Fair. And it's a question I would have an answer to. "I've had cilantro before and I'm part of the subpopulation for whom it tastes like eating soap".Chef #1: Have you tried Jacques Pépin's omelet recipe?
Chef #2: No. I saw it and instantly [removed the cilantro] because I knew it would be better.
Chef #1: How did you know? Don't you think you should have tried chef Pépin's recipe?
That is not scolding. That is asking a legitimate question.
Presumably, these two chefs are of equal skill but different preferences. it is actually a pretty good analogy for GMing: GMs have experience and skill and know what they enjoy and what thewy are good at cooking up, just like Chef's. While I suppose it is legitimate to ask "why" in order to learn something about that GM and their preferences, I think it still sits in the rude zone to frame it as "but why didn't you do it RIGHT first?" "Don't you think you should have...?" is exactly a scolding question.And, as I said, I agree with that.
House rules are a thing. They are somewhat of a tradition. But to ask whether you implemented a house rule prior to trying the actual rule is not "scolding" as Reynard called it.
In the end, you do you. But if someone questions on you doing you, especially if you haven't tried what the writers intended, then don't be surprised if they act surprised.
Chef #1: Have you tried Jacques Pépin's omelet recipe?
Chef #2: No. I saw it and instantly added escargot because I knew it would be better.
Chef #1: How did you know? Don't you think you should have tried chef Pépin's recipe?
That is not scolding. That is asking a legitimate question.
If you have to change my word of "intended" to an all cap "RIGHT" then you know you're in the wrong. I will take this as you know the question is valid, and there is no "scolding" behind it. You just don't want to say so. That's fine. I can get stubborn at times too.Presumably, these two chefs are of equal skill but different preferences. it is actually a pretty good analogy for GMing: GMs have experience and skill and know what they enjoy and what thewy are good at cooking up, just like Chef's. While I suppose it is legitimate to ask "why" in order to learn something about that GM and their preferences, I think it still sits in the rude zone to frame it as "but why didn't you do it RIGHT first?" "Don't you think you should have...?" is exactly a scolding question.
Sometimes the GM making the changes without playing it as written first has almost no experience in different systems or experience in analysing the mechanical construction of various TTRPGs, and doesn't actually understand what they are changing. I have met some of those. And their "fixes", aren't. They're "fixing" it from "Kay's Kitchen".Presumably, these two chefs are of equal skill but different preferences. it is actually a pretty good analogy for GMing: GMs have experience and skill and know what they enjoy and what thewy are good at cooking up, just like Chef's. While I suppose it is legitimate to ask "why" in order to learn something about that GM and their preferences, I think it still sits in the rude zone to frame it as "but why didn't you do it RIGHT first?" "Don't you think you should have...?" is exactly a scolding question.
I was going to say something like this, luck points for a re-roll or add a +1 something. Also I will generally use crits.The Hero System "luck roll" mechanic gets used in a lot of the GURPS and D&D that I play. Roll 3d6. Sixes indicate good luck, ones bad luck. Other numbers don't mean anything. A mixture of 1s and 6s is mixed luck.
That's not how 3rd/4th/5th ed HSR luck works. There's no free levels of it.The Hero System "luck roll" mechanic gets used in a lot of the GURPS and D&D that I play. Roll 3d6. Sixes indicate good luck, ones bad luck. Other numbers don't mean anything. A mixture of 1s and 6s is mixed luck.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.