely. Would that leave you angry, too? Would you walk away because my skill rendered your tactics garbage? Is this about the rules or about your expectations of success being thrown off because you don't have all the info? That's no a cheating thing. That's a cleverness thing.

I disagree. I want a fair game, not one where I'm a prop for DM to make happen what [s]he wants.

There is no such game. There is always human arbitration based on their understanding and rationalization. Go play on a computer.

So why don't you lower level of all cleric spells by 2? It would definitely help agenda of the god.

No spell level was lowered by two. Insisting on equivalence of nonequivalent things because the output looks identical regardless of the behind-the-screen process proves my point. You're demonstrating the validity of what I'm saying. If divine intervention and a reduction of two levels are equal only because the end result (plane shift without error) is identical, then the DM fudging and the DM having a deity intervene are identical (because the end result is exactly the same), and you have no grounds to argue. An action that is identical to RAW legal action is a RAW legal action.

It's up to you whether you play in good faith or not with the DM.

No. It wan't the first time if I understand OP. And in my experience when it happens it happens often. And favors some players. Which spoils the game.

So your responses come from bad personal experiences and unsubstantiated guesswork? That's the rationalization over logic I'm talking about. It happens in one direction, and you're fine with that. Favoring players and ruining games is guesswork on your part. So why is rationalizing the other direction bad?

A thing happens. Do you trust the GM has or could come up with a valid reason for it? Y/N

I say the answer should be Y more often because with all the rules out there, it's going to be possible.

ahenobarbi

2014-12-06, 04:44 AM

Obfuscation and a terrible comparison. Throwing objects, carrying capacity, and creatures acting also as objects exist in D&D. Antimatter does not. There is no book example of antimatter — or of molecular physics whatsoever. On fact, you have every reason to believe alchemical elemental composition exists instead.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure there are antimatter guns in DMG but can't check right now. So yes, that's all in rules. And there are no rules for "picking up" creatures (aside from the feats that allow it). So it's the example I gave that has everything needed in the rules, not yours..

This is, frankly, a stupid argument. If a character recieved help from another in combat, he gets a bonus. If a character receives positional assistance from another, he gets flanking. If a character receives positive energy from another, he gets healing. If a character gets pulled up a rope by another, he gets climbing. If a character receives divine intervention, he is breaking the rules and using 0-level miracles and casting greater plane shift? What?

Please understand what I wrote before calling it stupid. If gods are allowed to break rules by granting spells from lower level slots than rules say why don't are they not doing it all the time?

I trust the next time an NPC tries to hire your character for a job you'll refuse, because it's cheating to find that job out from someone else.

Please understand what I wrote before ridiculing it.

This is rarely true and easily disproven. Deities are active in the god of war series, and Kratos matters. Deities are involved in Greek myth, and Greek heroes matter. Deities are involved in The adventures of Abernathy's Company and the characters matter.

And they are very active in RAW D&D. But if you don't limit their activity PCs will (gradually) stop being relevant. If Athena transported Odysseus back home instead of providing him advice he wouldn't matter much. (not familiar with with GoW ot tAoAC so I'm not going to comment there).

Again please understand what I write before "disproving" it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahahaha!

So I take it you're a successful game developer and can prove it?

That's not a rules change. It's just not something you've thought of or expected. And what would be your gripe? You don't know how it happened? Maybe a feat. Maybe a maneuver. Maybe a skill trick. Maybe a spell or class feature. It could be replicated in many ways.

Ok, I know I will never want to play with you, you clearly prefer games in "DM is god" games over "DM is one of players" games.

If I was going to charge you past your trippers I would use tumble, likely. Would that leave you angry, too? Would you walk away because my skill rendered your tactics garbage? Is this about the rules or about your expectations of success being thrown off because you don't have all the info? That's no a cheating thing. That's a cleverness thing.

Nope, than I'd learn something about tactics (and you would need to spend ranks in tumble to do that, leaving you less ranks for other things).

There is no such game. There is always human arbitration based on their understanding and rationalization. Go play on a computer.

I find it a little sad that you never had chance to play in a fair game.

It's up to you whether you play in good faith or not with the DM.

Yes. And DMs who twist rules like that loose my confidence quickly.

So your responses come from bad personal experiences and unsubstantiated guesswork?

Unless you have an objective research to back your point I suppose it also is "personal experiences and unsubstantiated guesswork".

That's the rationalization over logic I'm talking about. It happens in one direction, and you're fine with that. Favoring players and ruining games is guesswork on your part.

Because I saw (and red about) this being symptom of biased DMing many times.

So why is rationalizing the other direction bad?

Because saying before game how much rule changes is very cheap operation which can greatly improve experience for everyone involved. I didn't see anyone providing a good reason to not do it.

A thing happens. Do you trust the GM has or could come up with a valid reason for it? Y/N

Depends on DM. Of the those two with who I play currently I would trust one (because I never noticed him doing anything unfair / breaking rules of the group) and not the other (because he makes a lot of mistakes related to rules; likely I'd point it out after game to avoid wasting time (unless it's something with major impact on the session)).

I say the answer should be Y more often because with all the rules out there, it's going to be possible.

Of course there are a lot of things I do not question. If something seems reasonably within rules I won't bother doubting it. But when DM obviously break the rules I will want explanation (not necessarily instantly and not necessarily exhaustive, there is a time after session and sometimes "wizard did it" or "can't tell you right now, don't want to spoil the plot" is enough of an answer (but overdoing it is (in my experience) mark of bad DM)).

Kelb_Panthera

2014-12-06, 05:15 AM

Shall I make a game comparison? For people still wishing to enjoy the main quest of Skyrim: SPOILER AHEAD

When you enter Sovngarde through a portal you don't arrive randomly in an area and have to fight several hours to get to the quest objective. And while this spell would be simulated in D&D by other magic than Plane Shift this only shows storytelling that is focussed on fluff rather than 100% mechanical backgrounds. Such an portal should not be possible - because even the mightiest archmage of the land basically casts empowered 3-5th evocation blasts lon his spell slots.

Bad comparison That's not a spell effect. It's a constructed gate. A much more accurate comparison would be to use the create gate item creation feat from FRCS.

I hear you nitpick but disagree. Unstated subjects are a part of the colloquial English language. The audience reading these threads has enough context(knowledge of DMs and Rule 0) to be able to see the unstated subject.

Implicit subjects are also a very common cause of misunderstanding in many languages, including english.

Jay R is right. Stating that the rule of cool overrides RAW does leave the distinct impression that there is an actual rule of cool to apply. There isn't. It's simply the subjective threshold where a DM thinks that a proposed maneuver is cool enough to warrant a break from the actual written rules. Being subjective in nature, it's not something to be relied upon but something that's simply cool when it does come up.

@SiuiS:

no. the tossed halfling is -not- rules legal. The grappling rule you've cited is that a combatant cannot -engage- a grapple with a foe two sizes larger (his attempt to gain a hold automatically fails), not that they cannot grapple against such creatures. A halfling can, indeed, roll grapple checks to try and free himself from the grasp of a giant or perform any of the other grapple actions once engaged, including (amusingly enough) attempting to pin.

Odd as it sounds, a halfling with a sufficiently high grapple mod can pin a giant if that giant grabs him first.

NichG

2014-12-06, 05:27 AM

What about the (now wasted) time that went to planning things that will not happen? What about all the wrong choices you made (and now to spend time re-thinking them)? What about immersion (why didn't I do this earlier in situations when it would be very useful)? Again there are ways to deal with this (like letting players know in advance that rules can change; it's really good one and if you do this it helps with most/ all the problems I see) but you need to do something, just changing rules during game and saying it's good DMing doesn't work.

This is what I mean about having only yourself to blame for being dissatisfied. That 'now wasted time' is a sunk cost. No matter what, you can't have it back. When you spent that time, you decided it was worthwhile - you were having fun doing it. So, move on with your life, because every moment you spend deciding 'I can't enjoy the present because of that wasted time in the past', you're letting that wasted time further impede your enjoyment. That's not on your GM, its on you.

So what's correct attitude for when makes hours of your time useless?

The correct attitude is to take responsibility for your own choices to spend your time doing something that may or may not pay off. And once you've decided that, don't blame others for what you decided to do with your own time. More to the point, if it turns out that you did waste your time, don't waste even more time obsessing about it - just move on.

Sounds like you're describing a DM who changes rules midgame to have this cool action [s]he wants without regard for how it affects fun of other players :smalltongue:

If the DM is changing the rules just to gratify themselves - to make their bad guy really awesome and then feel awesome themselves because look at my badguy! - sure, I agree.

If the DM is changing the rules to make it possible for some 'cool action' to happen that will make the game seem more dynamic, responsive, and open to the players, or to speed things along and keep things from getting boring, or even to make the game prep fast enough that he can improvise fluidly and keep the game going when the players leave the main plotline and go a-wandering, that's a totally different story. That DM is putting the fun of the other players first. He's making the game more awesome, or preventing the rules from getting in the way of an awesome moment.

Yes, there's a risk that someone gets upset, but you know what, that's fine. Its much better to maximize the potential enjoyment than to minimize the chance that someone gets upset.

Nah, I was happy playing with the group until they started changing rules mid game (and enjoyed playing with other groups too (incidentally all other groups had a clear agreement to how rules will change mid-game)) so I say it's a safe bet to say (at least sometimes) it's rule-changing that causes problems.

Well, you know what you (dis)like then, and you can avoid it. That's great for you, but I don't think its a cause to advise everyone else to be super-cautious about ad-hoc'ing and changing rules.

I really do believe that:

- If you take a flexible mindset, you will have more fun playing and DMing and have a wider range of experiences open to you
- If you run games in a flexible manner, it means the game has the potential to be better than it could be under any single fixed set of inflexible rules - it has a higher upper-bound on how awesome it can be.

ahenobarbi

2014-12-06, 05:45 AM

This is what I mean about having only yourself to blame for being dissatisfied. That 'now wasted time' is a sunk cost. No matter what, you can't have it back. When you spent that time, you decided it was worthwhile - you were having fun doing it. So, move on with your life, because every moment you spend deciding 'I can't enjoy the present because of that wasted time in the past', you're letting that wasted time further impede your enjoyment. That's not on your GM, its on you.
I don't but it. When it turns out I made a mistake I want to analyze situation to avoid doing similar mistakes in future. Not pretend it didn't happen.

The correct attitude is to take responsibility for your own choices to spend your time doing something that may or may not pay off. And once you've decided that, don't blame others for what you decided to do with your own time. More to the point, if it turns out that you did waste your time, don't waste even more time obsessing about it - just move on.

That's what I did. And now I avoid similar circumstances to avoid repeating the mistake.

Well, you know what you (dis)like then, and you can avoid it. That's great for you, but I don't think its a cause to advise everyone else to be super-cautious about ad-hoc'ing and changing rules.

It's Vetter than your ubexpressed argument against it (and it's not what I argue: I argue that you should be cautious or warn other players before game).

NichG

2014-12-06, 06:01 AM

I don't but it. When it turns out I made a mistake I want to analyze situation to avoid doing similar mistakes in future. Not pretend it didn't happen.

Sure, you can analyze the situation and try to avoid making mistakes in the future. That's not the same as 'getting angry about it' or letting it get in the way of your enjoyment of the game.

That's what I did. And now I avoid similar circumstances to avoid repeating the mistake.

There's lots of conclusions you could draw from what happened to you:

- I should assume that some things may not be what I expect and ask questions or use communication before investing a lot of time and resources into a particular direction.
- I should test-drive a campaign before investing a lot of time/energy into it to see if its worth it
- I simply shouldn't invest that much time into character builds
- I should find a reason to enjoy investing time into character builds beyond just playing them, so that if it turns out not to work I still had fun
- I should figure out why it bothered me so much when I found I could have been playing that one build all along, and then try to address that root cause
- I should avoid tables where they change the rules during play

You aren't forced to choose the last one.

Jay R

2014-12-06, 09:46 AM

What about the (now wasted) time that went to planning things that will not happen?

It happens all the time. Every time we consider several ways to break into the citadel. Every time I start designing three characters to help me decide which one to take. Several times when designing a character that didn't fit the DM's scenario. But I don't consider time playing D&D to be wasted - even when the play in question is designing characters.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure there are antimatter guns in DMG but can't check right now. So yes, that's all in rules.

If somebody tried that in my game, I'd say, "Go ahead. The opposite of earth is air. The opposite of water is fire. Make as much anti-matter as you want."

In a game in which stone gargoyles can fly and people can cast magic spells, modern rules of physics and chemistry simply don’t apply. There aren’t 92 natural elements, lightning is not caused by an imbalance of electrical potential, and there is no anti-matter as described by modern physics.

-------------------

One other comment, on the main topic. Everybody has been assuming that making an exception to the rules for "Rule of Cool" or any other reason is a violation of RAW. That is simply not true. The rules as written have included that since the game was first published:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Overriding a rule for good reason isn’t violating RAW. It’s included in RAW.

Spore

2014-12-06, 10:05 AM

Ok, it's fine then. You don't have to roleplay walking 5d100 miles. But as the other player I'd want mechanical effects to be reflected in game (so your character not being there for appropriate amount of time)(especially if there is some tension between characters and I plan to use it (probably otherwise too so in the future I can plausibly deny having ulterior motive in similar situations :smallamused:)[/SPOILER]

The campaign has so much tension that we can barely explain how the group holds together. The upcoming doomsday is enough to keep us together but when this threat is at an end my oracle will probably try to stop any and all moves of said cleric.

Bad comparison That's not a spell effect. It's a constructed gate. A much more accurate comparison would be to use the create gate item creation feat from FRCS.

Point taken. Still, most known NPCs aren't even capable of casting Plane Shift, let alone qualify for Constructed Gates. Divine magic is omnipotent here but really no mortal being has access through devotion. We could start a large thread chain about Vivec, Dwemer and several divine chosen ones but let's not do that here.

One other comment, on the main topic. Everybody has been assuming that making an exception to the rules for "Rule of Cool" or any other reason is a violation of RAW. That is simply not true. The rules as written have included that since the game was first published:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Overriding a rule for good reason isn’t violating RAW. It’s included in RAW.

/end thread

Really, if you play more roleplaying games besides D&D and stumble upon rules that don't make a lick of sense you really see why fluff should be a tad bit over rules but both should always interact.

atemu1234

2014-12-06, 01:16 PM

So I take it you're a successful game developer and can prove it?

No, but WoTC are the equivalent of NI monkies on NI typewriters for a NI amount of time creating a gaming system.

They are not good at designing systems; any argument about alignment, RAW and the like are the best evidence. It has more contradictions than a politician, but we enjoy it anyway.

SiuiS

2014-12-06, 01:53 PM

Please understand what I wrote before calling it stupid. If gods are allowed to break rules by granting spells from lower level slots than rules say why don't are they not doing it all the time?

I do understand what you said. What you said is wrong. What you said relies on either agreeing with me or not understanding the situation. There is no god breaking rules. There is no spel two slots cheaper.

Please understand what I wrote before ridiculing it.

Do not presume your rationalizations will be agreed with when understood. I understand and do not agree. I had told you why.

And they are very active in RAW D&D. But if you don't limit their activity PCs will (gradually) stop being relevant. If Athena transported Odysseus back home instead of providing him advice he wouldn't matter much. (not familiar with with GoW ot tAoAC so I'm not going to comment there).

You say that. It is not true. The very active gods have not invalidated anything yet. You want to insist that your fear is fact. The forgotten realms, Greyhawk, many myths and stories all show that your assertion is not fact. It is not guarantee. Insisting it is is fear mongering at best

Again please understand what I write before "disproving" it.

Done! Still disproven.

Ok, I know I will never want to play with you, you clearly prefer games in "DM is god" games over "DM is one of players" games.

Ad hominems are your best resort here? "I am going to make another baseless assertion to support my point and also make you look bad" is, as rebuttals go, pretty terrible.

Antagonism between us aside, this is strange to me. Why the insecurity? Why the, for lack of a better word, fear, that everything will be forever ruined if something happens that you, personally, do not know the exact rule composition of?

Nope, than I'd learn something about tactics (and you would need to spend ranks in tumble to do that, leaving you less ranks for other things).

But you're upset someone spending a feat chain and a class level dip getting similar benefits? How strange.

Unless you have an objective research to back your point I suppose it also is "personal experiences and unsubstantiated guesswork".

My position is that you are jumping to conclusions. I don't need research to back that up. You assume this has happened repeatedly in a pattern of favoring one or a set of players over others and doing so in a fashion which breaks the rules of the game and enhances Spellcasting in a similarly unfair way.

Because the DM expedited the "you walk for a while and find people who tell you what Odin wants them to". That is literally what happened. That's as objective as it gets.

Because I saw (and red about) this being symptom of biased DMing many times.

Those are anecdotes. They are equally valid as my own anecdotes to the contrary. It's a Zero sum.

Because saying before game how much rule changes is very cheap operation which can greatly improve experience for everyone involved. I didn't see anyone providing a good reason to not do it.

Try that again? I can't parse it.

Of course there are a lot of things I do not question. If something seems reasonably within rules I won't bother doubting it. But when DM obviously break the rules I will want explanation (not necessarily instantly and not necessarily exhaustive, there is a time after session and sometimes "wizard did it" or "can't tell you right now, don't want to spoil the plot" is enough of an answer (but overdoing it is (in my experience) mark of bad DM)).

More anecdotes. Check out The Adventure's of Abernathy's Company (stevenac.net/sagiro/StoryHour.htm). And hey, if even one DM can publicly do this and do well, it proves that these actions are not signs of bad DMing.

@SiuiS:

no. the tossed halfling is -not- rules legal. The grappling rule you've cited is that a combatant cannot -engage- a grapple with a foe two sizes larger (his attempt to gain a hold automatically fails), not that they cannot grapple against such creatures. A halfling can, indeed, roll grapple checks to try and free himself from the grasp of a giant or perform any of the other grapple actions once engaged, including (amusingly enough) attempting to pin.

Odd as it sounds, a halfling with a sufficiently high grapple mod can pin a giant if that giant grabs him first.

Obviously false. Or do you require grapple checks to lift up your unconscious comrades? Require grapple to carry them off the field? Have players fall through large enemies and mounts because they aren't surfaces you can climb and stand on?

No. There's a rule that explicilty says follow the common sense of the real world. Halflings are objects. Objects can be thrown. It's not as simple as "grab and throw, roll to hit" but it's not impossible.

This is what I mean about having only yourself to blame for being dissatisfied. That 'now wasted time' is a sunk cost. No matter what, you can't have it back. When you spent that time, you decided it was worthwhile - you were having fun doing it. So, move on with your life, because every moment you spend deciding 'I can't enjoy the present because of that wasted time in the past', you're letting that wasted time further impede your enjoyment. That's not on your GM, its on you.

Yuss.

One other comment, on the main topic. Everybody has been assuming that making an exception to the rules for "Rule of Cool" or any other reason is a violation of RAW. That is simply not true. The rules as written have included that since the game was first published:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Overriding a rule for good reason isn’t violating RAW. It’s included in RAW.

Yuss.

Lord_Gareth

2014-12-06, 03:33 PM

So I take it you're a successful game developer and can prove it?

This is a terrible line of reasoning for literally any argument ever. Do I need to be a great chef to understand bad food? Do I need to be a successful author to criticize a book? To critique a film? Do I need to be a painter to have an opinion on art, or an architect to comment on interior design?

However, even if you want to take this reasoning as valid, I'm gonna go ahead with this one: I am a published designer, and WotC couldn't do competent RPG design if the fate of the universe was hanging in the balance.

TypoNinja

2014-12-06, 03:41 PM

It happens all the time. Every time we consider several ways to break into the citadel. Every time I start designing three characters to help me decide which one to take. Several times when designing a character that didn't fit the DM's scenario. But I don't consider time playing D&D to be wasted - even when the play in question is designing characters.

If somebody tried that in my game, I'd say, "Go ahead. The opposite of earth is air. The opposite of water is fire. Make as much anti-matter as you want."

In a game in which stone gargoyles can fly and people can cast magic spells, modern rules of physics and chemistry simply don’t apply. There aren’t 92 natural elements, lightning is not caused by an imbalance of electrical potential, and there is no anti-matter as described by modern physics.

-------------------

Sorry, but you'd be wrong.

Material Plane: This plane is the one most familiar to characters and is usually the “home base” for a standard D&D campaign. The Material Plane tends to be the most Earthlike of all planes and operates under the same set of natural laws that our own real world does.

Bold mine.

The Periodic table is full, Anti-matter is a thing. You are held down by gravity, not because the Spirit of The Earth wants to hug all the things. The only thing stopping an industrial revolution is that Magic does it better. The Laws of Thermodynamics are a thing, chemical reactions are a thing (What exactly did you think tinder twigs were?).

One other comment, on the main topic. Everybody has been assuming that making an exception to the rules for "Rule of Cool" or any other reason is a violation of RAW. That is simply not true. The rules as written have included that since the game was first published:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Overriding a rule for good reason isn’t violating RAW. It’s included in RAW.

Yes, but "can" and "should" are two different things. The game system has a rule set, think hard before deciding to ignore it, and ignoring it too often is bad.

Troacctid

2014-12-06, 06:48 PM

It does. If you want to bullrush someone through an edge of canyon you end up at the edge. Thus becoming more vulnerable to being bullrushed through the edge yourself. When you throw them you can stay in a much safer position. Also there are all kinds of deffences against bullrushing and none against being thrown as you proposed.

So yes, it does make the situation much morze dangerous (and the rule is very abusable).

I know nobody reads the DMG II, but throwing an enemy over a precipice is covered there. It's on page 48. You have to grapple and pin the opponent, move near the edge (potentially another grapple check), and succeed on another grapple check plus a DC 15 Strength check.

Kelb_Panthera

2014-12-06, 07:46 PM

Obviously false. Or do you require grapple checks to lift up your unconscious comrades? Require grapple to carry them off the field? Have players fall through large enemies and mounts because they aren't surfaces you can climb and stand on?

No. There's a rule that explicilty says follow the common sense of the real world. Halflings are objects. Objects can be thrown. It's not as simple as "grab and throw, roll to hit" but it's not impossible.

Actually check the rules before you call foul. The -only- mention of size differences mattering in a grapple, besides the obvious difference in special size modifiers, is the lone statement that a character who tries to establish a hold on a foe two sizes larger than him automatically fails to establish a hold.

Your argument is also utterly falacious. Unconcious creatures are unable to struggle against someone trying to lift them. Even if a grapple check were called for, the concious creature would automatically win the -opposed check- because of his target's inability to actually make his.

As for climbing on unwilling larger creatures, that is -explicitly- dissallowed by the rules other than a particular feat that exempts the prohibition.

Mounts are, again, explicitly noted to allow smaller creatures to ride on them.

D&D is an exception based rules system. The PHB and DMG outline the rules for what can be done, explicitly, and then include a series of exceptions. If there's no rule explicitly defining what you're trying to do, a DM -can- choose to make an exception at that time, but it is otherwise disallowed.

Incidentally, it seems that troacctid has actually found the explicit rules for performing the task in question without any resources spent on improving the ability.

Jay R

2014-12-07, 07:42 PM

Sorry, but you'd be wrong.

Well, that's pretty definitive and all-encompassing. But how can a description of what I would do in my game be "wrong", if I would do exactly that in my game? And how can you guess even whether what I would do in my game requires ignoring some rule (as specifically allowed in every version of D&D I've played), until you know what game it is?

Specifically, you quote from a rulebook. Do you have any reason to assume that this is a rulebook for the edition I'm playing? You do know that there are lots of editions, and lots of books that are not used in all games, right?

Material Plane: This plane is the one most familiar to characters and is usually the “home base” for a standard D&D campaign. The Material Plane tends to be the most Earthlike of all planes and operates under the same set of natural laws that our own real world does.

Bold mine.

The Periodic table is full, Anti-matter is a thing. You are held down by gravity, not because the Spirit of The Earth wants to hug all the things. The only thing stopping an industrial revolution is that Magic does it better. The Laws of Thermodynamics are a thing, chemical reactions are a thing (What exactly did you think tinder twigs were?).

I'm sorry. Your citation was accidentally omitted. Which particular version of which particular edition does this quote cover? I can't find it in my Manual of the Planes. In any case, you seem to believe that there is one rulebook that applies to all D&D games. This is simply untrue.

In the original article, ("Planes, The Concepts of Spatial, Temporal and Physical Relationships in D&D", by Gary Gygax, The Dragon #8) the full description of the Prime Material Plane was as follows: "The normal plane for human-type life forms is the Prime Material Plane. ... The planet Earth and everything on it, all of the solar systems and the whole universe are of the Prime Material. The Fantasy worlds you create belong to the Prime Material." There was no statement about the periodic table, anti-matter, or gravity.

In my 1E version (1987), there are many different Prime Material Planes., categorized by magic factor, physical factor, and temporal factor.

The physical factor (PF) is a measure of the level of scientific reality in the plane. Positive physical factors indicate that the laws of science have a firmer hold in this Prime plane than in the traveler's home Prime: Chemical reactions perform in certain fashions, large creatures such as dragons do not have sufficient lift to fly, and huge creatures such as giants may not be able to support their own weight. Negative physical factors indicate a lower level of reality than in the traveler's Prime plane: Animals might have full sentience and be able to talk in common and wear clothes, inanimate objects might move of their own volition, flight is possible without wings, and such matters as chemical reac*tions and gravity become subjective to the user.

So at worst I'm not "wrong"'; I merely run a Prime Material Plane with a lower PF than you do.

And most of the quotation that you claim is "wrong" can't be wrong. It was a direct quote from the introduction of a game of original D&D - a game in which such things were not defined in the rules, and were expected to be defined by the DM. The only thing in the rulebook that directly addressed this was "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

Yes, but "can" and "should" are two different things. The game system has a rule set, think hard before deciding to ignore it, and ignoring it too often is bad.

This is incredibly different from what you said above - that the quote from a game I ran was "wrong". You have no idea how hard I thought before I wrote it. The entire paragraph from that game ten years ago is this:

A warning about meta-knowledge. In a game in which stone gargoyles can fly and people can cast magic spells, modern rules of physics and chemistry simply don’t apply. There aren’t 92 natural elements, lightning is not caused by an imbalance of electrical potential, and stars are not gigantic gaseous bodies undergoing nuclear fusion. Cute stunts involving clever use of the laws of thermodynamics simply won’t work. Note that cute stunts involving the gross effects thereof very likely will work. Roll a stone down a mountain, and you could cause an avalanche. But in a world with teleportation, levitation, and fireball spells, Newton’s three laws of motion do not apply, and energy and momentum are not conserved. Accordingly, modern scientific meta-knowledge will do you more harm than good. On the other hand, knowledge of Aristotle, Ptolemy, medieval alchemy, or medieval and classical legends might be useful occasionally.

This actually included an important hint, because Ptolemy was important. The first scenario revolved around seven artifacts based on the seven planets - the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Note that this entire premise is impossible under modern astronomy, in which the earth is a planet and the sun and moon are not.

Each of the many games systems have rule sets, and the publishers (TSR, WotC) are themselves constantly changing them. Most books are not required to play, and I've never used the Manual of the Planes in any game I've run. But each version I've read has specifically said that the DM is supposed to ignore rules that are in the way.

Changing the rules has a long and glorious history in D&D. It was required in original D&D, since the rules were three slim pamphlets that were neither complete nor consistent.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-12-07, 09:01 PM

That a DM can change the way a spell works – but only if he gives you the right excuse In The right way.

The DM is a black box. Information goes in, results come out. You should never have to know whether he fudged something, or used an obscure rule, or had another actor adjust something. Because that's not your purview, it's theirs.First, that doesn't explain where I was supporting rules bending. The only thing I can guess is that you misinterpreted the part about granting the character Greater Plane Shift. I meant if the character was chummy enough with his god to prep 7th level spells already, the god could allow him to arrive exactly where he desired based upon the written descriptions of how Clerics interact with gods. Is that the source of the misunderstanding?

Rules set expectations about how the world works and what people can do. Breaking expectations, when overdone and/or handled poorly, can lose player trust and diminish player agency. The DM can change rules and defy expectations when it produces a better result, sure. Maybe the players don't even realize a rule is getting broken this time. But why go against the rules and defy expectations when you can trivially get the exact same result without doing so?

ThisIsZen

2014-12-07, 11:22 PM

First, that doesn't explain where I was supporting rules bending. The only thing I can guess is that you misinterpreted the part about granting the character Greater Plane Shift. I meant if the character was chummy enough with his god to prep 7th level spells already, the god could allow him to arrive exactly where he desired based upon the written descriptions of how Clerics interact with gods. Is that the source of the misunderstanding?

Rules set expectations about how the world works and what people can do. Breaking expectations, when overdone and/or handled poorly, can lose player trust and diminish player agency. The DM can change rules and defy expectations when it produces a better result, sure. Maybe the players don't even realize a rule is getting broken this time. But why go against the rules and defy expectations when you can trivially get the exact same result without doing so?

In some cases following the RAW is easy and straightforward. But for a lot of the cases, you even get threads here which go on for several pages before someone has an a-ha moment and points to the part of a book that ACTUALLY contains the rules that define a certain thing (see, for instance, the hypothetical in this very thread about throwing other humanoids, which took something like five days despite being a fairly active thread to be verified as RAW-doable). In prep time, DMs might be able to do the research to figure out exactly how certain set pieces should function by RAW, but I personally would not want to go diving through dozens of splats in the middle of a session hunting for a bit of rules text to enable something to happen in-game.

Furthermore, in the OP's example, accomplishing the desired effect may be 'trivial' by the RAW in terms of availability of rules, but your answer is actually "achieve 7th level spells," not "there's a spell that CAN do this, why not use that?" It's not trivial in the context of the session, because the player would have to earn at minimum one more level, up to who knows how many if they JUST got Plane Shift, which often means several months of play. That's non-trivial in terms of actual play, though it's certainly a valid take on the situation depending on your DM style.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-12-08, 01:31 AM

In some cases following the RAW is easy and straightforward. But for a lot of the cases, you even get threads here which go on for several pages before someone has an a-ha moment and points to the part of a book that ACTUALLY contains the rules that define a certain thing (see, for instance, the hypothetical in this very thread about throwing other humanoids, which took something like five days despite being a fairly active thread to be verified as RAW-doable). In prep time, DMs might be able to do the research to figure out exactly how certain set pieces should function by RAW, but I personally would not want to go diving through dozens of splats in the middle of a session hunting for a bit of rules text to enable something to happen in-game.

Furthermore, in the OP's example, accomplishing the desired effect may be 'trivial' by the RAW in terms of availability of rules, but your answer is actually "achieve 7th level spells," not "there's a spell that CAN do this, why not use that?" It's not trivial in the context of the session, because the player would have to earn at minimum one more level, up to who knows how many if they JUST got Plane Shift, which often means several months of play. That's non-trivial in terms of actual play, though it's certainly a valid take on the situation depending on your DM style.Well yeah, sometimes no one knows the RAW answer, or it just doesn't exist, or it's dumb. Like I said, changing the rules or coming up with a spot ruling can work, but use it with caution and care.

In that vein, why turn one spell into a higher level spell just for this time when you could (using my actual example from previous posts) just have the caster arrive off target as normal and hand wave the part where he gets help from a native to the plane and arrives a little while after?

SiuiS

2014-12-08, 03:07 AM

Actually check the rules before you call foul. The -only- mention of size differences mattering in a grapple, besides the obvious difference in special size modifiers, is the lone statement that a character who tries to establish a hold on a foe two sizes larger than him automatically fails to establish a hold.

Red herring. My argument isn't about grapple. It's that you don't need grapple to simulate every instance of grabbing/lifting/throwing. By the book, a judo throw is a Trip. By the book, a spider drops from the ceiling, lands on the character and she's required to "grapple" it to get it off. These are precedent for the rules you're citing not beig exclusive of other intuitive actions like Picking Something Up. If it's contested (in combat, it will be) you need to use the base systems to confir each contested section, and there are abilities in the game that streamline that if you have them, but that does not preclude using the basic game engine to do it the hard way. It just means you're not likely to succeed.

Your argument is also utterly falacious. Unconcious creatures are unable to struggle against someone trying to lift them.

And there are no rules for lifting creatures. There are no rules for standing on creatures. There are no rules for sitting on a mount, really. Because a certain amount of using human intelligence is called for in this game of mathematics and contract law.

Even if a grapple check were called for, the concious creature would automatically win the -opposed check- because of his target's inability to actually make his.

But if they're dead you can't lift them, because you can't grapple objects and there is no opposed check, right? And you can't give an ally a boost up a wall because when you lift them it's a grapple and pulls you into each other's space, and if they were to somehow stand on you that would end as soon as you let go because you couldn't occupy each other's space.

Or, and hear me out! Or, D&D rules are not exhaustive and it's not only admissible but necessary and by RAW to use the systems in a way that allows simulating reality, like being able to hold someone up or being able to lift small and light loads if you can catch them.

As for climbing on unwilling larger creatures, that is -explicitly- dissallowed by the rules other than a particular feat that exempts the prohibition.

No, there's a feat that gives you a specific action with pitons to climb a creature. There is no rule that says you cannot climb a creature, and the systems to do so and the fiction to emulate are there. If you tie a lasso around an ogre's neck, you can climb it because there's a rope, and ropes can be climbed.

D&D is an exception based rules system

That clearly tells you that it's not exhaustive and to use your sense when applying real world concepts to it. This means it's in the rules to apply real world concepts to it, like climbing creatures or picking them up.

The PHB and DMG outline the rules for what can be done, explicitly,

And everything I've said plus be done uses those systems.

First, that doesn't explain where I was supporting rules bending.

If you are okay with the explanation "when the cleric cast a spell, Odin used his divine powers to (send a Valkyrie to where he would be so that he didn't need to travel/ corrected his course so he wasn't off the mark/ use a miracle to make it so the next plane shift conveniently "rolled" the proper number/ used divinations to see where he would end up and plan accordingly)", then you are also okay with "the DM has his reasons, just roll with it" and "the DM changed it for story and for expedience", because they are all identical except for the weapong paper.

The only thing I can guess is that you misinterpreted the part about granting the character Greater Plane Shift.

There was no casting of greater plane shift. That is a rationalization based on an outside understanding of results of hidden mechanics. If an enemy has delay death and the diehard feat, he doesn't magically have hundreds of hit points just because you're doing tonnes of damage and he is still standing. Your assumption and assertion is not fact. It is a method of framing the truth, not the truth itself.

Rules set expectations about how the world works and what people can do. Breaking expectations, when overdone and/or handled poorly, can lose player trust and diminish player agency. The DM can change rules and defy expectations when it produces a better result, sure.

No rule was changed. Deities have access to miracle. That is part of the setting and expectations.

It's also poor form to discuss expectations and also insist on a strict reading of the rules, because the expectations for Druids are as healers with falcon or wolf scouts, not as frontline bear warriors with tricked out companions. The expectation of wizard is to sit behind the fighter in a hallway and shoot exploding balls of fire. The expectation of a cleric is to wear heavy armor and slog your way through crowds to heal the downed warriors and then support them.

Expectations are a valid part of the game. I am not saying otherwise. But one must be careful when discussing expectations and discussing the Internet legalese understanding of the rules, and should be careful to mind the demarcation between the two. For example, my responses are accurate from a rules focus perspective, but if that was a slight tangent about why you're insisting on the rules arguments you are then my responses will come off as rude, because I missed the point.

Not that I'm doing better myself, though. I should check that to make sure my sucks are in a row.

Furthermore, in the OP's example, accomplishing the desired effect may be 'trivial' by the RAW in terms of availability of rules, but your answer is actually "achieve 7th level spells," not "there's a spell that CAN do this, why not use that?" It's not trivial in the context of the session, because the player would have to earn at minimum one more level, up to who knows how many if they JUST got Plane Shift, which often means several months of play. That's non-trivial in terms of actual play, though it's certainly a valid take on the situation depending on your DM style.

Well put.

In that vein, why turn one spell into a higher level spell just for this time when you could (using my actual example from previous posts) just have the caster arrive off target as normal and hand wave the part where he gets help from a native to the plane and arrives a little while after?

That's basically what happened, just presented in a way that implied mystery and mythic narrative instead of second person rule structure narrative. They plane shift, a Valkyrie greets them, imparts a message, and then they wake up. People get upset, but why? "They teleported to the Valkyrie!" Or they teleported where a Valkyrie was coincidentally, as gods can alter coincidence (and so can mid-high level casters). "They woke up back in the material, that's not part of the spell!", no, but that means something put them to sleep, doesn't it? They were put to sleep in such a way they retain no memory, moved, and allowed to wake up. That's easy for a low level caster, let alone a god.

No, the issue has always been that the presentation is not in the Accepted Rules-Adherence Vernacular, not that any rule was actually broken.

Kelb_Panthera

2014-12-08, 04:21 AM

Red herring. My argument isn't about grapple. It's that you don't need grapple to simulate every instance of grabbing/lifting/throwing. By the book, a judo throw is a Trip. By the book, a spider drops from the ceiling, lands on the character and she's required to "grapple" it to get it off. These are precedent for the rules you're citing not beig exclusive of other intuitive actions like Picking Something Up. If it's contested (in combat, it will be) you need to use the base systems to confir each contested section, and there are abilities in the game that streamline that if you have them, but that does not preclude using the basic game engine to do it the hard way. It just means you're not likely to succeed.

I don't take your meaning. There are things the system doesn't cover so you use the system basics to cover it? That doesn't make sense.

And there are no rules for lifting creatures. There are no rules for standing on creatures. There are no rules for sitting on a mount, really. Because a certain amount of using human intelligence is called for in this game of mathematics and contract law.

There are no rules for lifting creatures but there -are- rules for lifting objects and an unconcious creature is certainly closer to an object than a creature at that time. Move action to lift if he's within your weight limit.

Standing on creatures, however, is expressly forbidden by the movement rules. Simply moving into the same space as another creature that's not at least 3 sizes larger than you isn't even a legal move action.

As to a logical argument, let's go back to your spider since you like that example of play so much. A spider is a hell of a lot better climber than you or I ever could be, they even have a climb speed, yet -they- are completely unable to climb on a creature that doesn't want them to since such a creature can simply brush them off. What possible logical argument could you present that would suggest a humanoid, a creature much heavier and much less adept at climbing anything, could even hope to accomplish the same feat without some kind of special training.

But if they're dead you can't lift them, because you can't grapple objects and there is no opposed check, right? And you can't give an ally a boost up a wall because when you lift them it's a grapple and pulls you into each other's space, and if they were to somehow stand on you that would end as soon as you let go because you couldn't occupy each other's space.

Condescension is a bit unwarranted, don't you think?

Dead creatures aren't creatures anymore. They're objects even moreso than unconcious creatures. Giving an ally a boost up a wall is an aid another to his climb check and maybe a DC drop for easy hand/foot holds for the first 10-ish feet. Much more importantly, none of those are combat scenarios where one or the other party vehemently opposes the action being considered.

Or, and hear me out! Or, D&D rules are not exhaustive and it's not only admissible but necessary and by RAW to use the systems in a way that allows simulating reality, like being able to hold someone up or being able to lift small and light loads if you can catch them.

There's that "there are no rules for some things so you need to use the basic rules for them" argument. A DM can, and you're right, sometimes -must- make rulings to cover gaps in what -should- be obvious situations.

What -should- happen when a giant humanoid that shouldn't be able to exist because of the square cube law tries to hurl a much smaller humanoid that's trying desperately not to be thrown is -wildly- unclear and can have no basis in "realism" because such an occurence has never been observed. So we default to the extant rules. Larger creature engages the grapple, smaller creature opposes with grapple checks to avoid being thrown. Maybe allow the larger creature to act as though it has improved grapple if the size difference is great enough.

No, there's a feat that gives you a specific action with pitons to climb a creature. There is no rule that says you cannot climb a creature, and the systems to do so and the fiction to emulate are there. If you tie a lasso around an ogre's neck, you can climb it because there's a rope, and ropes can be climbed.

See above

That clearly tells you that it's not exhaustive and to use your sense when applying real world concepts to it. This means it's in the rules to apply real world concepts to it, like climbing creatures or picking them up.

That doesn't mean what you think it means. The part of the paragraph that you omitted is the definition of an exception based rules system.

As for climbing and lifting other creatures;

I can't speak directly to climbing because I've never tried it but from what I've seen of the attempts of others and the general nature of climbing non-creatures it is somewhere between almost and completely impossible to climb a creature that doesn't want to be climbed.

Lifting unwilling creatures is also -extremely- difficult unless the size difference is pretty tremendous. Try lifting an unwilling cat sometime and tell me that's not a grapple, at least for the cat, especially when it manages to get its claws into your arm. Then, once it's got a hold on you, try throwing it.

@Anyone else: I don't want or expect SiuiS or anyone else to actually throw a cat. I like cats. I'm just making a point.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-12-08, 04:25 AM

If you are okay with the explanation "when the cleric cast a spell, Odin used his divine powers to (send a Valkyrie to where he would be so that he didn't need to travel/ corrected his course so he wasn't off the mark/ use a miracle to make it so the next plane shift conveniently "rolled" the proper number/ used divinations to see where he would end up and plan accordingly)", then you are also okay with "the DM has his reasons, just roll with it" and "the DM changed it for story and for expedience", because they are all identical except for the weapong paper.I was not saying that Odin or any other god did anything. All I said was that the plane is inhabited by friendly creatures, and it's logical that it wouldn't take long for the character to run into one -- without Odin lifting a finger. No, I don't think a few hours of this Cleric's time is worth Odin's miracles, let alone any of his effort outside of the standard spell allotment he grants.

Now, if it's a special demiplane where all entrants arrive exactly where plane's creator/curator wants them to arrive, that's different. But a generic upper plane doesn't tend to have that property.
There was no casting of greater plane shift. That is a rationalization based on an outside understanding of results of hidden mechanics. If an enemy has delay death and the diehard feat, he doesn't magically have hundreds of hit points just because you're doing tonnes of damage and he is still standing. Your assumption and assertion is not fact. It is a method of framing the truth, not the truth itself.Okay, so it wasn't about that. Good to know.
No rule was changed. Deities have access to miracle. That is part of the setting and expectations.I would expect deities not to throw around Miracles like candy.
It's also poor form to discuss expectations and also insist on a strict reading of the rules, because the expectations for Druids are as healers with falcon or wolf scouts, not as frontline bear warriors with tricked out companions. The expectation of wizard is to sit behind the fighter in a hallway and shoot exploding balls of fire. The expectation of a cleric is to wear heavy armor and slog your way through crowds to heal the downed warriors and then support them.Poor form? Give me a break. I'm not talking about what some designers expected of these classes over a decade ago. I'm talking about what the actual players at the table expect.
Expectations are a valid part of the game. I am not saying otherwise. But one must be careful when discussing expectations and discussing the Internet legalese understanding of the rules, and should be careful to mind the demarcation between the two. For example, my responses are accurate from a rules focus perspective, but if that was a slight tangent about why you're insisting on the rules arguments you are then my responses will come off as rude, because I missed the point.

Not that I'm doing better myself, though. I should check that to make sure my sucks are in a row.I must admit I'm lost here.
That's basically what happened, just presented in a way that implied mystery and mythic narrative instead of second person rule structure narrative. They plane shift, a Valkyrie greets them, imparts a message, and then they wake up. People get upset, but why? "They teleported to the Valkyrie!" Or they teleported where a Valkyrie was coincidentally, as gods can alter coincidence (and so can mid-high level casters). "They woke up back in the material, that's not part of the spell!", no, but that means something put them to sleep, doesn't it? They were put to sleep in such a way they retain no memory, moved, and allowed to wake up. That's easy for a low level caster, let alone a god.

No, the issue has always been that the presentation is not in the Accepted Rules-Adherence Vernacular, not that any rule was actually broken.The issue is that you could get the same effect by following the rules to the letter, without the god doing anything, and you the DM are still in line with everyone's expectations. The cost of doing it this way is that it takes about ten seconds longer to describe. The benefit is that there is no perception of favoritism. Notice that the original story had one PC get DM fiat benefits (however small) while acting directly against the wishes of another PC. Explaining it by saying that the gods themselves could have interfered technically follows the rules, sure, but it isn't helpful at all.

NichG

2014-12-08, 05:05 AM

If we're talking about expectations, I find it much more useful to cultivate the expectation that not everything has its origins in the rules than I do to cultivate the expectation that everything will work according to the rules. I feel that to be the case as both DM and player.

As DM, it means you aren't going to have people nitpicking irrelevant stuff and turning the game into a slog, and it leaves you a lot more ability to improvise - which means that you can run a much more fluid and responsive game. The PCs decide to ignore the plot and go monster hunting in the desert? No problem, let me just make up an appropriate monster on the spot - 120hp sounds like it should be good for 3 rounds of fighting at your level, AC 20 is challenging enough that your to-hits matter but not so high that you'll whiff all the time, and lets say abilities that expect to do 10hp/round AoE damage or 30hp/round focus-fire damage to someone who gets in its face - thats enough that someone could die if they don't take it seriously, but it won't be a TPK. Lets toss in something that requires some cleverness to deal with... ah, desert, so maybe it burrows but as a counter-balance it will waste a round trying to grapple someone and pull them under with it, which is unlikely to work but will be scary. Okay, done!

As opposed to an hour of combing through source-books for a CR-appropriate desert monster that doesn't have nasty surprises in its CR calculation, possibly with the need to add feats and advance monster HD in order for it to do the thing you wanted it to be able to do. Or 'okay, I'll prep that for next week'. Or 'no, there's an impenetrable desert in the way of that desert, you can't go in that direction'.

And as a player, expecting things to vary from the rules means that you can think about the world as the world, not just as the rules. It lets you shed the jadedness that comes from being very very familiar with the game and become more immersed, because things could actually work differently and you have to pay attention not just to what you remembered from the books, but to the evidence of how the world works that you see in front of you. Furthermore, if things are flexible, it means you can try to do things that don't have a good rules analog and maybe they'll work - you can think viscerally about what your character does rather than only making abstract legalistic decisions.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-12-08, 05:21 AM

I find that the whims of even the most well-intentioned GMs are fickle and subject to be swayed by the players with the best meat-space diplomacy modifier. It's one thing to brew up a monster on the fly; it's another to alter a character's abilities for the most minor of conveniences. Good thing expectations can be nuanced.

Worth noting: If you want a loose system with a D&D "feel" I highly recommend Dungeon World.

NichG

2014-12-08, 06:04 AM

Its your choice to interpret the events as 'the character's spell has been altered', but I think that's a mistake on your part.

The most parsimonious explanation is basically 'character planeshifted into the realm of his deity, so the deity yoinked the planeshift'. It doesn't need to be explained as a fundamental change in how Planeshift works.

TypoNinja

2014-12-08, 06:14 AM

Well, that's pretty definitive and all-encompassing. But how can a description of what I would do in my game be "wrong", if I would do exactly that in my game? And how can you guess even whether what I would do in my game requires ignoring some rule (as specifically allowed in every version of D&D I've played), until you know what game it is?

Really? You want to nitpick this hard? Ok I'm game. I'm good at nitpicking.

Your decision can be wrong because its in contravention to the rules, if you wish to assert DM fiat to avoid the rules that is your privilege, but it doesn't change the fact that you've ignored RAW in this case. Your willingness to preform an action, and the technical accuracy of an action are two different conditions. I did not say you can't do that in your game I said you'd be wrong if you did.

Also, as has been noted with some regularity, this forum deals in RAW as a matter of course, its the only part of the game somebody else can give you a definitive answer on, so if your answer to a RAW stipulation is "that's not how I'd do it", then you have effectively preformed the internet equivalent of plugging your ears and humming really loud. If your position on the rules is to do what you want anyway no useful debate can occur.

Specifically, you quote from a rulebook. Do you have any reason to assume that this is a rulebook for the edition I'm playing? You do know that there are lots of editions, and lots of books that are not used in all games, right?

Were in the 3e/3.5e/d20 forum, this kind of limits your options in possible rule books, I assume 3.5 because the vast majority of threads in this forum are 3.5. Followed by pathfinder. On the chance you do not play 3.5, I don't own source books for Pathfinder, so cannot speak to its rules on this subject, however its not significantly different, and would require a similar clause to function as a rule system. Normally I'd wait to make sure you do in fact play 3.5, but since you've decided to take the tone you have, I'm going to continue nitpicking.

I'm sorry. Your citation was accidentally omitted. Which particular version of which particular edition does this quote cover? I can't find it in my Manual of the Planes. In any case, you seem to believe that there is one rulebook that applies to all D&D games. This is simply untrue.

The DMG, under the blindingly obvious headings of "What is a plane" and "The Prime Material Plane". I know wizards is fond of putting rules in strange places, but in this case its kind of exactly where you'd expect it to be. Try page 147, just in case "planar traits" in the index was too obscure for you.

In the original article, ("Planes, The Concepts of Spatial, Temporal and Physical Relationships in D&D", by Gary Gygax, The Dragon #8) the full description of the Prime Material Plane was as follows: "The normal plane for human-type life forms is the Prime Material Plane. ... The planet Earth and everything on it, all of the solar systems and the whole universe are of the Prime Material. The Fantasy worlds you create belong to the Prime Material." There was no statement about the periodic table, anti-matter, or gravity.

Well Dragon #8 sounds like it predates Third Edition a little, may I suggest you try the Older D&D/AD&D and Other Systems sub forum if you'd like to use that for a source?

In my 1E version (1987), there are many different Prime Material Planes., categorized by magic factor, physical factor, and temporal factor.

So at worst I'm not "wrong"'; I merely run a Prime Material Plane with a lower PF than you do.

I'm sorry, your citation was accidentally omitted. I can't seem to find that text in my Manual of the Planes. (and I actually took the time to search.) I can't seem to find any reference to a Physical Factor in the Manual of the Planes.

And most of the quotation that you claim is "wrong" can't be wrong. It was a direct quote from the introduction of a game of original D&D - a game in which such things were not defined in the rules, and were expected to be defined by the DM. The only thing in the rulebook that directly addressed this was "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

It's wrong in every particular, even logically. Its the typical mistake of somebody with a poor science education assuming they can say "Its a fantasy world, physics don't apply!" and move on. A universe simply cannot function like that. Its rules are far too interdependent. Chemical reactions work the way they should, they have to or eating doesn't work. Food won't rot, trees can't grow. Do you think you can subtract laws of physics and not have the universe collapse? A star is a giant fusion engine, and yes it has to be, or worlds wouldn't exist, heavier and more complex elements that life depends on are created in the core of a star and then seeded back out at the end of its life.

Gravity, electromagnetism, photosynthesis, cell division. your world will unravel if these things don't work the way they do.

Also, you seem to have referenced text in a rule book without sourcing it, fancy that...

This is incredibly different from what you said above - that the quote from a game I ran was "wrong". You have no idea how hard I thought before I wrote it. The entire paragraph from that game ten years ago is this:

No, this is you taking me out of context. I said you'd be wrong to assume anti-matter wasn't a thing, or that the periodic table was different, or that incorrect alchemical assumptions about the nature of elements would be accurate. Then I quoted the text that proved it.

This actually included an important hint, because Ptolemy was important. The first scenario revolved around seven artifacts based on the seven planets - the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Note that this entire premise is impossible under modern astronomy, in which the earth is a planet and the sun and moon are not.

Each of the many games systems have rule sets, and the publishers (TSR, WotC) are themselves constantly changing them. Most books are not required to play, and I've never used the Manual of the Planes in any game I've run. But each version I've read has specifically said that the DM is supposed to ignore rules that are in the way.

Changing the rules has a long and glorious history in D&D. It was required in original D&D, since the rules were three slim pamphlets that were neither complete nor consistent.

Hey look, more un-sourced rule assumptions, and you were giving me crap for one?

Aside from that, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, you are quoting a lot of really old (unsourced) rules at me, but the text of my DMG actually warns specifically agaisnt the kind of attitude you are displaying about the rules. While it does talk about exactly my objection to overriding RAW frivolously. Pasting an entire introductory chapter of the DMG is a little impractical, so I'm going to have to simply suggest you go read it.

My DMG talks about how every rule was written for a reason and changing them shouldn't be undertaken lightly. It says that a DM is an arbiter, not a dictator. But hey its only the DMG, go ahead and ignore it if you... wait, no don't ignore it, its the basis of the game, it teaches you how to run a game. It is after all the Dungeon Masters Guide.

Curmudgeon

2014-12-08, 10:37 AM

And there are no rules for lifting creatures.
I've already pointed out two: Fling Enemy feat and Hulking Hurler's Really Throw Anything class feature.

There are no rules for standing on creatures.
Instead, there's a rule which says you can't do that normally:
Ending Your Movement

You can’t end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.

ahenobarbi

2014-12-08, 03:21 PM

Sure, you can analyze the situation and try to avoid making mistakes in the future. That's not the same as 'getting angry about it' or letting it get in the way of your enjoyment of the game.

Yup. But humans I know tend to experience negative emotions when an effort they undertook is unexpectedly rendered irrelevant. That (sometimes) triggers them to analyze the situation to attempt that in the future.

There's lots of conclusions you could draw from what happened to you:

- I should assume that some things may not be what I expect and ask questions or use communication before investing a lot of time and resources into a particular direction.
- I should test-drive a campaign before investing a lot of time/energy into it to see if its worth it
- I simply shouldn't invest that much time into character builds
- I should find a reason to enjoy investing time into character builds beyond just playing them, so that if it turns out not to work I still had fun
- I should figure out why it bothered me so much when I found I could have been playing that one build all along, and then try to address that root cause
- I should avoid tables where they change the rules during play

You aren't forced to choose the last one.

Tried all except last one and settled for mix of 1st and 4th.

It seems can't get my point through it is "warn your players if you will change rules mid-game (and to what extent). If you didn't do it ASAP (and give players some room for reaction). Or be vary cautious when doing it."

It happens all the time. Every time we consider several ways to break into the citadel. Every time I start designing three characters to help me decide which one to take. Several times when designing a character that didn't fit the DM's scenario. But I don't consider time playing D&D to be wasted - even when the play in question is designing characters.

Yes. And it's not a problem a problem if I expect my effort might go to waste. It is a problem when this comes as a surprise (especially in "fun" context).

Overriding a rule for good reason isn’t violating RAW. It’s included in RAW.

Yup. The discussion is what constitutes a good reason.

The campaign has so much tension that we can barely explain how the group holds together. The upcoming doomsday is enough to keep us together but when this threat is at an end my oracle will probably try to stop any and all moves of said cleric.

In such campaigns (with much tension between PCs) it's very important to know what expect from rules. Mayhaps the player that complained had a good use for a few hours(days?) when you're not around and that's why [s]he pushed to execute the prisoner, hoping you to expend some resources to save the prisoner. And then after genuine effort put into roleplaying and planning to get you off the picture their expected gain was handweaved.

Happened to me, wasn't fun. Genuine roll + "you wander for some time and do what you wanted" + off screen time for the PC would solve the problem then. (Or the player has other plans relaying on rules being enforced and is getting worried if they succeed)(Or player maintains deniable plausibility to protect rule they really care about)(Or the player simply enjoys playing by rules).

/end thread

Nah. The question wasn't if DM can do this (obviously they can) it was if they should.

Really, if you play more roleplaying games besides D&D and stumble upon rules that don't make a lick of sense you really see why fluff should be a tad bit over rules but both should always interact.

Yup. But it's important to be clear to what extent rules will be overwritten. For some drown healing is silly and needs to be overwritten. For some Wish not being all-powerful is silly and should be changed.

No, but WoTC are the equivalent of NI monkies on NI typewriters for a NI amount of time creating a gaming system.

They are not good at designing systems; any argument about alignment, RAW and the like are the best evidence. It has more contradictions than a politician, but we enjoy it anyway.

They are (evidently) good at designing popular games :smalltongue:

I do understand what you said. What you said is wrong. What you said relies on either agreeing with me or not understanding the situation. There is no god breaking rules. There is no spel two slots cheaper.

There is. PC got Greater Planeshift when they should have gotten Planeshift. Please understand my posts be

You say that. It is not true. The very active gods have not invalidated anything yet. You want to insist that your fear is fact. The forgotten realms, Greyhawk, many myths and stories all show that your assertion is not fact. It is not guarantee. Insisting it is is fear mongering at best

Do you understand concept of gradual change? The more gods do the less there is for PCs to do and therefore they become irrelevant?

Done! Still disproven.

No and no.

Ad hominems are your best resort here? "I am going to make another baseless assertion to support my point and also make you look bad" is, as rebuttals go, pretty terrible.

Nah. Sorry if it came like that; I simply wanted to inform you what impression of you as DM I got from your posts, hoped might be useful.

Antagonism between us aside, this is strange to me. Why the insecurity? Why the, for lack of a better word, fear, that everything will be forever ruined if something happens that you, personally, do not know the exact rule composition of?

Probably because of me not explaining what I mean clearly enough.

My position is that you are jumping to conclusions. I don't need research to back that up. You assume this has happened repeatedly in a pattern of favoring one or a set of players over others and doing so in a fashion which breaks the rules of the game and enhances Spellcasting in a similarly unfair way.

I think it "has happened repeatedly in a pattern of favoring one or a set of players over others". Because in my experience unexpected rule changes tend to happen repeatedly and in favor of some players.

Because the DM expedited the "you walk for a while and find people who tell you what Odin wants them to". That is literally what happened. That's as objective as it gets.

Thanks for clarifying that. It's a little different from what I understood from OP and this way it should be fine.

Those are anecdotes. They are equally valid as my own anecdotes to the contrary. It's a Zero sum.

It wasn't until you referenced them.

Try that again? I can't parse it.

Before you start a game tell your players how much you'll change RAW ("we're going completely by RAW", "we're changing nonsensical stuff like drown healing", "we change rules when it'll be convenient", ..., "we go mostly free form but make characters sheets for reference"). It's easy, it takes very little time and it may save someone a lot of frustration.

More anecdotes. Check out The Adventure's of Abernathy's Company (stevenac.net/sagiro/StoryHour.htm). And hey, if even one DM can publicly do this and do well, it proves that these actions are not signs of bad DMing.

... "more anecdotes" was what I was asked for (or I misunderstood; in that case: I do not have any proper research on the subject ready, I can only provide anecdotes).

This is a terrible line of reasoning for literally any argument ever. Do I need to be a great chef to understand bad food? Do I need to be a successful author to criticize a book? To critique a film? Do I need to be a painter to have an opinion on art, or an architect to comment on interior design?

Nah. But post did not say "d&d 3.5 has flaws" it said "I'm better RPG designer than d&d designers were".

However, even if you want to take this reasoning as valid, I'm gonna go ahead with this one: I am a published designer, and WotC couldn't do competent RPG design if the fate of the universe was hanging in the balance.

They did successful system design though (even if only their salaries depended on this).

atemu1234

2014-12-08, 03:49 PM

[Snip]

Just because a game is popular does not make it well designed. D&D is probably the best example of that. You can't just assume that because the game is popular it is well-made, or that if it's well-made it's necessarily popular. D&D is good because it is poorly designed; there is such a variety of poorly balanced material that people will play it regardless of whether or not it functions. The problem is that you seem to be assuming that because a game is fun, that the RPG designers were good at their job. They most definitely were not, and I'm willing to go on record saying that the majority of players on this forum would be better at designing the game. Perhaps not I (for I have not the patience) but most definitely a variety of people on these forums.

ahenobarbi

2014-12-08, 11:20 PM

TypoNinja

2014-12-09, 12:15 AM

Just because a game is popular does not make it well designed. D&D is probably the best example of that. You can't just assume that because the game is popular it is well-made, or that if it's well-made it's necessarily popular. D&D is good because it is poorly designed; there is such a variety of poorly balanced material that people will play it regardless of whether or not it functions. The problem is that you seem to be assuming that because a game is fun, that the RPG designers were good at their job. They most definitely were not, and I'm willing to go on record saying that the majority of players on this forum would be better at designing the game. Perhaps not I (for I have not the patience) but most definitely a variety of people on these forums.

Well designed compared to what?

I've played Battle tech/Mechwarrior, its rules suffer from being overly technical. For example, you fire a missile launcher, now roll to see if you hit. Your to hit number is your gunnery skill (The only static modifier) + a modifier if you ran walked or used jumpjets, + a modifier for how far the target moved, with an extra bonus if they used jumpjets, plus range, and maybe weapon specializations, or ECM. Tracking movement modifiers gets real fun when there is a lot of mechs on the field I gotta say.

Now roll to see what percentage of the missiles actually impact the target. Now roll the missile damage in 5 point groupings to find out what section is damaged.

Have you seen AeroSpace combat rules? I give them points for realism, but you actually have to tract thrust, because you know in space combat you keep coasting. You need a math degree to run space combat.

The Industrial Tycoon Handbook gives you the ability to build your own factory, they neglected to mention how much it costs to stock your factory with raw goods though. Oops. Output is also in units of currency rather than actual items produced. This usually works ok, You've got a missile factory it makes X millions of dollars in missiles, missiles cost Y, not so bad. But now I have an iron mine that I want to use to feed my armor factory. Whats the price of iron? Oops.

Now, in spite of all this I love the hell out of the game, but you basically need two DM's to run it. One to actually be the DM and one to help with all the technical crap. I'm the technical crap guy in my group, and I'm also tracking the roster and payroll of our mercenary company. I had to make a spread sheet for it. As much as I love it, I gotta say, this is a game begging for some simplification.

World of Darkness goes entirely the other way, the call it a story telling system its so rules light. Rule books basically consist of character creation instructions (which are straight forward enough to fit on the character sheet in a couple of lines) and power descriptions. How anything happens at any one time is up to your game master. But even that has so many problems built into it that the LARP WoD groups have their own handbook on fixing rules problems, and its not small.

Look at our rules dysfunctions threads on the flip side. Most of them are such silly and out there scenarios that the RAI on it is really obvious. We've found problems by pretzeling the rules but most of them wouldn't affect your average play session, despite us picking apart the rules for fun.

Honestly considering the sheer volume of D&D rules text, I'd say its amazing its as coherent as it is.