Jay R's suggested Rules for Players

[Jay R]

I have started writing a “Rules for Players" document, similar to my “Rules for DMs”. It’s new, and not even close to complete.

I know different players play differently. I’m not asking for arguments about “the one right way to play RPGs”; there isn’t one. I am asking for how other people approach playing, to understand the differences.

Also, if you suggest something that fits with my approach, I’ll add it to my list.

Here is the first draft:


These rules are written for myself, for the way I play games. I am not saying that anybody else “should” play a game this way. These rules exist to help me be consistent, effective, and immersive.

Anybody else is free to use them as guidelines, to modify them, to use some but not others, or to ignore them altogether, as seems best to you. Not everybody agrees on how to play a game, and[I] there's nothing wrong with that.

Some of them are serious, some are deliberately exaggerated for comic effect, but all of them are actual considerations when playing a role-playing game.

1. A character sheet is defined by the rules. But the character is defined by your choices.

2. The idea that appeals to the DM will work better than the idea that does not appeal.

a. Just because it worked for one DM doesn’t mean it will work with another. Different games are different.
b. There is a legal maxim: Any lawyer knows the law; a good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge. Similarly, any player knows the rules; a good player knows fantasy literature. A great player knows the DM.

3. “Rules as Written” doesn’t mean no DM changes. In many games, the rules as written include and assume DM rulings, and explicitly give the DM the right to overrule any other written rule. Play the game you’re in, not some theoretical RAW game you think exists somewhere else.

a. If this DM rules that fireballs turn people blue, then fireballs turn people blue in that world. Accept it and move on.

4. When you do the grand, heroic action from the stories that sometimes gets the hero killed, recognize and accept that it could get your PC killed.

5. Play the game the DM is running. Frodo doesn’t start searching Moria for loot; D’Artagnan doesn’t decide to sail to America.

a. The best loot has been placed where the DM thinks you will go. Go get it.
b. This doesn’t mean only do the expected; it means do clever, unexpected things within the actual plot.

6. The basic unit of D&D isn’t the PC; it’s the party. Fit in with the party. Support the party’s goals, and defend your allies.

a. You can have personal goals and secrets, but don’t let them get in the party’s way.
b. Yes, you decide what your character is. Decide to have one that makes the game better for everyone, not one that hurts the game for other players.

7. When you disagree with the DM, feel free to say so, clearly and without anger. Then accept the DM’s ruling and move on.

a. Playing, even under a ruling you don’t like, is more fun than arguing.
b. The DM has information you don’t have. There may be a very good reason for his ruling that your character doesn’t know, and that therefore the DM will not tell you.
c. If a ruling sounds wrong, consider the possibility that it’s a clue about some important secret.

8. Not all games are for all people. Some DMs aren’t right for some players, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If you are in a game you don’t enjoy, and the DM isn’t changing after your questions, just leave.

a. If that game is not a good game for you, then that fact will never change. That doesn’t mean that you are wrong, or that the DM is wrong – just that you shouldn’t play in that game.

9. Make sure all party members get a fair distribution of magic items. The armor on the PC next to yours helps her guard your back.

a. The question is not, “Do I want this item?” The question is “Which one of us can use this item best?”

10. Similarly, let each player get their moment. If this is the perfect moment for the usually-overshadowed character to shine, then let her have it; don’t grab the spotlight for your PC.

11. "Clever" and "absurd" are not synonyms. The "rule of cool" is not an excuse to do things your character cannot do. It's a justification for taking risks and acting like a hero using his actual abilities.

12. Your backstory will never matter as much to the DM as it does to you. Remember that your primary audience is you.

a. The DM will read and care about your backstory only to the extent that it is interesting to read. If you aren’t an entertaining writer, keep it short.


Again, I know different players play differently, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not asking for arguments about “the one right way to play RPGs”. There isn’t one. I’m asking for how other people approach playing, to understand the differences, and maybe to find more rules to add to my list.

Play your way and have fun. And feel free to tell me what your way is.

And does anybody have a better proposed DM ruling for 3a? That rule could be a lot funnier with the right absurd example.

[ahyangyi]

Since this is the general RPG board, you might want to clarify that your suggestions are mostly for D&D-like games. Some of the items are obviously not fit for other games (like, diving loot isn't a concept in some games, and teamwork is a questionable goal in "hidden agenda" games).

For D&D, I think I agree with most of these, though I also feel that about half of these rules are different ways to say the Rule 0.

[LibraryOgre]

7. When you disagree with the DM, feel free to say so, clearly and without anger. Then accept the DM’s ruling and move on.

a. Playing, even under a ruling you don’t like, is more fun than arguing.
b. The DM has information you don’t have. There may be a very good reason for his ruling that your character doesn’t know, and that therefore the DM will not tell you.
c. If a ruling sounds wrong, consider the possibility that it’s a clue about some important secret.


Hackmaster has a couple rules regarding this that might be worth mentioning/incorporating in some way.


RULE ONE: In HackMaster, any rule ambiguity related to character creation and PC powers is construed against the player character. If you, as a player, find yourself arguing that a rule is ambiguous, your GM must simply weigh both side's benefits to your player character and choose the most logical choice in his opinion. If one choice seems too heavily in favor of your PC and not directly stated in the rules, he has no choice but to rule against your character.


RULE TWO: A player may dispute a rule at any time as long as it takes less than 10 seconds to point out any perceived error. The GM may deny any challenge as he sees fit, however, if he denies a challenge the player has the right to make a formal challenge one time per game session by calling a 5 minute time out to look up the rule. If the rule is overturned, the player retains his challenge ability. If the ruling is not overturned, the player may not dispute a rule call again until the next game session. This rule is designed to keep the game flowing and fun for all involved. Yes, this rule is based on NFL rule challenges. I like football, deal with it.

Basically, if you've come up with a clever exploit based on a reading of the rules, the GM decides if it's fair. If it's something that gives you a ton of advantage, the GM should rule against it. If you disagree with a ruling at the table, you can make a quick complaint ("Hey, the rules don't so initiative that way"). If you disagree with their ruling enough to stop the game about it, you get to do so once, unless you're right.

[Jay R]

Since this is the general RPG board, you might want to clarify that your suggestions are mostly for D&D-like games. Some of the items are obviously not fit for other games (like, diving loot isn't a concept in some games, and teamwork is a questionable goal in "hidden agenda" games).

For D&D, I think I agree with most of these, though I also feel that about half of these rules are different ways to say the Rule 0.

Since I intend for these rules to help me in all role-playing, I don't want to limit it to a single game. So it doesn't bother me if a particular rule or example is more suited to one game than another. As I said, this set is incomplete. I've been playing D&D lately, so that's what came to mind first.

But your comment has helped me to realize I need to open it up more. I have already written the following new rule inspired by your observation, and I'll start considering what rules I need to include for Champions, Flashing Blades, TOON, Traveler, and other games I play.


10. Play within the genre (unless genre-busting is an established focus for that game). Modern superheroes don’t loot; toons don't mitigate risks; medieval heroes don’t build factories.

a. This includes using modern knowledge in a pre-modern game. Druids and musketeers have no training in modern physics and chemistry.


Hackmaster has a couple rules regarding this that might be worth mentioning/incorporating in some way.

I love those rules. I can't really incorporate them as a player; that's the DM's business. But musing on their purpose led me to add another sub-rule:


b. You identify with your character; the DM doesn’t. It follows that you are more likely to be biased about the interpretation then the DM.

Thanks for the help, both of you!

[Pauly]

Re Rule 7.
- GMs are people too. Sometimes they forget or misinterpret things. It is OK to remind them of the RAW politely. If after being reminded of the RAW their ruling remains unchanged then move on.
- If you have to argue a ruling the time to argue a ruling is when the session is over, not during the session. Everyone else at the table came to anjoy a game, not to listen to 2 people argue.

Suggested additional rule.
- The time to think about what your character will do in their turn is during other player’s turns. This way you can keep your turns short and decisive and keep the pace of the game flowing. As a rule of thumb you should be able to declare your character’s actions in 30 seconds or less.

[Jay R]

Re Rule 7.
- GMs are people too. Sometimes they forget or misinterpret things. It is OK to remind them of the RAW politely. If after being reminded of the RAW their ruling remains unchanged then move on.
- If you have to argue a ruling the time to argue a ruling is when the session is over, not during the session. Everyone else at the table came to anjoy a game, not to listen to 2 people argue.

Excellent points. I have expanded it into two rules.


7. GMs are people too; they make mistakes. You can remind them of a rule politely, without any implication of unfairness.

a. When you disagree with the DM, feel free to say so, clearly and without anger.

8. Once you have disagreed and the DM has ruled, accept the DM’s ruling and move on.

a. Playing, even under a ruling you don’t like, is more fun than arguing.
b. The others want to play a game, not witness an argument.
c. You identify with your character; the DM doesn’t. It follows that you are more likely to be biased about the rule.
d. The DM has information you don’t have. There may be a very good reason for his ruling that your character doesn’t know, and that therefore the DM will not tell you.
e. If a ruling sounds wrong, consider the possibility that it’s a clue about some important secret.



Suggested additional rule.
- The time to think about what your character will do in their turn is during other player’s turns. This way you can keep your turns short and decisive and keep the pace of the game flowing. As a rule of thumb you should be able to declare your character’s actions in 30 seconds or less.

Nice. Current phrasing:


9. Plan your move during other players’ turns. Your turn should be action, not planning.

a. Other players don’t want to listen to you think; they want to hear what happens when you stab the villain, cast your spell, use your heat vision, or drop an anvil on somebody’s head.


Note: I don't need a precise rule, like a 30 second limit. I need reminders. But they will only remind me if I am willing to re-read them regularly, so I try to keep a light, breezy style.

Again, does anybody have a funnier absurd example to use for rule 3a?

[Vahnavoi]

Mostly reasonable, there are some that I'd toss as too game or genre specific, 6), 9) and 10), and replace with a much more general rule:

Do unto others what you would like done to yourself.

The corollary is eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Anything you do can be used against you and anything others do can be used against them. If you want co-operation, co-operate. If your co-operation is met with defection, defect right back. If you do defect, expect defection come your way too. If you want to escape the cycle of mutual defection, initiate forgiveness. So on and so forth.

Presume every other player understands and plays according to this rule unless proven otherwise. If you suspect they do not, inform them of it. If they keep acting in violation of it despite being so informed, well, that's how you prove otherwise.

As for how his differs from your 6), 9) and 10), it does not presume a game is about a "party" or other collection of characters that are there to prop each other up. It lays groundwork for playing as a party when characters and players want to play as a party, and lays groundwork for doing otherwise when that is not the role the characters or players are meant to play.

[Saintheart]

Because I can't resist messing with stuff:


1. A character sheet is defined by the rules. But the character is defined by your choices.


This I would redefine as "A character sheet is mechanics. A character is choices."


Just like your biology doesn't determine what you do, neither does your paladin's lawful good disposition and code of conduct dictate he will always take the Big Bad prisoner.


Where's your Rules for DMs? This is good stuff, more please.

[icefractal]

b. You identify with your character; the DM doesn’t. It follows that you are more likely to be biased about the interpretation then the DM.
This particular one, I don't agree with. Yes, players can be biased toward their PCs, but GM's can just as easily be biased - toward an NPC, toward the direction they imagined the plot going, toward wanting a situation to be resolved a certain way.

Now that's not saying that you should necessarily argue it - the points about picking your battles and considering whether an argument is really an improvement over playing with a (possibly) incorrect ruling are completely valid. But IME, GMs are about equally likely to be right as players are.


I'd also add a ... sub-rule? correllary? that's helped with my own rules-lawyering tendencies -
When a GM does something contrary to the rules, consider whether it could have been rules-abiding by them using customized/homebrewed content, and whether that homebrew would have been within the acceptable bounds of "fair". If so, then consider just mentally filing it as "they used homebrew" and stop worrying about it.

Example: GM activated two abilities of a monster that both take standard actions, in the same turn. Ask yourself - would a homebrew version where one of them was a swift action be a reasonable thing to put in the game? If so, then there's really no problem here.

[Lord Torath]

Where's your Rules for DMs? This is good stuff, more please.Jay R's Rules for DMs (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?631804-Rules-for-DMs-once-again&highlight=Rules+for+DMs)
and
Jay R's Rules for DMs: Wishes (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?642554-Rules-for-DMs-Wishes&highlight=Rules+for+DMs)

[RandomPeasant]

“Rules as Written” doesn’t mean no DM changes.

It literally does not. If you want to say "most tables do not actually play by RAW", that's fine and true. Say that. But RAW is a specific thing, and that thing is not "the rules after the DM has changed them". It is "the rules as they are written in the books".


If this DM rules that fireballs turn people blue, then fireballs turn people blue in that world. Accept it and move on.

Play the game the DM is running. Frodo doesn’t start searching Moria for loot; D’Artagnan doesn’t decide to sail to America.

When you disagree with the DM, feel free to say so, clearly and without anger. Then accept the DM’s ruling and move on.

These are not good rules. The game is created by both the players and the DM. While it is true that simply haring off to do whatever you think is cool makes you a bad player, a DM who ignores signals by players that they think a houserule is dumb or that they want to play in particular ways is a bad DM. You should know how to signal what you want to do in a way that is mature and helpful, and you should be able to correctly assess when the rest of the table (including the other players and the DM) want something different, and you should understand when you are on a fundamentally different wavelength and should go do something else. But you should meekly accept that the DM is an absolute arbiter who gets to make whatever changes and declarations they want.


Yes, you decide what your character is. Decide to have one that makes the game better for everyone, not one that hurts the game for other players.

This doesn't really address the most common form of friction in this area. The debate is not usually "should I hurt the other players" but "how much should I invest in making the game better for other players versus doing the thing I think is cool". Contra what you are saying here, it is actually completely acceptable to have a character that simply does whatever concept you think is cool that fits in the game non-disruptively, regardless of how much or how little that provides for the rest of the player's concepts. This is true both mechanically (you do not have to play some sort of defensive bulkwark or buffbot if you don't want to) and flavorfully (you do not have to play another player's mentor or longlost brother if you do not want to).


If a ruling sounds wrong, consider the possibility that it’s a clue about some important secret.

Honestly as a DM this sounds like miserable advice. If I'm making a mechanical ruling, I'm making that ruling because of the mechanics. I absolutely do not want players metagaming based on the perceived quality of my houserules.


If that game is not a good game for you, then that fact will never change.

It certainly won't if you never once argue or push back or articulate your position. But most people actually will change if you ask, because generally speaking there is room for compromise and the things that are important to one player are not always the things that are important to others (and the DM is, ultimately, just another person at the table playing the game).


10. Similarly, let each player get their moment. If this is the perfect moment for the usually-overshadowed character to shine, then let her have it; don’t grab the spotlight for your PC.

Again, this simply does not capture the problem as it actually arises. People are not overshadowed because one player goes "haha, I could allow you to meaningfully impact the game, but instead I will do it!". They are overshadowed because two different people have character concepts they are interested in and committed to and one happens to be more effective at addressing a particular situation. The responsibility for providing a distribution of challenges that gives everyone something to do that fits what what they want to do belongs to the DM.


I know different players play differently, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not asking for arguments about “the one right way to play RPGs”.

Then don't call your thing "rules". If you wanna post "Jay R's Opinions About Stuff", you can put whatever you want in there. But the words you use influence people's perception of you, and "rule" is a word that inculcates very specific perceptions which are the exact opposite of this sentiment. Either accept the way people perceive the things you say, or say different things that they will perceive in the way you want.

[kyoryu]

I usually run rules disputes as follows:

1. You get to point out where you think there's an inaccuracy/unfairness.
2. The GM will consider it briefly (if you think it's RAW, look it up to keep things going!), and then move on.
3. You accept the ruling at that time. Nobody wants to listen to rules arguments at the table.
4. If you still dispute it, you may bring it up after or between games

I do like the NFL-esque "if you get disagreed with, you don't get to challenge rulings again" rule, though.

[ahyangyi]

It literally does not. If you want to say "most tables do not actually play by RAW", that's fine and true. Say that. But RAW is a specific thing, and that thing is not "the rules after the DM has changed them". It is "the rules as they are written in the books".

I think Jay R's argument here is that Rule Zero is often literally part of the rules, so that our specific, well-defined RAW is actually "RAW, except Rule Zero".

[RandomPeasant]

I usually run rules disputes as follows:

1. You get to point out where you think there's an inaccuracy/unfairness.
2. The GM will consider it briefly (if you think it's RAW, look it up to keep things going!), and then move on.
3. You accept the ruling at that time. Nobody wants to listen to rules arguments at the table.
4. If you still dispute it, you may bring it up after or between games

I do like the NFL-esque "if you get disagreed with, you don't get to challenge rulings again" rule, though.

I think this is a broadly good approach. The one thing I would add is that, if you do end up changing the rules significantly from what one player expected, you should generally let that player change parts of their build that are dependent on whatever the changed rules are. If, for instance, someone plays a Psion on the expectation of total magic/psionics transparency, but the table ends up going with full opacity for whatever reason, letting that player respec to the Wizard or Fighter they now prefer helps smooth over potential hurt feelings.


I think Jay R's argument here is that Rule Zero is often literally part of the rules, so that our specific, well-defined RAW is actually "RAW, except Rule Zero".

Whatever modifications you make as a result of Rule Zero are, by definition, not a part of the written rules, and therefore not RAW, even if the rules do say "you can change the rules". Since it is, in fact, impossible to write TTRPG rules that can be changed, trying to say "actually my houserules are really RAW because Rule Zero" is just semantics.

To be clear, I think it is absolutely fine for tables to change the rules. It is, in many cases, affirmatively good to do so. Honestly, I think most people are too hesitant to actually change the rules, rather than doing convoluted "actually the rules secretly say X, which is the opposite of what the plain text suggests, but coincidentally much closer to balanced". But these changes are not RAW, and insisting or pretending that they are is simply not productive.

[Vahnavoi]

The actual observation being made by Jay R that per rules as written, a game master has final say over many things. As such, per rules as written, it would be crazy for a player to assume or argue for rules as written without knowing what their game master's interpretation is.

That's the point. Arguing the game master's interpretation isn't technically written down is besides the point.

Another, simpler version of Jay R's rule would be: when the rules say to heed what your referee says, you can't hide behind the rules to ignore what your referee says.

[Satinavian]

The actual observation being made by Jay R that per rules as written, a game master has final say over many things. As such, per rules as written, it would be crazy for a player to assume or argue for rules as written without knowing what their game master's interpretation is.

That's the point. Arguing the game master's interpretation isn't technically written down is besides the point.

Another, simpler version of Jay R's rule would be: when the rules say to heed what your referee says, you can't hide behind the rules to ignore what your referee says.
Jay R put the qualifier "In many games" to this point for a good reason.

GM as sole rule maker is far from universal.

[Pauly]

Seth Skorkowsky recently posted a very good video on player -v- player conflict, which he characterized as character -v- character conflict. In short
- keep it between the characters not the players
- keep it non lethal
- make sure it happens in down time between missions. If the characters have to fight then have them complete the mission then duke it out when they get back to the base.
- if someone is screwing over the party none of the above apply.

Sort of kind of related to the above:
If you have to say “but it’s what my character would do” you have failed at role playing.
- Don’t expect other players to remember what you wrote in your backstory.
- if you want the GM/other players to care about your character’s back story act as it matters to your character. Make comments as to your motivations, likes and dislikes regularly. Say your character is doing [X] because of backstory reasons.
- use the 3 clue rule. If your character will do something contrary to the rest of the party’s interests make 3 in character comments that signpost it to the rest of the group.

[RandomPeasant]

The actual observation being made by Jay R that per rules as written, a game master has final say over many things.

Look, if what you want to say is "the DM is an all-controlling god, defy him at your will", say that. The problem, of course, is that this is not a statement most people agree with, nor is it a good way to run a game. So we get all this insistence that changing the rules from what is written is totally the rules as written, because the rules say you can change them (as if the rules saying you couldn't change them could possibly prevent you from doing so!). RAW is RAW. It is a specific thing with a specific meaning. If you insist on trying to pass of something else as RAW, that suggests that you don't actually think whatever you're selling is worth it on its merits.

As I've said, I have nothing against changing the rules. But acknowledge that's what you're doing. If you think that drown healing shouldn't work, you are houseruling drown healing. You are not revealing the "true RAW" where drown healing does not work. Not only is that approach insulting to the table, it produces worse rules than admitting you're changing things and implicitly endorses all the things you do not change. If you want your players to work with you in good faith, work with them in good faith and acknowledge that the new and different rules you are using are new and different.

[Jay R]

I think Jay R's argument here is that Rule Zero is often literally part of the rules, so that our specific, well-defined RAW is actually "RAW, except Rule Zero".

Another, simpler version of Jay R's rule would be: when the rules say to heed what your referee says, you can't hide behind the rules to ignore what your referee says.

Jay R put the qualifier "In many games" to this point for a good reason.

Exactly. Thank you all.


Look, if what you want to say is "the DM is an all-controlling god, defy him at your will", say that.

But I don't want to say that, and it's not what I said. I'll go further: I don't want to say anything negative, cynical, or insulting.

What I'm saying, as several others readers understood, is that when the rules as written give the DM the final say, you cannot use "RAW" as a tool to disagree with the DM's ruling.


The problem, of course, is that this is not a statement most people agree with, nor is it a good way to run a game.

Agreed. I'm one of the people who disagrees with the negative approach of treating disagreements as "the DM is an all-controlling god". He's just the final authority. The referee in a baseball game is not an all-controlling god either; he's just the final authority. He gives a ruling that everybody has to accept, so the game can continue.

One of a DM's jobs is to keep the game running. Sometimes a ruling is wrong, but having a ruling that we all accept right now is needed to keep the game running.


So we get all this insistence that changing the rules from what is written is totally the rules as written, because the rules say you can change them (as if the rules saying you couldn't change them could possibly prevent you from doing so!). RAW is RAW. It is a specific thing with a specific meaning. If you insist on trying to pass of something else as RAW, that suggests that you don't actually think whatever you're selling is worth it on its merits.

As I've said, I have nothing against changing the rules. But acknowledge that's what you're doing. If you think that drown healing shouldn't work, you are houseruling drown healing. You are not revealing the "true RAW" where drown healing does not work.

Perfect example. Suppose in a 3.5e game, the DM says, "Drowning was never intended to heal, and no official supplement suggests that drowning is intended to heal. Therefore I rule that drowning does not do something absurd that drowning never does in real life, and that no example anywhere in the rules suggests that drowning should do, just because a rule was poorly written." You can't use "RAW" to argue against that ruling, because RAW explicitly states that his ruling is final.

If that is your example of insisting on RAW, then you have completely justified the need for my rule. At that point, you can either continue arguing to insist that drowning heals people, or you can keep playing the game. My recommendation is to "Play the game you’re in, not some theoretical RAW game you think exists somewhere else," and "Accept it and move on."


Not only is that approach insulting to the table, it produces worse rules than admitting you're changing things and implicitly endorses all the things you do not change. If you want your players to work with you in good faith, work with them in good faith and acknowledge that the new and different rules you are using are new and different.

For the record, since I first started DMing in the 1970s, none of my players have ever accused me of not working with them in
good faith. Also, I have a separate set of suggested rules for DMs. In it, I state:


11. The DM can change, annul, ignore, or overrule any rule in the rulebook. This is not a toy or free privilege to change the game at whim. It’s a heavy responsibility to make the game go right, and to be fair to the players, even when the rules aren’t right for a specific moment.
a. Printed rules should be the standard. Rules changes should be the exception.
b. Applying the published rules is like eating food. That should always happen. Ignoring the rules is like taking medicine; it's only a good idea if something is wrong, you know how it’s wrong, and you know how to fix it.
c. Never change a rule unless you know why it was written.

This is working with the players in good faith. And ruling against drown healing is a clear example of ignoring the rules because something is wrong, I know why it's wrong, and I know how to fix it.

Thank you very much for posting, and defending, your approach to the game. I'm glad to have my rules questioned by people who disagree with me, and I sometimes change my rules based on that. This is not one of those times, but I did go back and re-think my approach when reading your comments.

As I say in both sets of suggested rules:


These rules are written for myself, for the way I play games. I am not saying that anybody else “should” play a game this way. These rules exist to help me be consistent, effective, and immersive.

Anybody else is free to use them as guidelines, to modify them, to use some but not others, or to ignore them altogether, as seems best to you. Not everybody agrees on how to play a game, and there's nothing wrong with that.

There is nothing wrong with you playing your way. There is also nothing wrong with me playing my way, and this is my documentation of what playing my way is.

[Vahnavoi]

Look, if what you want to say is "the DM is an all-controlling god, defy him at your will", say that.

That's not what the observation is and not what either me or Jay R are trying to say. You are replacing what was actually said with a platitude and then arguing against a point that wasn't being made. No-one is arguing a referee's game specific rulings a part of rules as written. The actual point is that when rules as written empower a referee figure to make such rulings, it makes no sense for a player to argue against such rulings on the basis of rules as written.

EDIT: Jay R ninja'd me.

[Pauly]

Re #5.
I would broaden it to include.
Respect the tone/genre/mood/theme of the campaign. (Applies to other players not just the GM).
If everyone else is playing serious then don’t be the one doing wacky hijinks. If everyone else is being beer and pretzels don’t be the one rifling through the rulebook and with your scientific calculator out.
Play within the agreed upon limits of the campaign. If the GM has asked everyone to play dwarves in their dwarven clan campaign don’t turn up with half-orc foundling who thinks he’s a dwarf.
If everyone else is playing within the limits then you are abusing the social contract by playing something outside of the agreed upon limits.

[icefractal]

It's true though, that including Rule 0, taken to an extreme, means the term "RAW" is completely meaningless, because literally anything can be "RAW". Wizard has d12 HD and casts spells by drinking ale? Falling damage is always a flat 100 regardless of fall distance? Whirlwind Attack creates a tornado whenever you use it? All 100% RAW, by that definition.

While they may end up with the same result in practice, I think there is a meaningful difference between:
A) "This is according to the rules, as agreed by virtually everyone"
B) "This is how I interpret an ambiguous rule, so we're going with that"
C) "This is not technically the rules, but those are IMO dysfunctional and this is a fixed version"
D) "This isn't the rules, but I'm houseruling it for this campaign"
E) "This isn't the rules, but I'm overriding them for this specific instance"

And in some instances, that difference is pretty important. Consider the case of the GM nerfing a particular spell for intra-party balance.
"[Spell X] is proving overpowering, to the point that it needs to be house-ruled for this campaign, and/or you could switch to other spells" - Honest about the reasons, possibly inviting collaboration on said house-rules, treats the player as an adult.
"[Spell X] now works like [houserule version] instead; update your sheet" - Kind of dictatorial, doesn't give the player any opportunity to work with the GM; I'd accept it if they were otherwise a good GM, but it'd leave a sour taste.
"I think [Spell X] actually works [houserule way], and so that's my ruling - you've been doing it wrong" - Obnoxious, tries to put the player in the wrong rather than admit they're nerfing for balance, raises the concern that they might "reinterpret" anything else as well. Would be a major strike against that GM for me.

[Jay R]

It's true though, that including Rule 0, taken to an extreme, means the term "RAW" is completely meaningless, because literally anything can be "RAW".

True. I agree completely: the term "RAW" is completely meaningless. It's often used by a player to try to overrule the DM, which (in many games) is a direct contradiction of the rules as written.

Everything else you say is an important consideration for a DM. These are suggested rules for a player.

The crucial rule regarding this for a player is this one:


8. Not all games are for all people. Some DMs aren’t right for some players, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If you are in a game you don’t enjoy, and the DM isn’t changing after your questions, just leave.

a. If that game is not a good game for you, then that fact will never change. That doesn’t mean that you are wrong, or that the DM is wrong – just that you shouldn’t play in that game.

The player should not try to stop the game because he disagrees with the DM. Arguing isn't playing the game, and these rules are intended to support playing the game.

In my rules for DMs, I make a point of addressing this from the DM's perspective:


11. The DM can change, annul, ignore, or overrule any rule in the rulebook. This is not a toy or free privilege to change the game at whim. It’s a heavy responsibility to make the game go right, and to be fair to the players, even when the rules aren’t right for a specific moment.
a. Printed rules should be the standard. Rules changes should be the exception.
b. Applying the published rules is like eating food. That should always happen. Ignoring the rules is like taking medicine; it's only a good idea if something is wrong, you know how it’s wrong, and you know how to fix it.
c. Never change a rule unless you know why it was written.

[KorvinStarmast]

Another, simpler version of Jay R's rule would be: when the rules say to heed what your referee says, you can't hide behind the rules to ignore what your referee says. Well, for a successful table, that's true. For tables that are doomed to break up ...


Look, if what you want to say is "the DM is an all-controlling god, defy him at your will", say that. Wil Wheaton has something to offer the conversation at this point.

OK, Jay R, let me see if I can help you with this draft.


1. A character sheet is defined by the rules. But the character is defined by your choices. Works.

2. The idea that appeals to the DM will work better than the idea that does not appeal. Common sense 101.

a. Just because it worked for one DM doesn’t mean it will work with another. Different games are different.
b. There is a legal maxim: Any lawyer knows the law; a good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge. Similarly, any player knows the rules; a good player knows fantasy literature. A great player knows the DM. Nice amplification.

3.a. If this DM rules that fireballs turn people blue, then fireballs turn people blue in that world. Accept it and move on. The Play's the Thing.

4. When you do the grand, heroic action from the stories that sometimes gets the hero killed, recognize and accept that it could get your PC killed. Yes.

5. Play the game the DM is running. Frodo doesn’t start searching Moria for loot; D’Artagnan doesn’t decide to sail to America. Yes.


6. The basic unit of D&D isn’t the PC; it’s the party. Fit in with the party. Support the party’s goals, and defend your allies.
a. You can have personal goals and secrets, but don’t let them get in the party’s way.
b. Yes, you decide what your character is. Decide to have one that makes the game better for everyone, not one that hurts the game for other players. Surround this with blinking lights. Edgelords, Pay Attention! Howard Johnson Jay R is right!


7. When you disagree with the DM, feel free to say so, clearly and without anger. Then accept the DM’s ruling and move on.
a. Playing, even under a ruling you don’t like, is more fun than arguing.
b. The DM has information you don’t have. There may be a very good reason for his ruling that your character doesn’t know, and that therefore the DM will not tell you.
c. If a ruling sounds wrong, consider the possibility that it’s a clue about some important secret.
"Are we here to argue or play?"


8. Not all games are for all people. Some DMs aren’t right for some players, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If you are in a game you don’t enjoy, and the DM isn’t changing after your questions, just leave.
a. If that game is not a good game for you, then that fact will never change. That doesn’t mean that you are wrong, or that the DM is wrong – just that you shouldn’t play in that game. Truth.


9. Make sure all party members get a fair distribution of magic items. The armor on the PC next to yours helps her guard your back.
a. The question is not, “Do I want this item?” The question is “Which one of us can use this item best?” Teamwork is such a nice thing.

10. Similarly, let each player get their moment. If this is the perfect moment for the usually-overshadowed character to shine, then let her have it; don’t grab the spotlight for your PC. Teamwork is such a nice thing.

11. "Clever" and "absurd" are not synonyms. The "rule of cool" is not an excuse to do things your character cannot do. It's a justification for taking risks and acting like a hero using his actual abilities. Nobody bothers to actually know what words mean anymore, so I guess you had to include this.

12. Your backstory will never matter as much to the DM as it does to you. Remember that your primary audience is you.
a. The DM will read and care about your backstory only to the extent that it is interesting to read. If you aren’t an entertaining writer, keep it short. But never stop trying. It takes a few iterations to get the back story rhythm going.

Bottom line: Work with your DM.

[RandomPeasant]

He gives a ruling that everybody has to accept, so the game can continue.

If "everybody has to accept" the ruling, it seems to me that you've mis-articulated your position by making it about "RAW". If I, as a person at the table, am in fact obligated to accept the DM's ruling, then it's not that I can't appeal to "RAW" over it, I equally can't appeal to "game balance" or "my character concept" or "verisimilitude" or "consistency with previous rulings" or "ease of adjudication" or any of the many other virtues which a rule might possess over it.


One of a DM's jobs is to keep the game running.

Whereas the players, obviously, have the job of grinding the game to a halt. The fundamental problem with your approach is that you think this needs to be solved by one set of rules for "players" and one set for "DMs". That's a false dichotomy. If the DM is positioned as the one who's job it is to make rules that restrain broken material, that implicitly positions the players as the ones whose job it is to find holes in rules through which to sneak broken material.


Sometimes a ruling is wrong, but having a ruling that we all accept right now is needed to keep the game running.

There's an excluded middle here. Yes, making an immediate ruling is necessary. But you can, and should, revisit those immediate rulings to see if there's a ruling that does a better job but requires more thought to arrive at. And those immediate rulings don't have to come down from the DM. If the game hits some kind of crash condition, resolving it by saying "does anyone have a way to deal with this that's minimally disruptive" will often be both better and faster than simply having the DM figure out what makes sense to them.


If that is your example of insisting on RAW, then you have completely justified the need for my rule.

Just once, I would love for someone arguing with me to acknowledge the "you can change the rules" part of my "you can change the rules, but those changes aren't RAW" position. The part that's, you know, half of the position. Somehow y'all can see the vast gap between "the DM's rulings cannot be defied" and "the DM's rulings must be accepted", but "you can do the thing you want but can't call it something it isn't" doesn't get through.


At that point, you can either continue arguing to insist that drowning heals people, or you can keep playing the game.

Sure. Your point holds pretty well when we're talking about something obviously dysfunctional like Drown Healing. But consider something less disruptive: a full-progression Rainbow WarSnake that hasn't gotten their capstone yet. There's a RAW dispute about how this character works. Some people say it is full progression. Some people say it is 6/10 progression. If you, as a DM, think that 10th level Rainbow WarSnake that's shown up to your game should have less casting than the player who stated it up does, does it "keep the game moving" to demand things change that way during the session? Does it keep the campaign moving to insist on finding an answer between sessions when the build won't do anything potentially problematic until 16th level and the campaign might not ever get there?


For the record, since I first started DMing in the 1970s, none of my players have ever accused me of not working with them in
good faith.

I'm sure taking a strong stance that people who don't like your rulings should find a different table had absolutely no relevant selection effect.


There is also nothing wrong with me playing my way, and this is my documentation of what playing my way is.

And as I said the first time, when you call something "rules" that conveys a particular semantics. If you want to post "Jay R's Guidelines" or "Jay R's Tips", you can put whatever you want in them and I will not complain about word one of them. But when you call them "rules", that is not, in fact, a completely neutral stance that does not make any claim to be better than any other way of doing things, and hiding behind the idea that it is when someone criticizes your rules is a waste of everyone's time.


It's true though, that including Rule 0, taken to an extreme, means the term "RAW" is completely meaningless, because literally anything can be "RAW". Wizard has d12 HD and casts spells by drinking ale? Falling damage is always a flat 100 regardless of fall distance? Whirlwind Attack creates a tornado whenever you use it? All 100% RAW, by that definition.

There's actually an even better example. In the 3.5 DMG, it says quite explicitly that the best PrCs are custom ones you make up for your campaign. I do not think anyone takes that to mean that the Solar Hierophant PrC I write up for the high priests of my setting's sun cult is suddenly RAW.


While they may end up with the same result in practice, I think there is a meaningful difference between:

This is absolutely true, and I would say more than the specific examples there is a difference in mindset that is important. RAW and houserules are different things with different goals. The advantage of RAW is that it is objective. The advantage of houserules is that they are customized to the table's preferences. Understanding those differences is important for evaluating rules and rulings. If you find yourself spending a long time arguing over what a piece of rules text "really" means, houserule it and spend less time arguing. If you find that a houserule you've made doesn't produce outcomes you think are generally better than RAW, remove it and make things easier for people joining your group.


"[Spell X] is proving overpowering, to the point that it needs to be house-ruled for this campaign, and/or you could switch to other spells" - Honest about the reasons, possibly inviting collaboration on said house-rules, treats the player as an adult.
"[Spell X] now works like [houserule version] instead; update your sheet" - Kind of dictatorial, doesn't give the player any opportunity to work with the GM; I'd accept it if they were otherwise a good GM, but it'd leave a sour taste.
"I think [Spell X] actually works [houserule way], and so that's my ruling - you've been doing it wrong" - Obnoxious, tries to put the player in the wrong rather than admit they're nerfing for balance, raises the concern that they might "reinterpret" anything else as well. Would be a major strike against that GM for me.

This is, again, absolutely true. It's also worth thinking about the "player/DM arms race" in this context. It is, on the one hand, true that the players can never win an arms race with the DM. There will always be a more powerful monster or a more dangerous enemy. At the same time, if a DM responds to players optimizing by simply turning up the challenge without communicating why it's happening, the result is almost never the players realizing "oh, we made our characters too powerful" and de-escalating. Whereas if you just, you know, treat your players like adults and say "hey, your characters feel kinda over-tuned, is there a way we can pull back a bit", most people can work with you.

The lesson here is that communication is key, and that communication goes both ways. As a DM, it's bad practice to simply dictate the rules and expect the players to hop to. You should work with the players to find a compromise set of rules that addresses your concerns while allowing them to realize the concepts that interest them. And as a player, it's bad practice to simply accept whatever rulings the DM makes without question. You should work with the DM to find a compromise set of rules that addresses his concerns while allowing you to realize the concept that interests you.


True. I agree completely: the term "RAW" is completely meaningless.

No, it's not. It's a term with a specific meaning. It means the rules, as they are written in whatever the source material for the game is. And it's a term that does have value, because "what do the specific words on this specific page mean" is objective and shared in a way that "what does this particular DM think this particular thing does" is not. And that objectivity is a vitally important precondition for functioning cooperative storytelling, because it's what allows you to make declarations like "my character is very strong" or "my character is a persuasive negotiator" or "my character is a skilled mage" and have those declarations reflect meaningful truths about the shared fiction.


The player should not try to stop the game because he disagrees with the DM.

Sure. But the DM also shouldn't stop the game because he disagrees with the player. I agree that "is Combat Reflexes being ruled correctly" is not something that it is worth stopping a session to have an argument over. But that's true whoever's stopping the session. Generally speaking, if you have an issue, and the issue isn't urgent enough that not addressing it right now will break the campaign, you -- as either a player or a DM -- should wait until after the session to address it because that will give everyone more time to think it over and reduce the time pressure that can lead to bad rulings.

[Vahnavoi]

It's true though, that including Rule 0, taken to an extreme, means the term "RAW" is completely meaningless, because literally anything can be "RAW". Wizard has d12 HD and casts spells by drinking ale? Falling damage is always a flat 100 regardless of fall distance? Whirlwind Attack creates a tornado whenever you use it? All 100% RAW, by that definition.

Jay R already completed one fork of this argument, so I'll try another:

Again, no-one is arguing a referee's game specific rulings are part of rules as written. "Rules as written" always has a specific and useful meaning in the sense of referring to rules that have actually, literally, been written down. Your own confusion comes from NOT using the phrase in this sense, and conflating it with a discussion on rule precedence.

Ever read any actual laws? Virtually all laws state somewhere in them who can change them, when, and why. The written law is a codification of decision already made. But it does not mean those decisions can't be changed or overturned later.

Does this mean the written law is useless? Of course not. It tells what the state of the law is now. It tells you who will resolve possible contradictions. It tells you who to listen to for any possible changes. The point Jay R is making, is that for many games, that entity to listen to is the game master. Per the law, their judgement takes precedence over lesser laws.

Now, if the game master goes through the effort to actually write down all the changes they want to make (such as the ones in your post)? Now they are rules as written. But they are rules as written for the game of that game master. Their design has no relevance to games of other game masters or their players. Which why you should play the game you’re in, not some theoretical RAW game you think exists somewhere else.

---

As a comment on other discussion lines, the law analogy should also show where RandomPeasant is veering off to insane troll logic. For example, saying it's a false dichtomy to have different rules for players and game masters? Um, no. It's not a false dichtomy at all, it's division of labour. Game rules nominate players into different positions and give them different tasks to facilitate different games. There is no implication that if one person is given a task, others are tasked with the opposite. That would be like saying that when the law appoints a police officer to enforce a law, civilians are somehow tasked with breaking it.

[Tanarii]

True. I agree completely: the term "RAW" is completely meaningless. It's often used by a player to try to overrule the DM, which (in many games) is a direct contradiction of the rules as written.
As commonly mis-used / co-opted, it is meaningless.

RAW just means the text of the rule as written before interpretation by anyone.

RAW isn't the opposite of "ruling needed because the rule is ambiguous", nor does it mean "correct way to play", and nor does it mean (and this is the common mis-use / co-opting of the term) "the 'correct' way to interpret the text of the rule".

Regardless of that, I do think you should probably just remove the first two sentences of #3. "Rule 0 is part of the game" isn't a necessary precursor to "play the game you're in, not the theoretical RAW".

-------

Side note, dragonsfoot instead uses BtB (By The Book), which does strongly imply interpretation of the rule. Which is hilarious because trying to run AD&D BtB isn't possible, let alone part of the philosophy of that edition.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Yeah, I dunno. Maybe we cut it down to simpler rules. Let's worry about the deeper stuff once the players master the basic ones. Things like,

"Know your character's abilities like you know your own biography."

"The DM has spent more time than is probably healthy trying to make the game fun for you. Respect that."

[kyoryu]

If "everybody has to accept" the ruling, it seems to me that you've mis-articulated your position by making it about "RAW". If I, as a person at the table, am in fact obligated to accept the DM's ruling, then it's not that I can't appeal to "RAW" over it, I equally can't appeal to "game balance" or "my character concept" or "verisimilitude" or "consistency with previous rulings" or "ease of adjudication" or any of the many other virtues which a rule might possess over it.

You can appeal all you want. You cannot claim it's authority. "It looks like RAW/balance/concept/consistency would suggest this" is very different from "RAW/balance/concept/consistency says your ruling is wrong and you must do this."


Whereas the players, obviously, have the job of grinding the game to a halt.

What? No. It's a responsibility that everyone should share, however, it's useful to have one person have it as a primary responsibility to help prevent breakdowns.

Like, it can be everybody's job to do the dishes, but that can also lead to situations where everyone blows it off. If it's understood to be one person's job, but everyone else helps out when they can or the opportunity arises, the dishes get done.


The fundamental problem with your approach is that you think this needs to be solved by one set of rules for "players" and one set for "DMs". That's a false dichotomy. If the DM is positioned as the one who's job it is to make rules that restrain broken material, that implicitly positions the players as the ones whose job it is to find holes in rules through which to sneak broken material.

The fundamental problem is that you have a different view of the role of a GM in a game than most of the people in the thread do. Not that yours is necessarily wrong, to be clear, but it is fairly extreme within RPGs as a whole.

I like to talk about my three interactions types:

1.
GM: "this is the situation. What do you do?"
Player: "I do this"
GM: "This is the new situation, what do you do?"

2.
Player 1: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules"
Player 2: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules"
Player 3: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules"

3.
Player 1: "This happens"
Player 2: "Then this happens"
Player 3: "Then this happens"

Vahanavoi and JayR are presuming that games are primarily the first type of interaction. You are clearly uncomfortable with this and prefer the second type of interaction. That's not really reconcilable. They both work, but are very different games (even if using the same rules).


There's an excluded middle here. Yes, making an immediate ruling is necessary. But you can, and should, revisit those immediate rulings to see if there's a ruling that does a better job but requires more thought to arrive at. And those immediate rulings don't have to come down from the DM. If the game hits some kind of crash condition, resolving it by saying "does anyone have a way to deal with this that's minimally disruptive" will often be both better and faster than simply having the DM figure out what makes sense to them.

Sure. And I don't think that is excluded by JayR's rules at all. It's just placing final authority in the hands of the GM for how that's resolved. I'd argue that, except in game-breaking cases, best practice would be "rule in favor of the player in the moment, and then revisit".


Just once, I would love for someone arguing with me to acknowledge the "you can change the rules" part of my "you can change the rules, but those changes aren't RAW" position. The part that's, you know, half of the position. Somehow y'all can see the vast gap between "the DM's rulings cannot be defied" and "the DM's rulings must be accepted", but "you can do the thing you want but can't call it something it isn't" doesn't get through.

I absolutely believe it's a good idea to recognize the difference between RAW and house rules, and that rulings override RAW. I don't see an issue with this.


Sure. Your point holds pretty well when we're talking about something obviously dysfunctional like Drown Healing. But consider something less disruptive: a full-progression Rainbow WarSnake that hasn't gotten their capstone yet. There's a RAW dispute about how this character works. Some people say it is full progression. Some people say it is 6/10 progression. If you, as a DM, think that 10th level Rainbow WarSnake that's shown up to your game should have less casting than the player who stated it up does, does it "keep the game moving" to demand things change that way during the session? Does it keep the campaign moving to insist on finding an answer between sessions when the build won't do anything potentially problematic until 16th level and the campaign might not ever get there?

I think it is important. Bringing up an issue like that between sessions (or, preferably, before the first session) can allow the player a chance to change their concept/build before they get overly attached to it. Being told "yeah, I don't rule it that way" before the first session may be disconcerting. Doing it after a session or two will be worse. Doing it after 10 levels with the character? That's gonna make people salty.


This is absolutely true, and I would say more than the specific examples there is a difference in mindset that is important. RAW and houserules are different things with different goals.

And rulings are a third thing beyond that.


The advantage of RAW is that it is objective.

The value of objectivity varies greatly from player to player. Many RPGs have little objectivity and bake judgement calls into the rules at a very deep level.


This is, again, absolutely true. It's also worth thinking about the "player/DM arms race" in this context. It is, on the one hand, true that the players can never win an arms race with the DM. There will always be a more powerful monster or a more dangerous enemy. At the same time, if a DM responds to players optimizing by simply turning up the challenge without communicating why it's happening, the result is almost never the players realizing "oh, we made our characters too powerful" and de-escalating. Whereas if you just, you know, treat your players like adults and say "hey, your characters feel kinda over-tuned, is there a way we can pull back a bit", most people can work with you.

Well, yeah.


The lesson here is that communication is key, and that communication goes both ways. As a DM, it's bad practice to simply dictate the rules and expect the players to hop to. You should work with the players to find a compromise set of rules that addresses your concerns while allowing them to realize the concepts that interest them. And as a player, it's bad practice to simply accept whatever rulings the DM makes without question. You should work with the DM to find a compromise set of rules that addresses his concerns while allowing you to realize the concept that interests you.

This is not incompatible with "and, at the end of the day, the DM has the final authority." You're assumign that means the GM is a dictator. I assume it means they're more like the Chairman of the Board.


Sure. But the DM also shouldn't stop the game because he disagrees with the player. I agree that "is Combat Reflexes being ruled correctly" is not something that it is worth stopping a session to have an argument over.

Cool. So there needs to be some way to move forward when two people disagree, right? You have to choose some interpretation to move forward. If the question is whether it's +2 or +4, you need to use one of the two to finish what you're doing.

All JayR is proposing is that it's the GM who gets to decide which ruling to use in the moment. That doesn't even mean that the GM always has to choose their original interpretation.

[Pauly]

Re: RAW.
Sticking with RAW allow for consistency over time and between tables.

GM/House rules allows for flexibility. It can cover gaps in the rules as well as fixing glitches that players are trying to exploit.

Each is important and sometimes they are in conflict with each other.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, I dunno. Maybe we cut it down to simpler rules. Let's worry about the deeper stuff once the players master the basic ones. Things like,

"Know your character's abilities like you know your own biography."

"The DM has spent more time than is probably healthy trying to make the game fun for you. Respect that." Amen, brother Kurt! :smallsmile:

[RandomPeasant]

Again, no-one is arguing a referee's game specific rulings are part of rules as written.

I mean, the rule says '“Rules as Written” doesn’t mean no DM changes.'. It seems very difficult to parse that as meaning anything other than "DM changes are part of the Rules as Written". If you want to say "most tables don't play by strict RAW", that is a completely reasonable thing to say. I agree with that. But it's a different thing from arguing about what "Rules as Written" does or does not include.

Seriously, I do not understand how "changing the rules is fine, just accept that your changes don't have anything to do with RAW" is such a radically controversial position. I do not think anyone should play with Drown Healing in their game. But it is demonstrably the case that the written rules of D&D 3.5 produce circumstances in which drowning heals you. That is precisely a reason that "RAW" is not sacrosanct, not that whatever change you make so that does not happen anymore is somehow also RAW.


Now they are rules as written.

Only in the sort of semantic sense that gets sensible people ranting about lawyers and philosophers. "RAW" refers to the rules of the game, not any rules someone happens to have written down that are related to the game. Again, just because I have taken my Solar Hierophant and put it down on paper somewhere does not mean it magically becomes a part of 3.5's RAW.


it's division of labour.

Great. Now tell me why "keep the game functioning" is labor that ought to be divided. Why do we benefit from assigning that task to a specific person, rather than understanding it as one that everyone should be engaged in? All your objections to my position are semantic, not substantive.


You can appeal all you want. You cannot claim it's authority.

It seems to me that this is a distinction without a difference. It further seems to me that it, again, fails to articulate any reason why this is a "RAW" issue and not an "everything" issue. Is there something that I can appeal to that would have the authority to force a DM to change their ruling? If not, what is the benefit to articulating this principle, even given that it is one we accept, in terms of "RAW" and not simply in terms of "what the DM says goes"?


Like, it can be everybody's job to do the dishes, but that can also lead to situations where everyone blows it off. If it's understood to be one person's job, but everyone else helps out when they can or the opportunity arises, the dishes get done.

But any approach has failure modes. It could be that the specific person you picked to be in charge of doing the dishes is bad at it, or specifically lazy, or bad at cleaning the specialized cookware that someone else uses to make a particular dish.

I think there's also a degree of excluded middle here. It is true that when you get a problem of the form "the game has reached a crash condition, the session cannot continue with the rules as they were previously understood", resolving that quickly is a more important virtue than resolving it in a way that is maximally fair and considerate of everyone's values and preferences. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't go back and reconsider that decision, or that a considered decision made on a long-term basis needs to be evaluated in the same way as a snap decision made to allow play to continue. To go back into the metaphor, while you might pick one person to do the dishes, you'd probably want to make the decision of whether or not to buy a dishwasher as a group.


You are clearly uncomfortable with this and prefer the second type of interaction.

I am uncomfortable with that type of interaction in the context of deciding what the rules are. As, I think, are most people to some degree. Perhaps my experience really is atypical, but I do not think most people find TTRPG groups by saying "I would like to do some table-top gaming" and then being completely indifferent between all the possible systems that exist. They seek out particular groups that play a game using a ruleset they are interested in playing, and they (if they are starting a new campaign rather than joining an existing one) have some level of conversation about things like "what setting are we going to play in" or "what level of advancement are we going to start out at" or "what's the premise of the campaign going to be". I agree that my stance is probably more radical than many people's, but I strongly disagree that it is fundamentally alien. I just think we should apply the same type of process to the question of "how does Combat Reflexes work" that we do to the question of "should we play Earthdawn or FATE".


I'd argue that, except in game-breaking cases, best practice would be "rule in favor of the player in the moment, and then revisit".

It seems to me that doing that is far more consistent with my position than Jay's. If your guideline is "the DM should rule in ways that favor the player", you can claim that's putting the ruling in the hands of the DM, but it doesn't really seem like an accurate summary of the situation, nor will it give the right guidance to new players or new DMs.


I think it is important. Bringing up an issue like that between sessions (or, preferably, before the first session) can allow the player a chance to change their concept/build before they get overly attached to it. Being told "yeah, I don't rule it that way" before the first session may be disconcerting. Doing it after a session or two will be worse. Doing it after 10 levels with the character? That's gonna make people salty.

I think there are a lot of nuances to the question of approach, and it gets fairly deeply into the specifics. I agree that completely ignoring the problem, and then saying "we have to deal with this now" when the player hits the capstone is bad, but that wasn't a solution I intended to suggest. But something more along the lines of "we'll need to address this if the party hits 16th level, but I don't know if we'll get there, so you can keep playing the character the way it is for now" seems like a fine solution. Generally I think that there are many acceptable ways to handle this situation, some of which I would prefer to others, but that among the worst is "the DM makes a snap decision when they realize there's a problem without considering player input", and that's the one Jay's approach makes most likely.


Cool. So there needs to be some way to move forward when two people disagree, right? You have to choose some interpretation to move forward. If the question is whether it's +2 or +4, you need to use one of the two to finish what you're doing.

There is always some way to move forward when two people disagree. Sometimes, if the disagreement is fundamental enough, that way forward will be "we don't keep playing together". I think that a focus on picking a "final arbiter" is simply the wrong way to engage with the question. The focus should be on reaching an acceptable consensus. And framing things as "the DM makes rulings that everyone else must accept" rather than "the group interprets the rules in a way that works for the game" is a bad way to achieve that goal.

[Satinavian]

1. A character sheet is defined by the rules. But the character is defined by your choices.That ... doesn't really say anything. You could read a lot of different things into it, but as it is it is way too unclear to work as any kind of rule.

2. The idea that appeals to the DM will work better than the idea that does not appeal.

a. Just because it worked for one DM doesn’t mean it will work with another. Different games are different.
b. There is a legal maxim: Any lawyer knows the law; a good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge. Similarly, any player knows the rules; a good player knows fantasy literature. A great player knows the DM.Kinda works

3. “Rules as Written” doesn’t mean no DM changes. In many games, the rules as written include and assume DM rulings, and explicitly give the DM the right to overrule any other written rule. Play the game you’re in, not some theoretical RAW game you think exists somewhere else.

a. If this DM rules that fireballs turn people blue, then fireballs turn people blue in that world. Accept it and move on.That is not ideal. Try "houserules always have priority over RAW"

4. When you do the grand, heroic action from the stories that sometimes gets the hero killed, recognize and accept that it could get your PC killed.That is commonly true, but far from universal. How groups handle PC mortability differs and is often a session 0 topic.

5. Play the game the DM is running. Frodo doesn’t start searching Moria for loot; D’Artagnan doesn’t decide to sail to America.

a. The best loot has been placed where the DM thinks you will go. Go get it.
b. This doesn’t mean only do the expected; it means do clever, unexpected things within the actual plot.That works.

6. The basic unit of D&D isn’t the PC; it’s the party. Fit in with the party. Support the party’s goals, and defend your allies.

a. You can have personal goals and secrets, but don’t let them get in the party’s way.
b. Yes, you decide what your character is. Decide to have one that makes the game better for everyone, not one that hurts the game for other players.That is nearly always good advice if you are not playing Paranoia or other games with inbuilt PvP.


7. When you disagree with the DM, feel free to say so, clearly and without anger. Then accept the DM’s ruling and move on.

a. Playing, even under a ruling you don’t like, is more fun than arguing.
b. The DM has information you don’t have. There may be a very good reason for his ruling that your character doesn’t know, and that therefore the DM will not tell you.
c. If a ruling sounds wrong, consider the possibility that it’s a clue about some important secret.
The first sentence is ok. But it is not always correct to accept a ruling and move on. Rulings often have consequences that can't be retconned easily later which sometimes mean a discussion best happens now. Also whether playing under a ruling one doesn't like is any fun, is what the player has to decide for themself.

In most cases accepting the ruling and moving on is the correct move. But the more people care about this specific ruling, the less likely that is the case.


8. Not all games are for all people. Some DMs aren’t right for some players, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If you are in a game you don’t enjoy, and the DM isn’t changing after your questions, just leave.

a. If that game is not a good game for you, then that fact will never change. That doesn’t mean that you are wrong, or that the DM is wrong – just that you shouldn’t play in that game.
Good advice

9. Make sure all party members get a fair distribution of magic items. The armor on the PC next to yours helps her guard your back.

a. The question is not, “Do I want this item?” The question is “Which one of us can use this item best?”That is not good. "fair distribution" amd "who can use it best" are generally at odds unless the Gm has handpicked the loot with the characters in mind.

10. Similarly, let each player get their moment. If this is the perfect moment for the usually-overshadowed character to shine, then let her have it; don’t grab the spotlight for your PC.
Generally good. Might needa qualifier about players who don't want the spotlight or want it only in certain situations.


11. "Clever" and "absurd" are not synonyms. The "rule of cool" is not an excuse to do things your character cannot do. It's a justification for taking risks and acting like a hero using his actual abilities.That works. Might need a caveat about genre appropriate unrealistic behavior which on many tables is desired.


12. Your backstory will never matter as much to the DM as it does to you. Remember that your primary audience is you.

a. The DM will read and care about your backstory only to the extent that it is interesting to read. If you aren’t an entertaining writer, keep it short.[/INDENT]
That works.

[kyoryu]

It seems to me that this is a distinction without a difference. It further seems to me that it, again, fails to articulate any reason why this is a "RAW" issue and not an "everything" issue. Is there something that I can appeal to that would have the authority to force a DM to change their ruling? If not, what is the benefit to articulating this principle, even given that it is one we accept, in terms of "RAW" and not simply in terms of "what the DM says goes"?

It is an everything issue.

There's also a lot of space between "the DM is the final authority" and "what the DM says goes". Specifically, "what the DM says goes" is going to mean a game that ends early in most cases.


But any approach has failure modes. It could be that the specific person you picked to be in charge of doing the dishes is bad at it, or specifically lazy, or bad at cleaning the specialized cookware that someone else uses to make a particular dish.

You are 100% correct! However, the failure mode for "DM has the final call" is "the DM is a jerk and doesn't make reasonable decisions that make the group happy".

Guess what? If you have a DM that fits that description, your game is probably doomed already. IOW, this doesn't add any new failure modes to the game. It just exacerbates the ones that already exist.


I think there's also a degree of excluded middle here. It is true that when you get a problem of the form "the game has reached a crash condition, the session cannot continue with the rules as they were previously understood", resolving that quickly is a more important virtue than resolving it in a way that is maximally fair and considerate of everyone's values and preferences.

Exactly. And giving somebody the authority to make that decision is the easiest way to keep the game going. If you can't decide between two options, there needs to be a way to choose one, at least for the time being, to let play continue.

Jay R proposes that the solution to that is "GM gets the call". It doesn't say how the GM makes that call (I'd argue that they should listen to reasonable player input, and for short term err on the side of the player), just that, at the end of the day, they get the final vote. More of a Chairman of the Board than an absolute dictator.


But that doesn't mean you shouldn't go back and reconsider that decision, or that a considered decision made on a long-term basis needs to be evaluated in the same way as a snap decision made to allow play to continue.

I've literally said exactly that, in this thread. Reconsidering rulings after or between sessions makes all the sense in the world. In the moment of play? There needs to be a quick way to get past an impasse and let play continue.


To go back into the metaphor, while you might pick one person to do the dishes, you'd probably want to make the decision of whether or not to buy a dishwasher as a group.

A decent enough analogy.


I am uncomfortable with that type of interaction in the context of deciding what the rules are.

One key point of interaction type 1 is that the GM isn't working within the rules - they're a tool for a GM, no more. As soon as the GM is as bound by the rules as the players are, then it changes the game subtly, and the GM becomes just a different type of player bound by the same rules.


As, I think, are most people to some degree. Perhaps my experience really is atypical, but I do not think most people find TTRPG groups by saying "I would like to do some table-top gaming" and then being completely indifferent between all the possible systems that exist. They seek out particular groups that play a game using a ruleset they are interested in playing, and they (if they are starting a new campaign rather than joining an existing one) have some level of conversation about things like "what setting are we going to play in" or "what level of advancement are we going to start out at" or "what's the premise of the campaign going to be".

I think you're conflating a ton of things.

OSR games live on "rulings not rules". Most narrative systems do, too! If you're playing Fate (which you bring up later), you can't really get anywhere in the game without the GM making judgements about what success and failure will look like. Sure, even in Fate it's good practice to take controversial stances and ask the group, but the GM is still generally going to have to make the final decision. For no other reason than somebody has to.


I agree that my stance is probably more radical than many people's, but I strongly disagree that it is fundamentally alien. I just think we should apply the same type of process to the question of "how does Combat Reflexes work" that we do to the question of "should we play Earthdawn or FATE".

In theory? Maybe. In practice, those decisions are major and have significant impacts to everyone over the course of the campaign. Individual rulings... probably much lower in impact, so the amount of time taken should be proportional.

And, at any rate, there needs to be a way to solve impasses.


It seems to me that doing that is far more consistent with my position than Jay's. If your guideline is "the DM should rule in ways that favor the player", you can claim that's putting the ruling in the hands of the DM, but it doesn't really seem like an accurate summary of the situation, nor will it give the right guidance to new players or new DMs.

I think what I'm saying is 100% compatible with what Jay R is saying. It's just two different questions: Who gets final say, and how do they come to that decision? Jay R is focusing on the first side of that.

Think of it as a flowchart.

1. There's a rules disagreement or other issue!
2. A decision needs to be made! But who makes it?
3. How do they make it?

IOW, saying the GM gets to make the call doesn't say that the GM doesn't or can't or shouldn't take anything into consideration. They should, at least if they want to keep having players.

IOW, in practice, it looks like this:

Player: "Hey, I get +4 to attack because of the Flooble feat".
GM: "No, that only gets +2 if Warble is happening, which it's not."
Player: "Yeah, but the book also says Snerg here, which seems to imply it would. And that seems in line with other feats, so I don't think it's broken."
GM: "Okay, you can have it at this point, but we'll revisit after the session" or "Let's go with the +2 for now, but revisit after the session."

The whole "GM rulings can't be argued" at that point is to prevent continued conversation and get on with the game. I 100% believe you should be able to revisit the ruling between games if you're still not okay with it (and be able to adjust your character if you were counting on something)


I think there are a lot of nuances to the question of approach, and it gets fairly deeply into the specifics. I agree that completely ignoring the problem, and then saying "we have to deal with this now" when the player hits the capstone is bad, but that wasn't a solution I intended to suggest. But something more along the lines of "we'll need to address this if the party hits 16th level, but I don't know if we'll get there, so you can keep playing the character the way it is for now" seems like a fine solution.

Eh. The more people invest into something, the more resistant they will be to changing it. If you were really looking forward to getting that capstone at 16th, and then find out you won't at level 15? You're gonna be a lot saltier than if you change at 10th. For something significant like that, best to rip the bandaid off.


Generally I think that there are many acceptable ways to handle this situation, some of which I would prefer to others, but that among the worst is "the DM makes a snap decision when they realize there's a problem without considering player input", and that's the one Jay's approach makes most likely.

Nothing Jay R said directed "ignore player input". That's your reading, not his words. A GM that continually ignores player input will find themselves without a game.

A good GM listens to players, and makes these decisions to maximize the fun for the entire table, and lets people feel heard. Letting arguments go on indefinitely doesn't maximize anyone's fun.


There is always some way to move forward when two people disagree. Sometimes, if the disagreement is fundamental enough, that way forward will be "we don't keep playing together".

I've been in enough meetings with enough people that I can tell you that that is 100% wrong. A lot of times there's just misalignment on goals (as there is with players, they have to juggle 'what's best for my character' and 'what's best for the game'). Sometimes, somebody just needs to make a call. This is true in business life and it's true in RPGs.


I think that a focus on picking a "final arbiter" is simply the wrong way to engage with the question. The focus should be on reaching an acceptable consensus. And framing things as "the DM makes rulings that everyone else must accept" rather than "the group interprets the rules in a way that works for the game" is a bad way to achieve that goal.

Consensus is a great tool. In my day job, I'm probably guilty of over-relying on it. But sometimes you reach an impasse and somebody needs to make a call, and people need to say "okay, that's what we're going with." If that person makes bad calls repeatedly, then they'll be without a game, and so be it. Especially during play, a reasonable decision now is better than a better solution in thirty minutes.

Should the GM be using consensus as a primary tool for these disputes? I can't argue with that. But, there needs to be a way forward when consensus fails, and it's generally not going to be worth a two hour debate session over every rules dispute. "Good enough" generally is exactly that.

And, again, if the GM is making awful rulings and not listening to people? Don't play with them. Seriously. Whether or not they have final say, don't play with that GM. It won't work, a GM that doesn't get the mindset that they're there to serve the game first can ruin the game in more ways than I can count whether they're bound by the rules or not. Preventing them from having final say on rulings doesn't protect you in any way.

(And, of course, they don't have final say. The players do. Because at the end of the day, the players can walk.)

[Satinavian]

You are 100% correct! However, the failure mode for "DM has the final call" is "the DM is a jerk and doesn't make reasonable decisions that make the group happy".

Guess what? If you have a DM that fits that description, your game is probably doomed already. IOW, this doesn't add any new failure modes to the game. It just exacerbates the ones that already exist.
I disagree.

I have had enough GMs that certainly were not any kind of Jerk but very bad with rules or very bad with improvisation. One way to improve those tables for everyone was outsourcing any rulings. I can even remember GMs that only were willing to run if they didn't have to make rulings. But even if a GM has the confidence to make rules and rulings, they might be bad enough at it. That is why i prefer "houserules are made by the whole group" nowadays.

[JNAProductions]

I disagree.

I have had enough GMs that certainly were not any kind of Jerk but very bad with rules or very bad with improvisation. One way to improve those tables for everyone was outsourcing any rulings. I can even remember GMs that only were willing to run if they didn't have to make rulings. But even if a GM has the confidence to make rules and rulings, they might be bad enough at it. That is why i prefer "houserules are made by the whole group" nowadays.

Houserules are not rulings, though.
And nowhere does Jay say "The DM should make a final call without input from the players."

[Satinavian]

Houserules are not rulings, though.
When i wrote rulings, i meant rulings and when i wrote houserules, i meant houserules.

If a ruling gets enough pushback to actually spawn an argument, it would generally be appropriate to start a houserule discussion and make a proper rule instead. Usually that is not the case.

When i wrote about outsourcing rulings, i really meant rulings. Those fast on the fly decisions for the situation at hand. Yes, there are GMs that don't like to do those and refer to one or more players each time something comes up.

[kyoryu]

I disagree.

I have had enough GMs that certainly were not any kind of Jerk but very bad with rules or very bad with improvisation. One way to improve those tables for everyone was outsourcing any rulings. I can even remember GMs that only were willing to run if they didn't have to make rulings. But even if a GM has the confidence to make rules and rulings, they might be bad enough at it. That is why i prefer "houserules are made by the whole group" nowadays.

That doesn't actually contradict me. The only thing is who gets the final call, and that (according to Jay R and me) should be the GM.

[Jay R]

There is so much misunderstanding of each other here that it would be impossible to address it all. Let me try to deal with the high points.

A. The Player / DM distinction is not a false dichotomy. I understand that there are some games now that don’t have it, but this distinction is in the rules as written for every game I’ve played or run from 1975 to 2023.

I have separate personal rules for Players and DMs because they have separate game roles in the rules as written. My “Rules for Players” includes not stopping the game for argument after the DM makes a ruling. My “Rules for DMs” has rules about how and when to change the rules. These are different because the roles are different.

Similarly, the Players document has rules for making PCs; the DM document has rules for making NPCs.

And the DM document has the only rules for creating a world. Because the difference between Players and DMs (under any name) is real.

B. I am not claiming that a DM’s invented rule is RAW. I am claiming that the authority to do so is RAW. I haven’t argued with you on this point because we agree.

C. All guesses about why my players keep coming back to my games, from somebody who has never played with me and never talked to any of my players, are rooted in complete ignorance.

I promise you that I will never make up guesses about how your games run, or how your players feel, with no direct information from them.

D. The first paragraph of my “Rules for Players” is “These rules are written for myself, for the way I play games. I am not saying that anybody else “should” play a game this way.” The second paragraph is “Anybody else is free to use them as guidelines, to modify them, to use some but not others, or to ignore them altogether, as seems best to you. Not everybody agrees on how to play a game, and there's nothing wrong with that.”

Claiming this document is “not, in fact, a completely neutral stance that does not make any claim to be better than any other way of doing things” is ridiculous. This document explicitly claims that there is nothing wrong with other ways of doing things.

He claims this based solely on the use of the word “Rule” in the title, ignoring the words in the actual document. That’s not how English works. There is no word in the English language, other than technical jargon, that has only a single meaning independent of context.

My rules document directly says that other approaches are fine.
My rules document directly says that other approaches are fine.
My rules document directly says that other approaches are fine.

This deliberate misinterpretation, in direct contradiction to what my document actually says, based on taking a single word out of context, is a perfect example of why I dislike many arguments based on RAW.

E. Similarly, taking a single sentence out of context and demanding that it means something that the author thinks it doesn't mean, also usually leads to nonsense. RandomPeasant took the first sentence of my rule 3 and says that he doesn’t see how to interpret it other than as a re-write of his own that extends it beyond the scope of that rule as written.

Yes, he is correct that I wrote that one sentence. But I also modified and focused it with the next two sentences. He wants to read that one sentence as written, and ignore the clear approach of the paragraph. Nobody else seems to think it means that.

So, yes, RandomPeasant, you win. You have successfully shown that a sentence taken out of context can mean something different from what it means in context. Congratulations!

F. Nonetheless, to avoid this confusion, I have re-written the rule as follows:


3. In games where the written rules allow DM changes, players cannot invoke “Rules as Written” to argue against DM changes. The rules as written include and assume DM rulings, and explicitly give the DM the right to overrule any other written rule. Play the game you’re in, not some theoretical RAW game you think exists somewhere else.

a. If this DM has ruled that fireballs turn people blue, then fireballs turn people blue in that world. Accept it and move on.
b. When the DM makes a world-specific ruling, it becomes a condition of the world. Start thinking how to use it tactically.

[I'm still looking for a funnier absurd example for 3a. Suggestions, anyone?

And for the record, no, I have not “mis-articulated [my] position by making it about ‘RAW’.” This rule is specifically about the difficulties of dealing with people who seize upon their own interpretation of a set of words, and keep arguing, long after everybody else is sick of the debate.

G. Yes, the players and DM all have the responsibility to keep the game going. This rule is about trying to prevent one way that some players obstruct the game. My rules about how the DM should keep the game going are in the other document. Feel free to suggest more if you think something is lacking.

Finally,

H. RandomPeasant and I disagree on this subject; that’s fine. The opening to my “Rules for Players includes:


These rules are written for myself, for the way I play games. I am not saying that anybody else “should” play a game this way. These rules exist to help me be consistent, effective, and immersive.

Anybody else is free to use them as guidelines, to modify them, to use some but not others, or to ignore them altogether, as seems best to you. Not everybody agrees on how to play a game, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I hope RandomPeasant, and all those who agree with RandomPeasant, have great, enjoyable games playing their way.

My friends and I have great, enjoyable games playing our way. My “Rules for Players” document is intended to document what my way is, just as it says.

[Vahnavoi]

I mean, the rule says '“Rules as Written” doesn’t mean no DM changes.'. It seems very difficult to parse that as meaning anything other than "DM changes are part of the Rules as Written". If you want to say "most tables don't play by strict RAW", that is a completely reasonable thing to say. I agree with that. But it's a different thing from arguing about what "Rules as Written" does or does not include.

The actual parsing I, and I suspect, Jay R, operate on, is "rules as written call for changes made by a game master". That wasn't so difficult, was it now?

Because that is how it literally is. If you pick up, say, 1st edition AD&D books, it will literally read, at multiple points, that the dungeon master has final say over this or that and that a player ought to ask their dungeon master how things work for the game they're actually playing.

The same is true of all versions of D&D I know of, and majority of other games that bother to include a game master to begin with.


Seriously, I do not understand how "changing the rules is fine, just accept that your changes don't have anything to do with RAW" is such a radically controversial position.

It's not a controversial position. It's just not what Jay R's rule is about. You are arguing past the point.


Only in the sort of semantic sense that gets sensible people ranting about lawyers and philosophers. "RAW" refers to the rules of the game, not any rules someone happens to have written down that are related to the game. Again, just because I have taken my Solar Hierophant and put it down on paper somewhere does not mean it magically becomes a part of 3.5's RAW.

The rules a game master writes down for their game are the rules of that game. For that game, they take precedence over any other body of rules you could care to name; your theoretical canon of 3.5 rules are as just as irrelevant to that game, as that game is to other games.

Yes, this is lawyer speak, as in, lawyers as well are keenly aware of the need to work within laws of the jurisdiction they're actually in, as opposed to somewhere else.

If you still disagree, consider a situation where D&D rules aren't involved to begin with. Instead, a game master is switching from, say, Cyberpunk to Call of Cthulhu, or from a commercial system to a new design of their own. What I said and what Jay R said still applies. Does your argument?


Great. Now tell me why "keep the game functioning" is labor that ought to be divided. Why do we benefit from assigning that task to a specific person, rather than understanding it as one that everyone should be engaged in?

Gladly. Historically, this entire system of game mastering come from a particular game (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel) that was crafted as an instructional tool for military personnel. Long story short, amateurs trying to simulate warfare with algorithmic rules was both too slow and too inaccurate. To improve flow of the game and to ensure better match for reality, many of the rules were done away with in favor of having a human referee making decisions based on their real experience and expertise. Of course, the requirement for this design is that the human referee actually has experience and expertise in the relevant subject matter.

Now, modern tabletop roleplaying games often aren't interested in accurate simulation of reality, but they do often presume the game master, the human referee figure, is an expert on the unreality of the game scenario. As in, the game master is meant to craft the setting and the scenario, and to know more of both than any player as direct result.

The benefit of this division of labor is that it allows games with imperfect and incomplete information for the players, and all associated challenges. A simple treasure hunt is one the more basic examples: the game master crafts the play area and hides the treasure, the players navigate the area and try to find it.

Now, let's be clear here: nothing about what Jay R's said means players can't give feedback to their game master. They can be engaged that way. What they can't do, is act on that feedback. In the paradigm under discussion, they do not have necessary information to do that. For example, in the simple treasure hunt, they can complain the treasure is too hard to find, but they cannot move it to an easier spot, because that would require them to know where it is. That task falls on the game master, who does know where it is.


IAll your objections to my position are semantic, not substantive.

That's because your argument is based on a semantic misunderstanding; you are parsing a statement to mean something it doesn't mean.

Now, if you want to actually substantially object to anything I said, read the above text on the role of a game master, suggest some alternative division of labour, and then explain how it is at least as good if not better. I play a lot freeform games without a game master, so you already have it granted that there are alternate divisions. Just pick the one you favor.

[kyoryu]

A lot of the argument really comes down to a preference for Kriegsspiel vs. Free Kriegsspiel.

If you assume Free Kriegsspiel, you assume that the ref is the final authority. Rules are a general framework to be used when appropriate, but not to be followed religiously.

If you assume Kriegsspiel, then actions should be constrained by the definition of the rules, and the ref should use the rules to the greatest extent possible, except when the rules fail to cover something.

This is the core of the Type 1/Type 2 split I discuss above.

[Vahnavoi]

There's at least three types of Kriegspiel, but otherwise, yes.

[Pauly]

For 3a
How about if the GM rules fireballs do freezing damage in this world then fireballs do freezing damage . Accept it and move on.

[Lord Torath]

For 3a
How about if the GM rules fireballs do freezing damage in this world then fireballs do freezing damage . Accept it and move on.I don't know. I think the turning people blue is sillier. :smalltongue: (Hah! My smiley must have been fireballed recently!) Fireballs doing freezing damage is certainly absurd, but not terribly funny. In my opinion, anyway.



If a ruling sounds wrong, consider the possibility that it’s a clue about some important secret.
Honestly as a DM this sounds like miserable advice. If I'm making a mechanical ruling, I'm making that ruling because of the mechanics. I absolutely do not want players metagaming based on the perceived quality of my houserules.This isn't meant to be house-rule related at all. This is more like "This troll doesn't seem to be taking damage from our fire spells. Maybe it's under the effects of a Resist Heat spell, or is wearing a necklace of fire resistance." Or "I totally should have turned that undead. Heck I should have blasted it into glittery, sparkling dust! Maybe it's an illusion, or maybe this entire area is steeped in the energies of my deity's rival, and my deity's influence is lessened here. I wonder if there's an artifact or something blocking my deity. Maybe we can find it and destroy it."

Or, specific to me, personally: "That power requires line of sight, but I can't see the guy who used it on me! I call shenanigans!" Is the DM cheating (ie using a house rule)? Or is the guy using some ability that prevents me from seeing him? In my case, it was that latter. The guy was using an ability that made him invisible.

[Pauly]

I don't know. I think the turning people blue is sillier. :smalltongue: (Hah! My smiley must have been fireballed recently!) Fireballs doing freezing damage is certainly absurd, but not terribly funny. In my opinion, anyway.
e.

I remember back in the 3.5 days the party wizard stacking fireball and ice storm together with one of the high level spells that allowed you to cast 2 lower level spells together. I didn’t play spellcasters much in 3.5 so I don’t remember the exact details of how he did it or if it was official or a house rule, but it was fun to see the look on the DM's face when he first used it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I remember back in the 3.5 days the party wizard stacking fireball and ice storm together with one of the high level spells that allowed you to cast 2 lower level spells together. I didn’t play spellcasters much in 3.5 so I don’t remember the exact details of how he did it or if it was official or a house rule, but it was fun to see the look on the DM's face when he first used it. The fire melts the ice, the ice cools the fire, enemy takes half damage, one quarter damage on a save. :smallyuk:

[ahyangyi]

The fire melts the ice, the ice cools the fire, enemy takes half damage, one quarter damage on a save. :smallyuk:



But the magical ice melts and evaporates in the magical fire, so you have created a Solid Fog as well as puddles as difficult terrain.

It sorts of annoys me that "magical fire" is the "non-interactive fire", as in it's less interactive with things than the mundane fire. But on the other hand I'm not sure very complex elemental reactions will be fun to play with either.

Note that I feel a bit annoyed by the elemental magic in Divinity: Original Sin, where you must play by that elemental reaction book.

[KorvinStarmast]

But the magical ice melts and evaporates in the magical fire, so you have created a Solid Fog as well as puddles as difficult terrain.
Ooh, kind of like a fog cloud? Yes, great idea! :smallsmile: It dissipates in 2d4 rounds, though ...

[Pauly]

The fire melts the ice, the ice cools the fire, enemy takes half damage, one quarter damage on a save. :smallyuk:



The party wizard had some convuluted reasoning based on how magical fire and magical ice interact with the world that he said allowed it. GM allowed it to happen the first time because he was taken by surprise and it was RAW legal, then he ran the maths and decided it wasn’t worth house ruling on because of the other possible combinations gave the same damage output.

[lesser_minion]

The party wizard had some convuluted reasoning based on how magical fire and magical ice interact with the world that he said allowed it. GM allowed it to happen the first time because he was taken by surprise and it was RAW legal, then he ran the maths and decided it wasn’t worth house ruling on because of the other possible combinations gave the same damage output.

I'd actually be tempted to give a bonus to a combo like that tbh. Rapidly heating and cooling something is not fun for your target, whether it's a person or an object. As for whether the spells would cancel each other out, fireball is too intense to care, and ice storm is magically sustained.