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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nedjer" data-source="post: 5740459" data-attributes="member: 83796">If players want to play and enjoy a fairly crunchy version of D&D, (which like every version has some plus and minus points for each of us), then go them.However, I'm lost with the notion that rules should stick to the letter of the rules law, because it puts DMs in a sticky situation. No DM should feel it's a tricky situation to consult and discuss how a group can enjoy their game.Players who get agitated and refer to the rules to, as they see it, utterly maximise their PCs' builds and rewards to the point of argument are effectively cheating the whole table and themselves as soon as a DM feels its a 'situation' to simply try to interpret the rules on the basis of a level playing field.Uber-rules lawyers aren't 'winning' as a result of skillful play and are quite simply trying to seek an unfair advantage over other players by fixing the game before play even starts. This is a total double standard where they're saying the rules must never be bent, unless I'm bending them.Giving in to this, because some players choose to turn it into a 'situation' or because it requires a bit of discussion to create a level playing field seems no different from a sport where the referee has groups of shouting, fist-raising players screaming in her/ his face every time a decision is made. That way lies  not a minor adjustment of the rules, but a culture of seeking unfair advantage over other players.This is not edition specific, as illustrated by some of the first guys I played with. They ran games across groups and conveniently optimised each other to the point where they were so powerful that the game presented them with little they couldn't do at the flick of a switch.Sadly, for them, they never actually played D&D. They just thought they were playing D&D while filling-out a sticker album. The very same guys once spent two days setting-up thousands of counters for a WW2 wargame and when they rolled and didn't invade Britain on turn 2 said: 'there's no point continuing, because we've no chance of winning now, the game's a broken system'. If they'd made the roll they had every intention of playing through this broken game. Major losers <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" />So, I'm not for bowing down to those, (usually a vocal minority), who make a DM feel the DM is creating a situation because they've never left the playground. Nooooo . . . this is what we do to them:<a href="http://youtu.be/W3A9rLoz_0o" target="_blank">Caddyshack clip - YouTube</a></blockquote>

Verification