Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jackelope King" data-source="post: 2577046" data-attributes="member: 31454">I think the only way we could really clarify this would be to get some hard data at this point, since it looks like otherwise the only option is oposing experiences until we're blue in the face.I tend to disagree with this in my experience. A seperate thread for it would probably be most appropriate. And of course, I also don't think 3E is necessarily the ideal system. It is working towards such a system, but certainly isn't there itself.Strong ruleset, but good DM, not a strong DM. A strong DM implies that players are comparitively weak and their perspective unimportant.Believe it or not, this was over the stretch of 2-3 years, not all at once. These experiences were largely month-long endeavors every weekend at the comic book store. They might've lasted longer, but they usually ended in either a TPK because the DM got frustrated with the players or a good number of the players walked out on the DM. The only ongoing campaign I was in was with one DM who we played with because he was a friend. And to be perfectly fair, I did lead the last three of those exoduses (exodusi?). I didn't feel comfortable doing so at first because, like I said, it was walking away from the only game in town. We usually went for dry-stretches of some three months looking for other people who were willing to run games at the store and trying to organize a time to get together at the comic book shop. For us, walking away from one of these games would be like walking away from a Hawaiian vacation gone awry... we'd worked so hard to get the game together in the first place that we didn't think we should give up on the game so easily.Well, my roommate last year considered it a fine way to torture me by putting on TNG DVDs, so... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> It's not like I had much of an alternative. Had I sat in one group while two more were in the area I could've tried, yeah, I'd agree with you. But as I said, I didn't have the luxury.And I said I wouldn't have any problem with such a rule. I would have a problem if the DM decided to impliment the rule on me out of the blue after we'd been playing a slower approach to combat, however.I think that in this thread in particular, people have said that they don't think the answer should always be, "Yes," or, "Alright, you do it." It should usually be, "Alright, let's see what the dice say," unless it's totally off the wall (i.e. clearly doesn't fit with the group's play style). Players should, in general, be given the opportunity to try an action. A DM shouldn't live by the rule, "No unless I say otherwise." You seem to suggest that this mentality leads to players thinking they can ignore the DM or trump the DM with the rules in the book, but in most cases the only time such an argument comes up is when the DM clearly and arbitrarily ignores the rules with little or no justification. There's a difference between a player thinking, "I'll just do X and to heck with the DM if he thinks he can stop me," and a player thinking, "I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."In short, I think a better name for this topic would be "3E and DM Accountability". A consistent ruleset makes a DM accountable to the players for his rulings. Such a thing only exists when a player can compare the DMs ruling to a consistent ruleset.</blockquote>

Verification