Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 2550359" data-attributes="member: 158">However, it's not that simple, because the more rules the DM and players have to know, the more bogged down a human being gets. I'm all for standardization, but there has to be a happy medium. As of right now, the core rules do an admirable job. However, anything beyond that and things just get too messy to keep up with. There has to be a point where the DMG says, "the final authority is invested in THIS person", so that rules debates do not slow or confuse the game play, and that's happening less in this edition. No one  in this thread seems to deny that there's a NEED for a clean path for arbitration, but many seem to think the rules will do it 99 times out of 100. However, as the rules forum frequently attests, they DON'T. (I've seen Hypersmurf blanch more than once at a SKip Williams or Andy Collins ruling. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />)The part I'm interested in is that 1 in 100; I'm interested in when there needs to be a final word within 30 seconds of a discrepancy, and people are more interested in debating rules than taking the DM's word for it and moving on. The game thrived for 35 years on there being one arbiter who the buck stopped with, and now it's supposedly inferior to some people, and without that final arbiter (being replaced or marginalized) I don't forsee the game continuing as anything more than a different version of Mage Knight or Heroclix (or those "fighting flip-books" I played as a kid).</blockquote>

Verification