Example: the OP in this thread describes a situation involving an infinite damage loop at an RPGA game.
Would an RPGA DM be expected to allow this because it is RAW?
Are RPGA DM's expected to follow strict RAW even if they result in an unintended effects?
Example: the OP in this thread describes a situation involving an infinite damage loop at an RPGA game.
Would an RPGA DM be expected to allow this because it is RAW?
As a poster in the linked thread but one that is by no means familiar with RPGA I would pose the query, instead, as whether an RPGA would be wrong to disallow Harmonious Thunder's infinite damage loop, independent of whether the RPGA might encourage him to allow it.
Following RAW (there's nothing in the RPGA rules that I know that says it is 'strict' RAW btw) does not include following clearly broken -interpretations- of RAW. And at worst, since everything is arguably an interpretation, I will just fall back on the "DM is the last word" rule and leave it at that.
There's no way you can claim that infinite damage (or instakills) are a level 1 power. Several others in that thread have it right. Any player walking in and expecting to get away with this is frankly out of their mind.
Maybe if enough RPGA players complain, it will get WotC to change the rules faster.
This particular loop was known on the CO forums within hours of the power first becoming public.
RPGA is stuck with RAW
No we're not. There has been plenty of precedence otherwise. Example: RPGA DM's are expected to use, when available, clarifications to RAI even if those clarifications do not coincide with strict literal RAW.
"Make decisions and adjudications that enhance the fun of the adventure when possible"
one of the things it suggets to aid in carrying out this rule is:
"don't make the adventure too easy or too difficult for a group"
I don't feel either of those is incompatible with dissallowing an infinite damage loop unless of course the entire table thinks that actually using an infinite damage loop during an adventure is somehow fun. In which case I might wonder why you are playing D&D, but to each their own.
To further clarify since the underlying maths of 4e is supposedly based on balance and an infinite loop is pretty unbalancing I don't think its much of a stretch to claim this is a wrong interpretation of RAW (and unless it says explicitly 'this power allows you to do infinite damage' it is an interpretation.)
RPGA is stuck with RAW
Not true. If so it isn't codified anywhere. There is an unwritten understanding that DMs are meant to follow RAW as much as possible since you may play at many different tables with many different DMs and it's best to have an environment that is as consistent as possible. However, RPGA DMs are expected to make table rulings when necessary when rules are ambiguous or otherwise obviously wrong. We are also expected to consider CS rulings and other updates when deciding on rules items. What they can't do is make up rules. They can't decide that a Warforged should get an extra feat. Or that humans are smelly and have an aura of stench that causes all within to suffer -2 to their attack roles.
Believe me, if someone tried that at one of the big Cons and the table DM decided to take it to the senior DM (Dave Christ), Dave would laugh in the player's face before telling him he was out of his mind to expect a level 1 power to cause an infinite damage loop.
The table judge is perfectly within his rights rule the way he did.
The DM can make slight modifications to an encounter to make it the right challenge for the group. Examples include adding another monster of the same type as one existing in an encounter (such as adding a 4th goblin sharpshooter to an encounter that normally has 3), removing a monster from an encounter, adjusting the level of a monster by +/- 1 level (and thereby adjusting hit points, defenses, and attacks), or changing the tactics present for a monster to something more/less optimal than listed.
If a DM feels like a player has misinterpreted their power in this fashion, could they, per the paragraph above, let the player have their day in the sun and then have another monster of the same level joined the encounter to make the encounter "the right challenge"?
Edit: What is wrong with these forums? I've made my text blue, the black is quoted from the CCG.
For this example of D&D Encounters, the player knew the cheese of it. As a DM, I would have pointed out what this meant and asked them what they really wanted, plus involved the table in it. We all agree that WotC has no intention to create an auto-kill daily at level 1. Therefore, at worst the power is written poorly. We all agree that this will have an unbalancing effect on the current encounter. What does everyone want to do? Should we limit the power? Should we allow it for a cool effect but add replacement monsters at the current HP value to compensate? Do you want a cakewalk and an early finish this week?
I think players will make a good choice if everything is calmly explained to them.
Additional ramblings
RPGA DMs cannot change core rules, but they can interpret ambiguous rules. I find it debatable whether this is ambiguous. I can read it as written as if it were computer code to be executed (and therefore looping), or I can read it a different way, lacking information that says it loops. Regardless of that read, however, it is very hard not to read the power as being completely outside of the RAI for any level 1 daily if it did involve an infinite damage loop. Anything involving infinity, at any level of play, has eventually received errata. There is 0 chance this was intended. If it was, it would need better wording. On that alone, I would be ok with an RPGA DM that argues for the limit.
However, I think in the current state of play a DM runs a risk of really alienating one or more players at the table with a really strong mandate. Gone are the days when the rules were completely open to interpretation, with subjective truth, and the absolute requirement for a DM to step forth and bring light to the rules. How do we resolve psionic combat? How do we judge inches/feet/yards/outdoor/indoor movement? How does ultravision work? What do you do with assassin % kill chances? How do you deal with [insert many spells here]? In AD&D a DM's arbitration and interpretation was critical, with no right answer.
In today's game there is a lot more detail. The rules tend to be based on a very common concept (including mathematical), allowing for comparison and rapid resolution of most issues. Forums, CS, help line, and other vehicles mean the rules are clarified and create a common group-think around how rules work. The end result is that the DM isn't needed as a point of light in a sea of clarity. They know the rules, at best, as well as anyone else. But, because of the tremendous volume of content and the rapid dispersal of content and information, the DM is actually not the best source for a ruling. That title usually goes to the player, who may have spent significant time pondering the specific issue in question. The chance of a player showing up with a poor understanding of their Blood Mage is low. The chance of a random DM understanding my Cunning Sneak rogue feature better than I do (let alone Deft Strike) is very low. The center of knowledge in 4E (and in late 3.5) is the player.
This in no way diminishes the value of the DM. The DM should still get free cookies, soda, and the accolades of the table. But, it is earned based on how the story and challenges unfold rather than on illuminating obscure rules. It is earned by their tempered hand in handling personalities and dynamics rather than rules.
Some specific examples from the past:
In both of the above, DMs were wrong to make a ruling. The text of both cases was completely accurate and a player was accurate in stating that they worked as written. The RAI was very arguable, especially with WotC offering support for the RAW (often saying they discussed this with developers).
However, the DMs could have easily solved most issues by speaking to players about balance. For example, if any DM wanted me to tone down my rods, I would be glad to do so, so long as I was approached well - a mandate from a DM based on their interpretation at the table is often offensive. A well-reasoned choice offered to a player will seldom be turned down.
At D&D XP I had a player ask how an off-hand staff of Ruin should work with the Dual Implement feat. I told them my interpretation (should not work), what CS had written (does work), that I felt it was too strong, and that ultimately they should choose what to do. They played it without the bonus (which is what eventual errata did). At the same table, I asked the Blood Mage not to add static modifiers to Blood Pulse, despite what CS had said, but I made it a voluntary choice. To me, this achieves both the goals: first and foremost, it allows for what will be fun for the table. Second, it provides feedback as to what is cheesy in a DM's eyes and allows everyone to make a group decision. Mandates from the DM should be really slim to none unless the rules are unequivocal.
Greg Bilsland, who is the main WotC employee behind errata, had a bit to say on the related subject of the evolution of the game and the DM's role in interpreting rules.
RPGA DMs cannot change core rules, but they can interpret ambiguous rules. I find it debatable whether this is ambiguous. I can read it as written as if it were computer code to be executed (and therefore looping), or I can read it a different way, lacking information that says it loops. Regardless of that read, however, it is very hard not to read the power as being completely outside of the RAI for any level 1 daily if it did involve an infinite damage loop. Anything involving infinity, at any level of play, has eventually received errata. There is 0 chance this was intended. If it was, it would need better wording. On that alone, I would be ok with an RPGA DM that argues for the limit.
However, I think in the current state of play a DM runs a risk of really alienating one or more players at the table with a really strong mandate. Gone are the days when the rules were completely open to interpretation, with subjective truth, and the absolute requirement for a DM to step forth and bring light to the rules. How do we resolve psionic combat? How do we judge inches/feet/yards/outdoor/indoor movement? How does ultravision work? What do you do with assassin % kill chances? How do you deal with [insert many spells here]? In AD&D a DM's arbitration and interpretation was critical, with no right answer.
In today's game there is a lot more detail. The rules tend to be based on a very common concept (including mathematical), allowing for comparison and rapid resolution of most issues. Forums, CS, help line, and other vehicles mean the rules are clarified and create a common group-think around how rules work. The end result is that the DM isn't needed as a point of light in a sea of clarity. They know the rules, at best, as well as anyone else. But, because of the tremendous volume of content and the rapid dispersal of content and information, the DM is actually not the best source for a ruling. That title usually goes to the player, who may have spent significant time pondering the specific issue in question. The chance of a player showing up with a poor understanding of their Blood Mage is low. The chance of a random DM understanding my Cunning Sneak rogue feature better than I do (let alone Deft Strike) is very low. The center of knowledge in 4E (and in late 3.5) is the player.
This in no way diminishes the value of the DM. The DM should still get free cookies, soda, and the accolades of the table. But, it is earned based on how the story and challenges unfold rather than on illuminating obscure rules. It is earned by their tempered hand in handling personalities and dynamics rather than rules.
Some specific examples from the past:
- Rod of Reaving and Corruption combo. Before the errata, there was great discussion about this. The text seemed pretty clear, but there was disagreement on RAI and some DMs would try to create new RAW (making place/transfer/etc. a keyword). CS gave clear consistent rulings, though some DMs continued to impose their own will. That is not what DMs in the RPGA should do. The eventual errata made it pretty clear that what both sides said was true. The items had been working correctly by RAW. While the change from errata was theoretically guessable, very few people did guess this outcome.
- Blood Mage, before the errata, could create a giant area of stinking damage cheese. Combined with Stinking Cloud and other tricks, a paragon PC could bloody most of the creatures in a small room by the time the first round ended. But, both reading the power and speaking to CS said it worked exactly that way. We could guess at RAI, but without being sure. Many would have argued it was not too strong. Errata came out eventually, though I am sure no one would have guessed the eventual change.
In both of the above, DMs were wrong to make a ruling. The text of both cases was completely accurate and a player was accurate in stating that they worked as written. The RAI was very arguable, especially with WotC offering support for the RAW (often saying they discussed this with developers).
However, the DMs could have easily solved most issues by speaking to players about balance. For example, if any DM wanted me to tone down my rods, I would be glad to do so, so long as I was approached well - a mandate from a DM based on their interpretation at the table is often offensive. A well-reasoned choice offered to a player will seldom be turned down.
At D&D XP I had a player ask how an off-hand staff of Ruin should work with the Dual Implement feat. I told them my interpretation (should not work), what CS had written (does work), that I felt it was too strong, and that ultimately they should choose what to do. They played it without the bonus (which is what eventual errata did). At the same table, I asked the Blood Mage not to add static modifiers to Blood Pulse, despite what CS had said, but I made it a voluntary choice. To me, this achieves both the goals: first and foremost, it allows for what will be fun for the table. Second, it provides feedback as to what is cheesy in a DM's eyes and allows everyone to make a group decision. Mandates from the DM should be really slim to none unless the rules are unequivocal.
Greg Bilsland, who is the main WotC employee behind errata, had a bit to say on the related subject of the evolution of the game and the DM's role in interpreting rules.
I think players will make a good choice if everything is calmly explained to them.
I think that in general I like this approach but it clearly was doomed to fail with the player who was the subject of the original thread that spawned this one. His stated intent was to use (and abuse) the rules to, as he put it, "instagib" the DDE encounter.
As a result, I do feel that there are times where the DM is just going to have to put their foot down and say "No." And I don't feel that GMs will be risking anything by doing so. Except maybe missing the opportunity to have that player back.
To quote Office Space, "I wouldn't say that I was missing it, Bob."
I am also totally with the "but they can interpret where ambiguity exists"
And I am even with Alphastream when he states DMs should do this sparingly if at all (we just tend to disagree on what is and isn't interpretation now and then
) ."I think players will make a good choice if everything is calmly explained to them"
I have seen too many examples of this not being the case to hold it to be true. It is true a lot of the time, thankfully, but lets not pretend there are no players who purposefully build their characters around contentious interpretations of the rules. There are and no amount of reason is likely to sway them. So the question becomes.. is it worth a shouting match?
Sometimes it is, usually it isn't. As a DM that is your call to make. You can put your foot down, and you have as much if not more rules interpretation options at your disposal to help you do it. There are some cases of "clearly works RAW", but lets face it, generally "probably works RAW" is the best you can get from the rules (not always a bad thing). So pretty much anything CAN be argued. But if you go that route, it has a good chance of souring the table. It better really matter.
For me, I am learning to not sweat the small stuff. This case however, not so small. I am honestly a little surprised to see that there are people arguing an infinite damage loop could be legal. Still naive I guess.