Quote from: Saurondor;888514Why?

Because most of the people I game with, and I, would say "No thanks" and walk away.

I played D&D for two years with Gary Gygax BEFORE the rules were published.  Still the best way to play as far as I'm concerned.

"You don't need to know the rules, just tell me what you want to do."  And if you don't trust the referee, don't play.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;888558"You don't need to know the rules, just tell me what you want to do."  And if you don't trust the referee, don't play.

True. So what happens when the players want to do something the rules don't allow? What do you do?

For example I want to be a barbarian magic user.

Personally, I don't see how the rules stop me from telling you what I want to do, but maybe there's something I'm missing so I'm really interested to know your reasons.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;888558Because most of the people I game with, and I, would say "No thanks" and walk away.

Same here. Most of the people I've gamed with over the years have no interest in reading a thick book of rules (let alone studying it to learn how to best manipulate them). They just want to play their character by saying in plain English (that is, not rulespeak) what they want to do. They expect me to tell them whether or not they succeed or fail, what to roll to find out, or expect me to just tell them that that is something their character would know (based on living in the game world) is very obviously a bad idea. I've been running games like that since 1975. It has always worked well -- it just doesn't produce a lot of sales for the "RPG industry."

Quote from: Saurondor;888563True. So what happens when the players want to do something the rules don't allow? What do you do?

Since I run what most people here would consider rules light games, this happens all the time. I just make a ruling.

QuoteFor example I want to be a barbarian magic user.

My answer would depend on the setting and exactly what you mean. There aren't any barbarians in the Hidden Valley, for example. However, in my version of the Wilderlands or my Empire of Arn setting, there wouldn't be an issue.

QuotePersonally, I don't see how the rules stop me from telling you what I want to do, but maybe there's something I'm missing so I'm really interested to know your reasons.

They don't stop you from telling me what you want to do, but they do stop many people from thinking of things the rules don't seem to cover. I've found this to be especially true with players used to rules heavy games as they often seem to see the rules as limiting what they can do to what is official mentioned as allowed. I also have zero interest in games that stress "system mastery" as I don't want a player who reads and studies rules to have any major advantage over a player who never reads them.

Quote from: Saurondor;888563True. So what happens when the players want to do something the rules don't allow? What do you do?

For example I want to be a barbarian magic user.

Depends on what's really meant by "the rules don't allow."

If it means, "Wrong game: we are absolutely not having any magic users, barbarian or otherwise, in 1920s Chicago," then that's an actual prohibition.

That's quite different from, "Well, there's no reason all magic-users must be civilized, but we don't have any special rules pertaining to the concept. Just what special considerations do you think require such rules?"

QuoteOriginally Posted by Saurondor
So what happens when the players want to do something the rules don't allow? What do you do?

For example I want to be a barbarian magic user.

For me as a GM, it depends on your motivation for being something outside the rules. If it significantly adds to the campaign, rules be damned.  If you want a barbarian magic user and you have a strong concept that is going to make the game fun for all - the rules will bend to my will and there will be a barbarian magic user.  That said, I'm not going to give you whatever you want just cause you're a player who wants stuff.

Just look at the characters in the back of the original Rogues Gallery, they don't follow the rules.

QuoteOriginally Posted by RandallS
They don't stop you from telling me what you want to do, but they do stop many people from thinking of things the rules don't seem to cover. I've found this to be especially true with players used to rules heavy games as they often seem to see the rules as limiting what they can do to what is official mentioned as allowed.

One of my groups really has a hard time with this very issue.  They want rules heavy games with lots of color pictures and rules widgets to play with.  It is hard for them to start with the blank canvas of a rules lite game.  They would rather select from a menu of options or color by number.  When I say "what do you want play? Let's start kicking out some ideas" they respond with "what are my choices?"  Sometimes as I describe the world they latch on to a concept, but often they are like deer in a headlight paralyzed by too many options.

Quote from: RandallS;888573They don't stop you from telling me what you want to do, but they do stop many people from thinking of things the rules don't seem to cover. I've found this to be especially true with players used to rules heavy games as they often seem to see the rules as limiting what they can do to what is official mentioned as allowed. I also have zero interest in games that stress "system mastery" as I don't want a player who reads and studies rules to have any major advantage over a player who never reads them.

There seems to be a paradox in your statement. It appears to be the consensus of this thread that the GM has complete control over the campaign and screw the game designer (I'm exaggerating a bit, but it drives the point). So how can the player feel limited by what is read in the rules if the GM is there? You even mentioned:

Quotethis happens all the time. I just make a ruling.

Now I agree with you that some players do indeed manifest such behavior, but why is it if they know you can make a ruling? More so, on the matter of system mastery, what does it matter? Are we not in agreement that?:

Quote"You don't need to know the rules, just tell me what you want to do." And if you don't trust the referee, don't play.

I don't need system mastery, I just need to know what I want. I can gain system mastery by inferring the rules from you as we play along, but that should really not matter if we are true an honest to that principle that all I need to do is tell you want I want.

Right? Or am I missing something? Where is my logic flawed?

Quote from: Madprofessor;888576That said, I'm not going to give you whatever you want just cause you're a player who wants stuff.

Right on! And what happens if the barbarian magic user is in the rules and you just don't want to include it in your campaign? Technically speaking it's not in the rules because although it is in the printed copy it is not in your campaign and thus not available "in the rules" as set in the game by the GM.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Saurondor
Right on! And what happens if the barbarian magic user is in the rules and you just don't want to include it in your campaign? Technically speaking it's not in the rules because although it is in the printed copy it is not in your campaign and thus not available "in the rules" as set in the game by the GM.

Well, it looks to me like you answered your question.  If I removed barbarian magic users from printed RAW for my campaign, I probably did it for a reason.  That said, for me, it's not black and white.  I may have decided that barbarian magic users don't fit, but a player might be able to convince me otherwise - or he might not.  Nothing is set in stone and the imaginary space is shared and cooperative even though I (the GM) maintain final authority to fit rules to that space.

Quote from: Saurondor;888563True. So what happens when the players want to do something the rules don't allow? What do you do?

For example I want to be a barbarian magic user.

One thing that occurs to me is that many instances like these only come up because we have rules.

Imagine you know zero rules, including how character builds work in the game or what archetypes the game uses. Simply using the term "barbarian" communicates no information about game information. Maybe you describe the character as a tribal shaman. Maybe the GM feels a druid is the closest match for your character type. And because we're putting the campaign ahead of the rules, he may even tweak a couple of things--adding battle axe to the list of weapons allowed, nixing some of the spell choices from the list.

In other words, it sort of takes solidifying character ideas into labels like "dwarf", which in AD&D were inherently non-magical. To the extent that you want to play a short, non-magical race, you would never ask to play a dwarf magic-user. It's only when your idea of playing a short, non-magical race gets a name like dwarf, and you observe another race named elf can also be magic-users do you get the idea "Hey, why not swap out one arbitrary race for another."

It's almost akin to arbitrarily defining "blue" to mean "wet", observing an object that is "red and dry" and wondering, "Well, shucks, why not allow it to be blue and dry?" Without the arbitrary definition, you're forced to describe it as wet and dry, and it becomes obvious why that combination is disallowed. Not because of rules but because of common sense.

Quote from: Lunamancer;888593One thing that occurs to me is that many instances like these only come up because we have rules.

Imagine you know zero rules, including how character builds work in the game or what archetypes the game uses. Simply using the term "barbarian" communicates no information about game information. Maybe you describe the character as a tribal shaman. Maybe the GM feels a druid is the closest match for your character type. And because we're putting the campaign ahead of the rules, he may even tweak a couple of things--adding battle axe to the list of weapons allowed, nixing some of the spell choices from the list.

In other words, it sort of takes solidifying character ideas into labels like "dwarf", which in AD&D were inherently non-magical. To the extent that you want to play a short, non-magical race, you would never ask to play a dwarf magic-user. It's only when your idea of playing a short, non-magical race gets a name like dwarf, and you observe another race named elf can also be magic-users do you get the idea "Hey, why not swap out one arbitrary race for another."

It's almost akin to arbitrarily defining "blue" to mean "wet", observing an object that is "red and dry" and wondering, "Well, shucks, why not allow it to be blue and dry?" Without the arbitrary definition, you're forced to describe it as wet and dry, and it becomes obvious why that combination is disallowed. Not because of rules but because of common sense.

Why not play the highly improbable and see what that leads to? A magic using dwarf or a non-magic elf. Very uncommon, but could happen. Even if only one in a million. What happens? What is a magic using dwarf like?

You really can't say you're putting the campaign ahead of the rules if you can't explore the unorthodox as rare as it may be.

Quote from: Saurondor;888596Why not play the highly improbable and see what that leads to? A magic using dwarf or a non-magic elf. Very uncommon, but could happen. Even if only one in a million. What happens? What is a magic using dwarf like?

You really can't say you're putting the campaign ahead of the rules if you can't explore the unorthodox as rare as it may be.

I haven't said you have to disallow it. Only that people aren't going to say, " I want to play a non-magical magic-user" as it is clearly self contradictory. And you certainly can't play an exception to a rule if there is no rule to begin with.

Unorthodox characters? In a vacuum, I have no problem with it. When half or all of the group wants to play special snowflakes? That does tend to buck the flavor of the campaign. Even if the rules specifically allow unorthodox combos, it's gotta be bitch slapped down if you're putting the campaign first.

Take a look at the old-school D&D rules regarding race class restrictions. Aside from the literal restrictions themselves, is there anything at all preventing a dwarven magic-user? Don't the mechanics still work? Can't you still roll a d4 for hit points AND get a hit point bonus due to a high dwarven constitution? Nothing in the rules forbid any of these things. The system is made to handle it. The prohibition is strictly for the sake of the flavor of the campaign.

I think it's more practical to start with "no" and negotiate a "yes" in special circumstances than it is for the default to be "yes" and for the DM to go around bursting bubbles reminding players of the campaign they all decided they wanted to play.

Quote from: Saurondor;888563True. So what happens when the players want to do something the rules don't allow? What do you do?

For example I want to be a barbarian magic user.

Personally, I don't see how the rules stop me from telling you what I want to do, but maybe there's something I'm missing so I'm really interested to know your reasons.

Anything not expressly forbidden is permitted.  What makes your barbarian magic user different from ordinary magic users?  I don't need rules, just reminders of what worked before.

The seeming contradiction of the Barbarian-Magic User, and also the Dwarf-Magic User stems from the influence of one vision of fantasy on all RPGing. I'm looking at you D&D.

See, when I hear "Barbarian Magic User" I think "tribal shaman". I don't see any a priori reason that  members of barbarian cultures should not be able to use magic. It happens all the time in RuneQuest.

When I hear "Dwarf Magic User" I think of that line in The Hobbitt "the Dwarrves of yore made mighty spells" In folklore dwarfs are often magical creatures, so the idea of a Dwarf Magic User makes sense to me.  Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures has a starting character playbook for the Dwarven Rune Caster, a character which is, you guessed it, a Dwarf Magic User.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;888601Anything not expressly forbidden is permitted.  What makes your barbarian magic user different from ordinary magic users?  I don't need rules, just reminders of what worked before.

So...basically, rules.