The Masterwork Scroll

One of the things I value in a good ol’ game of D&D is uninterrupted action. A steady flow, a quick pace – I find that it is more immersive, and, of course, it allows for more game to be played within the confines of whatever time limit the table has. However, the very nature of a roleplaying game depends on a system of rules to facilitate gameplay. These rules can, at times, slow things down to the point of tedium. 

Regardless of how ‘rules-light’ a system may be, it still possesses rules that may need to be looked up, verified, 

An example of a rules-light game.

 tweaked, etc. And this can lead to the occasional disturbance at the table. In general, these little side-treks are not that debilitating to the game; however, when a disagreement arises about a ruling, that is when things can get ugly. 

If not handled well, these occasions can halt the game. Rule books get flipped through, wording gets discussed as if it was Joyce’s Ulysses and the whole ruleset regarding the particular scenario gets tossed under the microscope. Thus gameplay stops until resolved. 

To be blunt in these cases I simply defer to the DM. His ruling is inarguable until after gameplay. As long as a rule, misinformed or not, applies to everyone equally, I can roll with it, until I can later search for the actual rule-as-written. 

However, there are times when even I doubt my actual ruling at the table. In these cases I’ve come up with a very player-friendly solution – IIWYGAB – IYWYGAP. 

This simple to remember acronym stands for If I’m Wrong You Get A Boon – If You’re Wrong You Get A Penalty. IIWYGAB – IYWYGAP, simple huh? 

Essential this boils down this way (example time!) 

Joe’s character is a total wimp. This is why he fights with a reach weapon, a halberd. Joe tells his extremely handsome DM, me, he is going to attack the bandit leader adjacent to him with his halberd. 

The sexy, intelligent DM says, “Joe, Joe, Joe – no can do kemosabe. Reach weapons can only attack with reach – they cannot attack adjacent creatures in Pathfinder.” 

Joe thinks about this, and then makes the spectacular folly of arguing with his DM who sports magnificently coifed hair. “That’s stupid! That can’t be right! I want to look that up.” 

(Pay attention now goblins and goblinettes) 

The DM scratches his immaculate goatee and says, “Joe, I’d rather not bog the game down by letting you sift through the massive rulebook, when everyone at this table knows you’ve the reading skills of a drunken bulette. How ‘bout this – Go with my ruling for the rest of tonight’s game, and we will look it up afterwards. If I am wrong, you get a boon. Or go with your ruling for the night, but if you are wrong when we look it up, I will apply a 1-time penalty of my choosing to you in the future. What do you choose?” 

Turning rules quibbles over to the players is a fairly fun option, and also makes the player truly think. However, do not let obvious or truly important rules questions be decided this way. Also watch out for that totally douchebag of a player who is going to abuse this option. 

Hell, I’d have your next attack crit that guy for just making me type that disclaimer. 

Peace.