Search results

Yes I agree but the recourse is to abandon that DM not argue him to death. I know your trivial example is an attempt to do something obvious and I accept it as that but in reality even a walls color could change in a magical setting.

No one said ghost the DM. You tell him you don't want to continue on in his campaign. The person I replied to just assumed the ghosting. And for the GAME of D&D, I don't find talking things out with the group to be very fruitful most of the time. It sure is a time sink though. You can...

Don't you think you are implying not doing it your way is immature? Is that really good? You like long tedious rules debates. My group does not. Yes we tolerate our DMs decisions because overall it is better. And I'm sure my players would say the same about me. They don't agree with...

I don't stop the game. The player is having their character shake their fist at the gods for all it matters. If a player says: "Hey a troll can't cast a fireball" I say: "Well what appears to you to be a Troll just did and now it looks like he might be readying another one." You think you...

Why flip the table? Just tell the DM that you've decided his or her game is just not for you. Endless arguments suck the life out of a D&D game. When I wasn't mature, as in a young kid, I allowed such nonsense to the detriment of everyone. I've said elsewhere that a discussion can occur...

No. That is your implication. You think if I have an issue with a ruling I MUST say something. We all know as players that DMs make mistakes on occasion. We roll with it or if it is especially egregious we can bring it up after the game. We just agree amongst ourselves that arguing with the...

This is why a discussion can happen after the game is over. An hour long debate which in all honesty is never going to make much of a difference other than waste everyone's time does hurt the game. It hurts it far worse than a bad DM call here or there. The DM then can adjust if he feels the...

Again I don't care but stop trying to make out this playstyle which was almost the universal style at the games founding as radical or extreme.

Yes. When it comes to declaring what is in the world, the DM is always right. If players want to discuss the rules of D&D after the session is over and how the DM is applying those rules, that is fine. The DM may have made a mistake according to the rules but no we aren't going to stop and...

I would have said, "Are you going to believe in this hunch your CHARACTER seems to have or are you going to believe your own eyes?"

If it is the DM, they do have the right to that power. I'd argue you are borderline leaving D&D without it. You definitely aren't playing the game the founders envisioned. And honestly I don't care what other people do but for me I don't want it any other way as a player or DM.

The DM tells you what your senses reveal. He is your access to the world. The rules are a combination of childhood experience and adult training. The DM is reality. The rules are observed reality as best "society" knows it. The DM can change anything at any time. Of course, the difference...

I've done it both ways but I admit I don't understand the hatred of rolling stats. My groups were worried about surviving not shining. They were happy when anyone rolled well. If the fighter rolled better great the team is stronger. This rivalry between players just wasn't as big a thing.

That is our implied social contract. We see the DM as final arbiter of his campaign. We don't argue about that right but if we hate the game and how it plays out then we seek another campaign. Well that was the official stance of the games founder and fundamental to the earlier editions of...

Then you may be the type of player that at least for me and my group is not a good fit. This sort of behavior is adjacent to rules lawyering which is widely disparaged in my quarters. This probably fits with what I said above. We don't play the same sort of games. The DM's decision is final...

I think if the person is taking their time in an ideal environment maybe you'd be right but this is often in the heat of combat and a lot of variables are represented by the dice. If there were no such variables we wouldn't need to roll the dice. Just compare your skill to some arbitrary...

I don't think obscure knowledge is appropriate to complain about to a DM or the group. It's like nitpicking a movie because you are a specialist and they didn't do something right. If it is really terrible maybe we quit the movie but in most cases we do not. One example is the one punch...

I believe that is the intent of D&D at it's founding and a fun playstyle for many of us. You can of course play differently.

But what is the point? The DM is still going to rule. Even if a snake specialist says such and such snake can't climb down a rope, I'm probably going to say "Well this one did so what do you do now?"

The problem with this approach is that armor or weapon requiring more than a 14 str would never arise. There just aren't enough people to bother making weapons for them. You could live your whole life and never meet one 20 strength person.