fostering sanity

fostering sanity
As much as we do rock at technical discussions of the rules as written shawns observation gave me realisation that we should foster the wonderful "DM b Says" mentality of days gone. D20 empowers players with a sense of "this is how it works" through technical definitions and discrete timings etc. L5r doesnt go that far and as shawn pointed out never will. As d00ds who will constantly be clarifying the rules we need to ensure that we balance rules clarifications with fostering empowerment of the GM. Players need to work with the GM to gain rules clarifications, GM's should come to the boards, or make their own mind up. If its obvious (like 2 weapon combat) then its obvious, but less clear things like "what constitutes combat" and "contested social skill rolls" should perhaps remain cloistered here on the JB boards. The exposure of such discussions to the wider L5r boards has flow-on effects, it promotes that D20 mentality many of us has fled. There does remain a place for such discussions, it adds value to be able to make erratta and to guide GM's, but if thrust in the face of players it comes close to the sillyness of D20. Lets foster the "ask your GM" culture (email them, text them, talk to them) with general 'good ideas' rather than pointing out complicated holes in the rules to newbie players that serves to confuse them and give them the impression they are dealing with a D20 like system. thoughts?

I could certainly get behind such a move, both because I think that it's a sensible attitude to take, and because it gives us an opportunity to plug these boards. "A common sense approach would be blah, but for a more technical evalutaion of the relevant rules you might want to check out the Jourei Bengoshi forums" However, that also means that we need to be advocating communication between player and GM every step of the way. (It's all well and good for a GM to decide he's going to run something a certain way, but if he doesn't tell the players, then there will still be problems). And there is always the problem of the player who feels that his GM is breaking (or violating the spirit of) the rules. At some point (and on some level) the GM is right attitude will always leave such a player SOoL.

As d00ds who will constantly be clarifying the rules we need to ensure that we balance rules clarifications with fostering empowerment of the GM. Players need to work with the GM to gain rules clarifications, GM's should come to the boards, or make their own mind up. I fully agree and there are many aspects of the rules such as when combat starts that I have in no way attempted to define and thus handcuff GMs. If its obvious (like 2 weapon combat) then its obvious, but less clear things like "what constitutes combat" and "contested social skill rolls" should perhaps remain cloistered here on the JB boards. I agree. However, some nice clear guidelines for curious GMs would also be nice as many GMs go “No, seriously, what DOES start combat?” There does remain a place for such discussions, it adds value to be able to make erratta and to guide GM's, but if thrust in the face of players it comes close to the sillyness of D20. These are important things to consider when we start work on the Revised 3.5 Errata document. Lets foster the "ask your GM" culture (email them, text them, talk to them) with general 'good ideas' rather than pointing out complicated holes in the rules to newbie players that serves to confuse them and give them the impression they are dealing with a D20 like system. Even my Earth k Earth + attack roll for the stupid “how much does a falling ball of iron do?” was meant to be a GM suggestion. thoughts? I think this is a good idea.

Yup, I agree and suport DIY in all of its messy, wonderful forms. That said, I do value the JB forums as the line between resonable rule interpretation vs. homebrew stuff. Here is where we put on our big dorky gamer geek hats and discuss and debate those things in the mechanics that are confusing or wacky. Like a modern jazz performer, you have to know the rules before you can break them...

No problem here. My intention (and hope) is to use the RAW to try to try to argue for the intent of the writers, in a particular problem in the rules. Obviously, that does not always work (spells aren't attacks), but that is my philisophical position, in our debates. That was why I was against the 400 Ibs ball of iron and the non-violent battle. I try to keep the hairy stuff to these boards. I will be glad to say that the GM is the ultimate arbiter of any given situation.

Like a modern jazz performer, you have to know the rules before you can break them...That's exactly my stance. I do this as both mental exercise and to get a common ground to work with. That doesn't mean I don't think that, at least, half of the stuff we come up with isn't utter crap.

Re: fostering sanity
There does remain a place for such discussions, it adds value to be able to make erratta and to guide GM's, but if thrust in the face of players it comes close to the sillyness of D20. Lets foster the "ask your GM" culture (email them, text them, talk to them) with general 'good ideas' rather than pointing out complicated holes in the rules to newbie players that serves to confuse them and give them the impression they are dealing with a D20 like system. Honestly, what your refer to as D20 silliness comes mostly from that system being rules-heavy; with dozens of sourcebooks it becomes inevitable that broken combos are discovered left and right, and there will always be people who are attracted by the notion of (ab)using that inevitability. There is nothing about D20 specifically which inherently promotes ruleslawyering. And as noble as the notion of GM empowerment is, let's also consider those GMs that are just starting out, have little or no experience and get the thankless job of gamemastering thrust upon them because nobody else wants to not play. More often than not it's this kind of GM that brings in new players, not the old hand with his jaded group of oldschool know-it-alls (I say this in the nicest way possible, as this definitely applies to myself and some of my groups). And this kind of GM benefits from clear and intuitive rules much more than from feeling empowered. If there's anything that propagates the notion that players and GM should look for hints and clues about the true meaning of the RAW in the subtlest inflections and most elusive details, it's not having easily understandable or worse, self-contradictory rules. Let's see about a clean ruleset first and worry about what players and GMs *gasp* choose to do to themselves later.

Re: fostering sanity
Honestly, what your refer to as D20 silliness comes mostly from that system being rules-heavy; with dozens of sourcebooks it becomes inevitable that broken combos are discovered left and right, and there will always be people who are attracted by the notion of (ab)using that inevitability. There is nothing about D20 specifically which inherently promotes ruleslawyering. What I meant by D20 silliness was that very effect, a new rulesbook each month which leads to testing all combinations being impossible. The core, free to air, D20 is...aiiight... And as noble as the notion of GM empowerment is, let's also consider those GMs that are just starting out, have little or no experience and get the thankless job of gamemastering thrust upon them because nobody else wants to not play. More often than not it's this kind of GM that brings in new players, not the old hand with his jaded group of oldschool know-it-alls (I say this in the nicest way possible, as this definitely applies to myself and some of my groups). And this kind of GM benefits from clear and intuitive rules much more than from feeling empowered. If there's anything that propagates the notion that players and GM should look for hints and clues about the true meaning of the RAW in the subtlest inflections and most elusive details, it's not having easily understandable or worse, self-contradictory rules. I'm not saying we shouldnt debate rules. I'm saying we should do it here. Becuase doing it on the main forum only confuses those new GM's. I'm saying we ought to answer their questions on the main board...but when it becomes a rules point transfer the discussion here. A couple months ago this was standard practice anyway. Your right about the RAW, we should endevour to fix such things. We should do it here. Let's see about a clean ruleset first and worry about what players and GMs *gasp* choose to do to themselves later. All I'm saying is lets clean the ruleset here. Keep the technical discussions on the technical discussion board...

Way of the Ninja page 76 says, “The bonuses last for all encounters which occur during this time.” I am going to rule with the original for now. The bonus free raises are not spent nor used up. thanks! maybe the rules lawyers should discuss this issue privately, and update the school with errata to make it less ambiguous. just a thought. He knows too much KILL HIM!!!

Well, personally, I like a clear and solid rules environment, because I play in Heroes of Rokugan, a global campaign, where I have a different GM every module. This means a clear, consistent rules base is vital to an overall enjoyable experience. I've had a DM in the past rule that a Mirumoto didn't get his rank 2 second attack, when they very much *do*. The Confusion, as it were, was lodged in the fact that it's the "niten technique" and thus must be used with Katana/Wak! And every Yoritomo Bushi 4 in 2nd ed had to be standing atop a rolling wave and be Yoritomo himself in order to use their tech. Srsly. Even other things, simple things, like tattoo activations, henshin activations (okay, not simple, 2E cut and paste that REALLY needs 3E Eratta for sanity's sake), et al, can be completely reamed by a different GM's interpretation of fuzzy rules. A high initiative delayed-action guy is either jesus, or horrible, depending upon GM interpretation of murky delayed-action rules. Badger Rank 1 is either amazing, or meh, contingent again, upon those same murky rules. In a Living, Global Campaign setting, clear rules are a boon that lets everyone play without being useful in one module (under one GM) and useless in the next (under another GM with a different interpretation of horribly written rules).

The heroes campaign doesnt have additional standardised rulings in this regard? Surely they are aware of the kind of problems this will make. Especially given shawn's views on erratta??? I spent years in the Camarilla I understand exactly what your going through, however understanding the current state of play in terms of official changes to come from AEG I doubt you'll get what your looking for from them. What I'm advocating (and even have time for during semester break) is identifying the problem rules and suggesting standard solutions. The idea then is that these solutions are seconded by AEG and picked up into later publications. thats the hope anyway.

I know where Chuckles is coming from. There is nothing like having a Crane-centric GM that wants to fix the Crane by, effectively, deleting the dueling tech that everyother clan has or may get in the future. Another wonderful area where you can get wildly differing interpretations is the exact effects of a successful Contested Social Roll. A Deceit (Seduction) roll can be anything from totally useless to mind control. When I am unfamiliar with a GM, I tend to play characters that have little to no room for interpretation.

View Full Version: fostering sanity