Post/Author/DateTime	Post
clannagh 09-14-07, 12:29 AM	This came up on another forum. 1. Herald level GM's can be younger than 18, but they cannot book games. 2. A home game technically has to be run by the same person that booked it. Therefore .. if you are under 18 and a herald you can only run games at gamesdays retail days or conferences. Does this sound correct ?
_metz_ 09-14-07, 12:59 AM	Hmm, that may be an annoying rule you have found. Personally I'd ignore it, as long as the DM knows what they are doing I am fine with whatever their age is. However, it does look like it is a rule, yes.
pedr 09-14-07, 06:53 AM	The RPGA general rules say that for a home game the Senior GM and the Session GM are 'almost always' the same person. 'Almost always' means that there are occasions where this is not the case; the only limitation is that the Senior GM cannot play a scenario which he has sanctioned for a home game event from the moment he sanctions it, so you need to find a person who has either played the scenario already or who is willing to 'eat' it to be the Senior GM if the Session GM will be under 18.
Howie23 09-14-07, 10:25 AM	The RPGA general rules say that for a home game the Senior GM and the Session GM are 'almost always' the same person. 'Almost always' means that there are occasions where this is not the case; the only limitation is that the Senior GM cannot play a scenario which he has sanctioned for a home game event from the moment he sanctions it, so you need to find a person who has either played the scenario already or who is willing to 'eat' it to be the Senior GM if the Session GM will be under 18. The phrase "almost always" does not appear in the general rules. Nor does "almost." Nor does "always." The limit on when a Senior GM plays is not the only limitation. See the RPGA Guidelines, page 4. "A Senior GM is...the sole GM for home play event." And: "In the case of home play, a Senior GM is also responsible for ordering..and sanctioning them with the RPGA prior to running them." In other words, A Senior GM is responsible for ordering the event, and in the case of a home game is the sole GM. Please provide a counterexample that has a Senior GM order the game, be the sole GM, and someone else runs it. David
sylverbard 09-14-07, 10:42 AM	This came up on another forum. 1. Herald level GM's can be younger than 18, but they cannot book games. 2. A home game technically has to be run by the same person that booked it. Therefore .. if you are under 18 and a herald you can only run games at gamesdays retail days or conferences. Does this sound correct ? yes. even for homegame play (assuming you mean a home game of a rpga sanctionned module) the DM must be over 18, specifically because Home Play the person who orders the module is not allowed to play it as soon as they have access to the module. if you mean 'home game' as a under 18 who runs a home campaign and wants to submit his players for reward points he's out of luck as well because he still won't be able to order 'home play' till he's 18.
kenobi65 09-14-07, 11:09 AM	2. A home game technically has to be run by the same person that booked it. Actually...no, it doesn't. What *is* true is that, in a Home game, the Senior GM can't be a *player* (the system *assumes* that the Senior GM is going to act as Judge). However, I believe that it's acceptable, in a Home game, for the Senior GM to order the event, but not be Judge (or player). In the case of an under-18 DM, the workaround that I've seen mentioned more than once is for the teenager to get an adult (such as a parent) certified as a Herald-level GM, and have that adult do the event ordering for them.
Howie23 09-14-07, 11:39 AM	Actually...no, it doesn't. Cite? See #4 above. What *is* true is that, in a Home game, the Senior GM can't be a *player* (the system *assumes* that the Senior GM is going to act as Judge). However, I believe that it's acceptable, in a Home game, for the Senior GM to order the event, but not be Judge (or player). In the case of an under-18 DM, the workaround that I've seen mentioned more than once is for the teenager to get an adult (such as a parent) certified as a Herald-level GM, and have that adult do the event ordering for them. What do you mean by acceptable? If you mean that the database system won't stop you from this, that is correct. The database system does not have expert system or validation rules in place that prevent this sort of activity. If you mean that many people do it, I'm sure it happens. If you mean that it is permitted within the General rules, please see post #4 above. David
Mommy was an Orc 09-14-07, 12:14 PM	The limit on when a Senior GM plays is not the only limitation. See the RPGA Guidelines, page 4. "A Senior GM is...the sole GM for home play event." And: "In the case of home play, a Senior GM is also responsible for ordering..and sanctioning them with the RPGA prior to running them." I don't think you are parsing the meaning or the intent of the sentence correctly. A sole GM for a home play event is known as a Senior GM. It says nowhere that there has to be a sole GM for a home play event or that the Senior GM of a home play event doesn't have the regular powers of a Senior GM, such as the ability to appoint GMs to take on tasks he deems necessary(such as running the mod...) The point of the 18- rule is to prevent a kid from being put in the position of making final rulings over adults, where accidental intimidation can easily happen. The point of the sole GM/Senior GM rule is to make sure players realize that the sole GM's rulings carry just as much weight as a Senior GMs. As in they are final.
pedr 09-14-07, 12:56 PM	I can't now find the place where I read whatever it is I read which I remembered as having the 'almost always' language. I'm convinced that it exist/existed, as I can remeber it coming up before, but perhaps it was in an old 'welcome to the RPGA' document or something similar. I'm not sure about the best interpretation of the rules - I've often said that the rules are not at all well written - but an interpretation which prevents people who are under 18 from running home campaigns or Dungeon magazine adventures for RPGA credit is unlikely to be the correct one, and would, to my mind, require stronger language than we have in the rules.
Howie23 09-14-07, 01:33 PM	The point of the 18- rule is to prevent a kid from being put in the position of making final rulings over adults, where accidental intimidation can easily happen. I agree with this part of your post. :) David
Howie23 09-14-07, 03:13 PM	I'm not sure about the best interpretation of the rules - I've often said that the rules are not at all well written - but an interpretation which prevents people who are under 18 from running home campaigns or Dungeon magazine adventures for RPGA credit is unlikely to be the correct one, and would, to my mind, require stronger language than we have in the rules. Pedr, the reply below generalizes from this specific topic quite a bit and is based upon a lot that has taken place in other parts of the organization. It is appended to your post as a matter of conceptual organization, but please don't take it as directed at you. The rule (any rule) may lead to undesirable consequences. It may lead to desirable consequences on the part of the RPGA, but undesirable on the part of an individual or community of players. It is also possible that the needs of the RPGA have changed. The emergence of an undesirable consequence does not, inherently, argue against an interpretation of a rule. Rather, it calls into question whether the rule is meeting the needs of the players and organization; should it be changed? I personally find the interpretation quite clear, but will acknowledge that I can be wrong, and have been at times. I can also see reasons why the RPGA may want the rule in force overall, even if it creates hardships for some individuals or groups. I can further see ways it could be modified to remove consequences that are undesirable for everyone. For those who see these sorts of situations as resolvable by ignoring the rule, who seek to create obfuscation, who seek to string together a questionable interpretation in order to generate a desireable outcome, or who appeal to near-universal disregard and/or lack of enforcement, this is a disservice to the organization in the long run. It is a disservice because it reduces the pressure to correct the problem, namely the bad rule. I hope it goes without saying (although it appears I feel compelled to say it) that this doesn't apply to those with truely differing views of a truely grey area, even if I can't see the grey. Dungeons and Dragons, and gaming as a whole, has a tradition of houserules. We're used to changing rules during our games because they don't make sense, we don't understand them, they lead to disagreements, or we just don't like them. A house rule, by definition, is something that everyone agrees is not the official rule (or not everyone agrees it is), but is the rule that everyone in the game agrees to use, either explicitly or implictly through delegation of authority; we agree to let the judge rule. Probably as a result of this tradition, sometimes we lose sight of (or disagree with) what rules we have the culturally accepted ability to houserule. In my view, the authority for houseruling the General Rules of RPGA is reserved by RPGA HQ. I fully understand that many (if not most) feel no obligation to follow the General Rules when they find them inconvenient. Do what you want. As a matter of practicality, HQ seems ill equipped to deal with rules violations, much less identify when they take place. It's just a game, right? Victimless, right? Others are welcome to do as they see fit within the realm of their own conscience, and within the confines of their own risk tolerance. I only ask that you allow me and others to make that same decision, and that it be an informed decision. /man on a soapbox speaking to an echoing and empty hall off David
Mommy was an Orc 09-14-07, 03:54 PM	In my view, the authority for houseruling the General Rules of RPGA is reserved by RPGA HQ. I fully understand that many (if not most) feel no obligation to follow the General Rules when they find them inconvenient. Do what you want. As a matter of practicality, HQ seems ill equipped to deal with rules violations, much less identify when they take place. It's just a game, right? Victimless, right? I don't think I'm making a house rule - I can see where your viewpoint is coming from, but I don't think that's the intent of their rule nor do I agree that's what they meant from a RAW standpoint. It is also extremely unlikely that I'll play with an 18 year old except at a convention and even more so that they'll be my DM - I don't benefit from the ruling in any way. And the fact that someone can reserve a game and list someone else as a DM could imply the RPGA's system is screwed up, but it could also mean you're in the wrong. The RPGA's system isn't always at fault :)
Howie23 09-14-07, 06:16 PM	I don't think I'm making a house rule - I can see where your viewpoint is coming from, but I don't think that's the intent of their rule nor do I agree that's what they meant from a RAW standpoint. It is also extremely unlikely that I'll play with an 18 year old except at a convention and even more so that they'll be my DM - I don't benefit from the ruling in any way. Yes, I know you have a different read of it. In my reply to your explanation, I addressed the entirety of your explanation that hadn't been addressed by post #4 previously. I have no vested interest in the 18-year-old thing either. It stemmed out of the 2 judges for a homegame topic though, and that has been brought up as a work around. That is something that we all do have a vested interest in. And the fact that someone can reserve a game and list someone else as a DM could imply the RPGA's system is screwed up, but it could also mean you're in the wrong. I acknowledged in the post you just replied to that I could be wrong. The ordering system has nothing to do with it though; that's the one that says home games have to be in a home, right? The ordering system is a tool for ordering things. It isn't an expert system to enforce the general rules, even if it does so for some things. David
pedr 09-14-07, 06:47 PM	<lawyerish hat on> I enjoy quasi-academic debates too, so I'll respond: There are many ways to interpret a rule. In addition to looking at the plain meaning of the words, and particularly when the words do not conclusively answer the particular question being raised, one can look at the purpose or aim of the rule, the 'mischief' which the rule was introduced to prevent or punish, and the extent to which a particular interpretation leads to good or bad results. An interpretation of a rule which leads to (or close to) an absurdity should only be made if it is the only possible interpretation. These are among the (many) techniques of statutory interpretation employed by UK courts (and, I expect, most common law courts) but they are good rules of thumb to use when interpreting any kind of rule - a game rule in D&D, a 'meta-rule' such as the RPGA general rules, or any other rule which does not speak directly to the problem. So while undesireable consequences do not in themselves mean that the rule does not mean what it appears to, if undesireable consequences are avoidable without doing violence to the rules language then in many cases the interpretation which does avoid those consequences will be the better one. Unfortunately, only the RPGA can conclusively interpret the RPGA General Rules and there seems little indication that they are about to weigh in on this question, either by declaring a particular interpretation correct or by taking action based on a particular interpretation. Some could consider that evidence that the less strict interpretation is correct - however it is more likely that the combination of a lack of reports of such situations and the fact that breaches of the stricter interpretation create (practically?) no actual organisational, competitive, or moral problems has led to this being something of which the RPGA is either unaware or chooses to ignore, along the lines of the decision of a legal authority ignoring breaches of antiquated but nevertheless still valid criminal laws, or adopting a tacit policy of not pursuing minor breaches of (e.g.) speed limit laws. It is also possible that the RPGA has never directed its collective mind to the question raised in this thread. Until and unless it does, we will be unable to conclusively state whether it is a breach of the rules for someone other than the Senior GM to act as session GM during a home event.
Tabiani 09-14-07, 09:37 PM	If y'all would be interested in a somewhat more "official" opinion on the matter, Ian posted the following in a reply to a similar question. I thought it right to post clarity to why this rule is in place. You CAN DM but you can NOT be the organizing DM. There is a fine line between the two so allow me to explain. The Organizing DM is the DM that sanctions the event with ourselves and downloads all the adventures to play. They are also responsible for reporting them to ourselves. Failure to do so not only impacts that DM but also all their players. The game DM is simply the person running the game for the group. This person is usually the organizing DM for home games. This DM can be of any age. Be they 12/13 or older. We recognize that a lot of us started at this age and we don't wish to restrict them running games but here's why we had to put the 18 restriction on organizers into effect. 1. All contact information is public as the organizer's information is available on the events calendar. This has risks when dealing with minors and we have an obligation to protect minors and their person information. 2. Minors can not be held accountable. 3. Definition of a minor is different from country to country so we took the highest age defined by our global play regions. In this case it is 18. Hope that helps clear things up. If you have more questions I'm happy to explain more. Be assured you can run games you just need to have an adult set up as the organizing DM to order the adventures and report them as others here have said. IanYou might remember the thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=12046431#post12046431), pedr, as you posted in it.
Howie23 09-14-07, 10:20 PM	If y'all would be interested in a somewhat more "official" opinion on the matter, Ian posted the following in a reply to a similar question. Be assured you can run games you just need to have an adult set up as the organizing DM to order the adventures and report them as others here have said. Excellent. So we have our house rule, and there was much rejoicing. Now if we could get one for playing on a day other than the mod is ordered for, I'd be able to play again. David
Mistimp 09-18-07, 05:18 PM	I can't now find the place where I read whatever it is I read which I remembered as having the 'almost always' language. I'm convinced that it exist/existed, as I can remeber it coming up before, but perhaps it was in an old 'welcome to the RPGA' document or something similar. pedr, If it makes you feel better I remember it being phrased that way also. Maybe they changed the wording, I certainly have not read that section in years.