Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 2573879" data-attributes="member: 5143">Yes, I never said it was wrong to change the game...though, as I recently mentioned...I get...bad feelings when it happens.This has a lot to do with being a rules lawyer.&nbsp; I admit it.&nbsp; I know the rules better than anyone else I know.&nbsp; I correct other DMs on a regular basis and it rubs me the wrong way when DMs forget the rules in exchange for whatever comes to mind.I'm the one that says &quot;Remember, the enemy gets +4 bonus to his grapple check due to size&quot; and have DMs say &quot;Oh, right...I forgot about that.&nbsp; You fail to grapple him.&quot;&nbsp; I generally get a sense early on if the DM is in 1 of 3 major categories:1) Forgetful:&nbsp; These DMs will thank me for helping them as it's been a while since they've read through the book, they don't DM very often and it's nice to have someone around who remembers small bonuses since they can't.2) Uncaring:&nbsp; These DMs never knew the rule to begin with, never actually read the book and are making things up as they go along.&nbsp; They get angry at me for &quot;undermining their authority&quot; and tend to be the ones that get the most angry at rules lawyers.3) House Rules DM:&nbsp; These DMs have read the rules and didn't like something about them.&nbsp; They didn't think that hit points were realistic enough so they removed the ability to gain more as you go up levels, they think being able to cast defensively is stupid, etc.&nbsp; They get really mad at me for pointing out that all the problems they've created due to changing the rules until they get angry enough, so I never open my mouth while at the table again.I'm sure there is a 4th category:4) People who changed only the bare minimum rules to fit their campaign worlds and thought all the way through their changes so they rebalanced all the classes to make up for power lost due to changes they made.Of course, I've never met anyone in the 4th category, but I keep reading about them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 2573879, member: 5143"] Yes, I never said it was wrong to change the game...though, as I recently mentioned...I get...bad feelings when it happens. This has a lot to do with being a rules lawyer. I admit it. I know the rules better than anyone else I know. I correct other DMs on a regular basis and it rubs me the wrong way when DMs forget the rules in exchange for whatever comes to mind. I'm the one that says "Remember, the enemy gets +4 bonus to his grapple check due to size" and have DMs say "Oh, right...I forgot about that. You fail to grapple him." I generally get a sense early on if the DM is in 1 of 3 major categories: 1) Forgetful: These DMs will thank me for helping them as it's been a while since they've read through the book, they don't DM very often and it's nice to have someone around who remembers small bonuses since they can't. 2) Uncaring: These DMs never knew the rule to begin with, never actually read the book and are making things up as they go along. They get angry at me for "undermining their authority" and tend to be the ones that get the most angry at rules lawyers. 3) House Rules DM: These DMs have read the rules and didn't like something about them. They didn't think that hit points were realistic enough so they removed the ability to gain more as you go up levels, they think being able to cast defensively is stupid, etc. They get really mad at me for pointing out that all the problems they've created due to changing the rules until they get angry enough, so I never open my mouth while at the table again. I'm sure there is a 4th category: 4) People who changed only the bare minimum rules to fit their campaign worlds and thought all the way through their changes so they rebalanced all the classes to make up for power lost due to changes they made. Of course, I've never met anyone in the 4th category, but I keep reading about them. [/QUOTE]

Verification