Henry
Autoexreginated
Interesting point by Evilhalfling:
When I DM, if a player has an objection to one of my rules, I'll let him bring it up, and if he can quote the correct rule quickly (in other words, none of this "wait... wait... let me see here...") Then if it's obvious I'm wrong, I'll change it right there. If it's ambiguous, or if it would take too long to look it up, dig into it, etc. I'll make a spot-rule, and tell them so, and if they disagree I'll ask them to make a note and bring it up after the game, and we'll discuss then. In other words, smoothness of game play is all-important.
The main difference in D&D 3E and other less rule-conprehensive games is that there IS no reference to fall back on, and players who want to rules-argue will do so based on the realism of an ad-hoc rule. However, I've never (EVER) had a player refuse to play if I made a rule they disagreed with, especially if I give them the chance to argue it after the game. I almost never "ret-con" a ruling, but I will play a changed ruling for future games.
Does anyone in this thread handle this similarly? Does anyone here have problems with players arguing even AFTER the fact?
When I DM, if a player has an objection to one of my rules, I'll let him bring it up, and if he can quote the correct rule quickly (in other words, none of this "wait... wait... let me see here...") Then if it's obvious I'm wrong, I'll change it right there. If it's ambiguous, or if it would take too long to look it up, dig into it, etc. I'll make a spot-rule, and tell them so, and if they disagree I'll ask them to make a note and bring it up after the game, and we'll discuss then. In other words, smoothness of game play is all-important.
The main difference in D&D 3E and other less rule-conprehensive games is that there IS no reference to fall back on, and players who want to rules-argue will do so based on the realism of an ad-hoc rule. However, I've never (EVER) had a player refuse to play if I made a rule they disagreed with, especially if I give them the chance to argue it after the game. I almost never "ret-con" a ruling, but I will play a changed ruling for future games.
Does anyone in this thread handle this similarly? Does anyone here have problems with players arguing even AFTER the fact?