Why is "I don't like it" not good enough?

[DragonLancer]

No, it is not. The book is law unless the DM in advance makes changes that he announces. The DMs word is law if a rule is very unclear and the table cannot come to a consensus or find some errata for it. The DM is law on what happens in his campaign world outside the view of the players.

The DM is not the arbitrary law of everything just because he sits down behind the screen. I have been there I quit a group because "I am DM and I am the law" meant his completely wrong interpretation on the fly while gaming was automatically set in stone.

It sounds to me that you had a bad DM, and not because he was the law of the game.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I want your character to be special by his personality, skills, and such. Not his Infinity+1 swords.

So you don't hand out any magic items, then?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Actually, I disagree with this. And, if I recall correctly, every edition of the game has a paragraph in the DMG or the PH that states in some form or another that the book is NOT law, and that the DM is the final arbiter.

Yes, the books have the rules, but rules =/= law.



And this is why I believe that better communication at the table helps the game. Just because a person asks "why?", doesn't mean they are trying to hijack the game or force their preference on anyone. Actually, I would guess that in a large majority of cases, the "why?" is simply a clarification to understand the game world better.

If I am a player then as far as I am concerned the rules are the law unless stated otherwise and in advance? Are the exceptions? Of course if Piratecat as my DM there would be enough trust for him to change rules on the fly. For most DMs not a chance in Hell. The last thing I need is to completely rework a character concept because a DM on the fly tried to use the "DM is final arbitrator" bs to change a rule and ruin something I am doing.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

It sounds to me that you had a bad DM, and not because he was the law of the game.

In that instance I did, but that does not change my stance. The rules are the rules unless changed in advance. To change things on the fly because your the DM is stupid, arrogant, and likely to come back and bite you since your not thinking it out fully. I don't game so someone can power trip as DM.

 

[Janx]

In that instance I did, but that does not change my stance. The rules are the rules unless changed in advance. To change things on the fly because your the DM is stupid, arrogant, and likely to come back and bite you since your not thinking it out fully. I don't game so someone can power trip as DM.

I think a determining factor is also on the nature and extent of the rule change.

I have had some game mechanic I arbitrated challenged where I was certain I was in the right and the player was in the wrong. In that scenario, I had specifically looked up the rule before the game, because I knew it was part of the encounter. Unless I was grossly misinterpretting, the player was wasting our time (and the other players called him on it).

In another situation, I have grossly ignored the rules for things like resolving swimming. The party wanted to cross some water. I made it a few DC vs. swimming checks and we moved on. Technically, we could have stopped the game to look it up and do it "right". But it wasn't worth it. The DC wasn't hard, the whole swimming thing was unexpected anyway, and failure wasn't going to kill anybody, just slow them down as they made more checks to resolve it.

In these scenarios, does it matter that the GM was right? Or that the rule was executed right?

A rule change that nerfs your PC is a whole different matter than a rule change or a rule gaff that inconveiences your PC for the encounter.

I guess I see a whole lot of grey area, where I may have to trust the GM, but not necessarily the rules. Because rules get misunderstood. Or they get skipped for brevity. And sometims that's OK.

 

[shadzar]

No, it is not. The book is law unless the DM in advance makes changes that he announces.

The book is nothing, which edition do you play so I can provide you the relevant book quote telling you the book is NOT law.

This player fear crap is the whole problem.

What if the DM is wrong?

Guess what, they are, a LOT. But your DM is the only one that can makes changes to suit your group. Likewise as others have mentioned the DM isn't the property, slave, pet of the players, but a human being. They are there to have fun too. When there is something they don't like as it detracts form their fun, there is no reason for them to include it.

The object for ALL players, including the DM is not to add everything that each person enjoys, but remove things that take away form the enjoyment of players, until all things are removed and you have what is left to play with, because that is what that group will enjoy.

Adding an element than ANY player, including the DM, doesn't enjoy, means you have already lost "The Game". (like I just did)

The books exist to be sold and therefore have an inclusionist stance to provide every possible thing that can be sold. At the table, the players start excluding things to make the game work.

One player disliking tieflings means this group must work without tieflings or that player. When that player is the DM...then what you going to do?

If a player can ONLY play tieflings, then they are REALLY in the wrong place showing up for a game where tieflings aren't allowed, and likely trying to play the wrong game.

Also as a reminder that you seem to keep missing is, newest sections of the thread are using the concept that a game IS advertised as "no tieflings" prior to play. That is the continuing example, which you sem to agree with that set in advanced should be adhered to, correct?

 

[Diamond Cross]

DMs are slaves to the system.

Players are slaves to the system.

Players though are like the Gypsies that pass through the kings' lands.

And the DM is the KING!

And don't you forget it.

It's GOOD to be THE KING.

Baby.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

DMs are slaves to the system.

Players are slaves to the system.

Players though are like the Gypsies that pass through the kings' lands.

And the DM is the KING!

And don't you forget it.

It's GOOD to be THE KING.

Baby.

Kings get decapitated.

 

[shadzar]

No, I am not. I think instead I prioritize things differently from you. I am willing to allow the new player some leeway for a bit, where you are not.

Well I think people didn't exist just when they appeared at a game, and learned a bit of socially accepted behaviour before coming to it. Store says "No credit", it doesn't mean you ask for credit. When you ask for credit you have already violated that "social contract" many people are talking about. You walked into the store, and they assumed good faith that you understood and accepted the stores terms, then you show bad faith when coming to the end of your visit and do contrary to the rules set forth.

Well, interestingly, the moderators here usually require someone establish a significant pattern of behavior before we do much about the poster in question. So, that illustration would argue against your point that single actions, like asking "why?", are grounds for banning from the table.

I submit this to be a pattern of one to be acceptable to establish a pattern. The reason being, while reading a thread around here last night, I noticed Danny reported two new users each with a single post, BOTH were advertisements, i guess, for things I had never heard of. I now cannot find those posts nor Danny's post indicating to all others that they were reported so as not to clog the system with multiple reports for the same thing.

Therein as the moderators find this "pattern of one" acceptable practice, my point is proven.

I was going to follow along with the threadcrapping example, but this just happened to appear. I don't even know HOW to addres a case of threadcrapping to use it as an example where a single post, even as a first post from a new user, could be considered threadcrapping.

As the jobs are the same though the "pattern of one" is all that is needed here, and all that is needed for me as well for many things.

I think those things fall under the rules of advertising outside of the advertising allowed areas, but the rule stated exists. The accounts in questions I wouldn't know about as different forums treat them differently. I would block the email adreses and IP regions to prevent such and disable the accounts. Maybe you guys jsut remove the posts.

Either way the instance is being prevented to damage the sequence going on for others.

So I don't believe there is a "new player" anymore unless they are a child under a certain age that hasn't learned respect for others.

Did this "new player" never attend school? Did they not learn "No gun in school", or think it meant it as a suggestion?

It really is so funny how people take the "books as law" and RAW to state that the books are infallible and a set of rules, when the books state they are suggestions, but things that are given as "rules" and state to be such, are taken as suggestions.

Sad how people do things completely backwards.

The people not wanting to follow rules are not going to work with the group. As for your "leeway": give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Rather than trying to teach people your way, teach them the right way, and let them choose to do it your way instead if it works for them. Otherwise "No means no".

If you are confused about the language, then D&D probably isn't the best place to learn it. Buy a dictionary instead of a splatbook.

That is what history teaches everyone with EVERY war ever had. They are always over "boundaries". When you cross that boundary you have already started the conflict. So don't start the conflict unless you are ready for the war that follows.

But alas why history always repeats itself...nobody learns from it.

 

[shadzar]

Kings get decapitated.

Or you can just move to a new country...aka different DM.