Over at Madadventurers.com, @theAngryDM weighs in on the One Rule to rule them all and serves up plenty of RAW meat.
Highlights include:
The rules are a tool for the DM; they're not an edict.
Page 42's shocking secret.
Managing expectations and properly framing challenges reduces those WTF moments.
Read it here!
Lately, we've had a number of threads (like Prone Tarrasques, underwater fireballs, players ruining your game, campaign setting purity, canonical fidelity, and so on) that get a lot of people riled up.
Personally, I get e-mails, PMs, & DMs (via twitter) asking about judgment calls, looking for how to "do it right," (or thanking me for being so awesome, handsome and awesome - and you're welcome).
Maybe you're new to this, or new to the forums. Maybe you want a change of pace. Maybe we all need a refresher from time to time on best-practices (I do).
And thats why this article is relevant. RAW has it's place. So does canon, so does the DM. Find that proper place. Put it there.
Remember there's One Rule that rules them all: "The DM describes the outcome and establishes the new situation."
I read the article and I mostly agree with him. However ignoring/altering rules and DM adjudication should occure mostly when things aren't really covered or when they override common sense. In the wolf scenario, I feel the DM was going by the rules and even though the Player thought it was a "Done Deal", it's hard to argue against just going from what the book states. Could've it have been handled differently? Sure, though to assume that the situation fall outside the rules is a bit of the player's fault than the DMs. If the DM starts going off the rails where the established rules are concerned (say something simple like combat's to-hit vs. AC) it has the potential to make players lose interest since their actions will have random results with no basis.
Yeah, I think mismatched expectations aren't great. Like in that wolf scenario.
IMO coup-de-grace rule is for use in-combat. Once combat is over, or there's nothing to impede you, you have no chance at failure.
In any event, I think it's my job as DM to manage the expectations. Ask "What's your goal here? How are you doing that?" And to reasonably and accurately describe the scenario so the player can make an informed decision.
bawylie wrote:
Diffan wrote:
4 Steps, 3 Rules of Resolution, disdain towards TTRPGs that fall outside the mold, redirection in the final paragraphs to try and make it sound more rational ("look, this isn't just a playstyle thing"), borderline gaslighting...
How is this not rampant onetruewayism?
"How is this not rampant onetruewayism?"
...because that's not actually a thing?
Excellent article. The best D&D games are the ones where you forget you're playing D&D and have a character sheet in front of you.
Chakravant wrote:
oh he's talking about 4e.
The article is largely irrelevant for my playstyle since it's largely obvious.
To me, the most interesting paragraph was this one:
See, the rules will never, ever cover everything. You just can’t write an infinite rulebook. And even if you could, it would take far too long to read. And the moment those rules fail, the DM has to step in and make a judgement call. One (hopefully) based on common sense, logic, and personal experience. But if the rest of the rules don’t align with that sort of thing, those judgment calls are always going to be weird. They will stand out as not fitting in with the rest of the game world. So, you end up with two rulesets that don’t match up and players will become afraid to deviate from the rules they understand.
Page 42 is a 4E reference.
I find most of the article is edition-neutral. And game neutral.
bawylie wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
That's begging the question. When are you a "outside normal combat scenarios"? When the DM is going to follow the common sense instead of RAW. We're right back where we started, with no useful additional information about how to set your expectations. I think the best solution is to just be open about how the DM plans to adjudicate something before the player has been forced to commit to it. That also accounts for the not-infrequent times when the DM and player have different ideas about what common sense dictates, or how far RAW has departed from it for this case. If the DM had just said, "If you want to try to slit the wolf's throat, I'm going to call it a coup-de-gras, so there's a good chance you'll miss or not do enough damage," there's a lot less problem than what actually happened. We can argue over whether that's a good adjudication, but it's certainly better than surprising the player with a dramatically inferior adjudication than he was expecting (granted, there may be situations where surprising the player with a beneficial or detrimental adjudication may be a good thing, but it's not every situation). The player can then go ahead and do it anyway without feeling gotcha'd, or change his mind. I don't consider this metagaming, for the record, because I think characters generally will know roughly how likely an action is to succeed before they try it, and I see this as correcting a mismatch between player and character knowledge rather than creating one. And, for those cases where the character would not know, the DM is within his rights to not say--you have one of those situations where surprising the player is a good thing.
Chakravant wrote:
Good article; it got me thinking. But I'm not sure I agree with The Angry DM.
To a certain extent, players are bound to the rules. They envision characters -- their abilities, strengths weaknesses, personality, etc. -- and then turn to the rules to create them.
Rules for character creation and advancement. Rules for ability scores, classes, races, backgrounds, spells, feats. Rules for actions, movement, attacks, damage. Rules, rules, rules. And exceptions, of course.
All these rules govern what a character can or cannot do, and how well they do those things. A player with a concept in mind will naturally gravitate towards rules and options which represent said concept. And through those rules, the player will have a reasonable idea of what is possible to do with it.
The player knows what to expect from his or her character.
On the DM's side of things, however, we are told that the rules are only a tool, a reference to be used in case of uncertainty. Your common sense, logic and experience should be your first frame of reference when adjudicating actions and results.
Judgement calls first, rules second.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with this, I can see how easy it is to come to a point where expectations are mismatched. Player and DM have different approaches to the game. They're not mutually exclusive, and it can work (it has for decades, at varying degrees), but I do wonder if this is not the source of a lot of friction.
Players must follow a set of rules. A DM can overrule them.
Players have a vision for their characters and make sure the rules support it. A DM can shoot it down by disregarding the rules.
Again, this isn't an absolute, and it can work, but it looks to me like it doesn't take much to disrupt the flow of a game. Both parties are not looking at the game from the same perspective.
So now I'm wondering: can the players choose to ignore the rules like a DM does? Can they choose to simply apply their own common sense to their characters and actions? How would that work?
(And let's not forget that what "common sense" and "reasonable" are will vary from one person to the next.)
Good article and I pretty much agree with Angry. I certainly agree one shotting the wolf would have been automatic at my table, but the jumping thing, I would have checked the rules first then pointed out to the player that it's just too far (unless he was using the jump spell, or some other trick). I think the DM should generally stick to the rules as much as possible, and if there are going to be houserules etc everyone needs to be clear on those from the start (as much as possible). That avoids the "oh you've changed the hiding rules on my halfling lightfoot rogue, goddamn it!" rage.
I suspect 5e's DMG will go further than p.42, from not only "make up any extra rules you need that we havent covered", to that PLUS " and be sure to tweak the existing rules to maximise the fun at your table".
powerroleplayer wrote:
There's a difference between arguing a position and stating your position is not only the only logical one, but the only one that has any room whatsoever in the TTRPG world.
I didn't know Bawylie was The AngryDM. I had assumed they were simply firends or colleagues. I'd think less of people linking their own personal blogs on these forums just to gain hits. WotC has a blog section for all of us on these forums for a reason.
The rules are a tool for the DM; they're not an edict.
Chakravant wrote:
Noon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
No worries. But all in all, I share these things because they often hit on themes we're running through in the community.
Its not the last word on these things, but it is a focus point, a core issue, on three or four threads we're running.
Noon wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
That's a salient point. Most of the time, a restaurant will prepare your food to order, and they're willing to go off menu, but not outside their theme or ingredients.
Its largely the same with the game. Anything reasonably within genre ought to be fine. Anything not in genre but not counter to the theme should probably be okay too. Counter-genre and you're pushing it (barring very specific circumstances).
In other words, you can have whatever you want, as long as you're not disruptive/blocking/etc.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
I agree - communication breakdown is a critical fail.
That is why, when I'm unclear on what a player is doing, I ask "What do you want to happen here - what's your goal? And how do you go about making it happen?"
(One time I had a player tell me "I want to pick the right spell and beat your encounter." Problem was, he couldn't decide what beating my encounter entailed - or find a spell he'd prepped that could solve two simultaneous problems. Pretty funny moment.)
From there we talk stakes. If they ask questions, I answer honestly.
bawylie wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
ittyan wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Funny thing is my PHB doesn't have a single rule in it. It has guidelines, mechanics and flavour text, but not a single rule. The only rules we're using as a result were agreed upon at the start of the campaign by everyone. We don't worry about RAW because there were no rules in my PHB.
bawylie wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I've long come to the conclusion that there is no point in me actually learning the rules when I GM (I still read them over but I don't pay attention to the minutiae or make any attempt to remember anything), because if I don't know the rules then the players don't actually expect me to follow them rigidly - they're quite happy to accept a ruling which may or may not be in line with the written rule. The point is, if they (or I) ask how it works in the book, they are the ones who have to look up the rule, and then I decide (with feedback) whether to follow it in that situation or not - it gets them involved in the process of decision-making even though I'm still the last word. Even the rules lawyers don't argue a ruling anymore - it's quite nice.
Although it helps that my players know that given a choice between rules as written, common sense, and Rule of Cool, I tend to apply them in reverse order 
ChrisTheS wrote:
Hey all. Don't let me disrupt the discussion here. I already got my words in by writing what I wrote, so I won't bother you. Keep chatting away. But I have to comment on one thing.
I ain't Bawylie. We're, at best, Twitter friends. Though I really don't have friends except insofar as a friend is just an enemy that isn't actively trying to destroy you. He posts this stuff over here of his own accord. I tend to hang out in other channels and rarely visit these forums. And I prefer to let discussion take it's course. I'm glad to see I'm sparking debate and getting people to talk about (and think about) these things. And if you disagree with me, that's totally cool. Disagree away. You don't need my permission to run your game any wrong way you want. In the end, whether you agree with me or you decide to be wrong instead, you're still doing good for you game by thinking it through. As Plato once said: '"the unexamined game is not worth running for a group of whiny ingrates out to destroy your beautifully crafted world." I may be paraphrasing there.
If you don't like my tone, that's also cool. Some people don't. I'm not going to apologize for it because no one has to read what I say. They choose to. Enjoy it or don't. It does make me a little sad to see people derail good debate with arguments about tone instead of discussion of ideas, but I can't control that. Personally, I think I'm hillarious. Your mileage may vary.
As for who I am: well, my real life name is Scott Rehm. I'm from New York. I've been running games (especially D&D) for 27 years and I've been writing about them for a while now. I've recently started doing some freelance work, (for example: I did some additional design on Sasquatch Game's Primeval Thule Campaign Setting, written by Rich Baker, Dave Noonan, and Steve Schubert). In addition to writing a weekly column for Mad Adventurers Society, I also maintain my own site (http://angrydm.com), a prolific Twitter feed @TheAngryDM, and a handful of other little projects like the D&D Doodles tumblr and the DM Word of the Week blog. If you want more of me, you can check those things out. If you hate me as it is, you probably want to avoid those (but maybe you'll still find the Doodles funny, who knows?)
None of that is any sort of claim of credentials or anything. I don't need to claim credentials. I've got a big enough ego to believe that my words are great based solely on their own merits. Just letting folks know who might be interested in more helpful rants and ravings.
But, again, I ain't Bawylie. And he ain't me.
Moreover, once you take the RAW as gospel and use that as the source of your consistency, you’re forcing the players to ignore their own common sense and simply memorize and rely upon the rules. They won’t make clever decisions and they certainly won’t ever try anything not covered by the rules.
I've never seen bawylie and Bruce Wayne in the same room at the same time.
I'm just sayin'.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
bawylie wrote:
That's where it's sticky. Per RAW, loss of HP has no adverse effect until HP = 0.
So while we might reasonably expect a throat-slit wolf to be unable to howl, by RAW it still can and does.
Again, a reasonable expectation is confounded by rules. And the players learn not to trust otherwise reasonable expectation.
bawylie wrote:
I've been saying this since I came on these boards. The only real rule is Rule 0. The DM describes a situation. The player states what he wants to do. The DM tells him what happens. It really is that easy.
The rulebook is a set of advice to help DMs and players enjoy the game more. When the rules fail to accomplish that task, remember they are just advice. Advice is ignorable and gets ignored in my games when it doesn't make sense. The rules are not the laws of the universe. They are the settings best guestimate about how things work. That goes for the monster manual stats as well. I the DM am the laws of the universe.
I've given this example more than once but I think it is classic and it illustrates the point. It's taken from 3e.
DM: You see the kobold making strange motions like he is spell casting. Suddenly fire darts out from his hands causing an explosion. Rolls 12d6 for damage. Save for half....
Player 1 (Robilar): Hey. Fireball can only go up to 10d6 so if that is a fireball it shouldn't be 12d6.
DM: Do you really want to contemplate the esoteric theories and limitations of magic at this point or do you want to dive for cover seeing as you are engulfed in flames.
Now this example is extreme and meant to be a bit humorous. The point is that what the DM says happens is what is really happening. The rules are there to guide you and they are excellent rules of thumb. If only reality gave us a rulebook. It is not law.
The wolf situation reads to me as a failure of the DM to be clear on the players' intent, as noted upthread. If the players said something like, "Let's put them to sleep with magic and then slit their throats so they die without alerting anyone," then the DM might have said, "Yes, and the throat-slitting result is uncertain, so I'm going to follow the rules on attacking an unconscious creature - proceed." That might not be the best call, but it would have been fair because the players would be acting will full knowledge of how things were to be resolved. They might have decided against that course of action, hustled to make it past before the 1 minute sleep duration was up, or made sure their most damaging party members did the throat-slitting.
The jumping situation is very clear. Characters can't jump farther than their Strength score in feet (BR64). So the DM's call was both fictionally- and rules-appropriate.
Chakravant wrote:
While its true that rules are guidelines, another thing is that rules set (all) players expectations, and usually the more a game has, the greater they are. Players (and DMs) learning those rules and playing the game using them will inevitably have expectations on how certain things plays out. If you invite friends over to play babttleship and they know the rules, they'll certainly expect the game to play a certain way. This is true of any games, including D&D. I think DM judgement calls are better served to resolve situations that either have no rules, or rules not clear enought and/open to interpretations. Otherwise changing an established rules should be communicated clearly and applied with consistency. In the end DM has final say, but that never means the players can't have a say in it too, wether during play or after it.
I always thought 4E had good suggestions on how to handle rules "stickyness". I'm away from my books, but i'll try to quote or reference it when i have a chance.
EDIT Found it 4E DMG pg. 12
The Dungeon Master
A competitive sport has referees. It needs them. Someone
impartial involved in the game needs to make sure
everyone’s playing by the rules.
The role of the Dungeon Master has a little in
common with that of a referee. If you imagined that all
the monsters in an encounter were controlled by one
player and all the adventurers by another player, they
might need a referee to make sure that both sides were
playing by the rules and to resolve disputes. D&D isn’t
a head-to-head competition in that way, but the DM
does act simultaneously as the player controlling all
the monsters and as the referee.
Being a referee means that the DM stands as
a mediator between the rules and the players. A
player tells the DM what he wants to do, and the DM
responds by telling the player what kind of check to
make and mentally setting the target number. If a
player tells the DM he wants his character to swing his
greataxe at an orc, the DM says, “Make an attack roll,”
while looking up the orc’s Armor Class.
That’s such a simple example that most players take
it for granted and don’t wait for the DM to ask for the
attack roll. But if the player tells you that he wants his
character to knock over a brazier full of hot coals into
the orc’s face, you (as the DM) have to make some snap
judgments. How hard is it to knock over the heavy,
solid metal brazier? “Make a Strength check,” you
might respond, while mentally setting the DC at 15. If
the Strength check is successful, you have to figure out
how a face full of hot coals affects the orc, and might
decide it deals 1d6 points of fire damage and gives the
orc a –2 penalty to attack rolls for a round.
Sometimes this role mediating the rules means
that a DM has to enforce the rules on the players. If a
player tells you, “I want to charge up here and attack
the orc,” you might have to say, “No, you can’t charge to
there, it’s too far.” Then the player takes this new information
and comes up with a different plan.
Remember, though: Being the DM doesn’t mean you
have to know all the rules. If a player tries something
you don’t know how to adjudicate, ask the opinion of the
players as a group. It might take a few minutes, but it’s
usually possible to hash out an answer that seems fair.
Some DMs fear that asking their players’ opinions
will undermine their authority and give rise to claims
that they are being unfair. On the contrary, most
players like it when the DM asks their opinions, and
they’re more likely to feel that the results are fair when
they can give their opinions.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Sure, but that's why you combine that with a system of values and an agenda.
For instance, part of mine includes "The players powers work - no shutdowns." And that value becomes part of the judgment process.
Chakrum wrote:
I sort of agree with him (in a non-absolute sense) regarding the wolves, but I disagree with him (in a non-absolute sense) regarding the jumping.
The D&D jumping rules may not be 100% realistic, but they are meant to cover fantastical characters who can do many fantastical things, like going from zero to 17MPH in six seconds while carrying a moderate load. To me, it's very arbitrary to jump in and say, "You can't jump 30 feet even if the rules say you can, because no one ever has."
Meanwhile I'm just over here with my Fireball wondering if I'm gonna get nerfed on the no one ever has logic...
As a DM, you don't have to go by RAW; you can nerf jumping distance. But it's harsh to do that in the middle of a scenario. Players rely on rules in order to know what they can do. There is an expectation that if the rules tell them they can do something, they can do it. If the DM's response is "I've never read the jumping rules but that just doesn't make any sense," ... I mean, man, if you're not gonna read or care at all, why are you even playing D&D? Why not just play some kind of freeform storytelling?
If you know the rules and want to establish something that overrides them, more power to you. If you're not aware of the rules, but the player is... it's worth bringing it up, at least. I don't think a big argument over rules is appropriate for the table, but at least *informing* the DM of the rule is probably not crossing the line into "rules-lawyering." I donno where the line is, really.
I agree that rules changes should be announced prior to the campaign start or if corrective at minimum a few days prior to a session. In the latter case, I would avoid it if at all possible. If not then I would give a lot of leeway for "fixing" prior choices based upon that rule.
As DM though, I am not required to explain how the monsters work. I describe them and I describe what they do. I do not have to say that any spell is being cast. In fact this mechanistic way of talking doesn't add to the game. I might tell a wizard if he is familiar with the spell or makes an arcana check that he thinks so and so monster is trying to cast a fireball. Barring that happening though, I am not at all required to say that a monster cast a particular spell. The players know their characters. Their characters use their "senses" to convey the rest of the world to the player through the characters eyes.
I do not tell my players the hit points of the monsters. I dont' tell them their armor class nor do I tell them the number they need to hit. I do describe that the monster looks pretty bloodied or beat up or whatever. I do communicate skill DCs in cases where I feel the person with the skill could accurately gauge the difficulty. If not I am more vague.
In my campaigns, I want the experience to be character centric.
bawylie wrote: