Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5986672" data-attributes="member: 17106">Sure seems like the OP was right about bad experiences.I think the social contract requires the DM to change around the rules. Quite often this is happening because a player asks to do something off the book, and the DM comes up with a way to allow it. Another common reason is to change things behind the curtain if it looks like the PCs are in trouble in order to ease up on them. Given that a good DM will change things in such a way that makes things more fun for the players, good players are not likely to consider it a &quot;contract violation&quot;. If anything, players have a right to be pissed off when a DM enforces an on-the-book rule that makes no sense instead of exercising his discretion (and there are always going to be lots of bad rules).I think this is true. D&amp;D grew organically.This I don't agree with. I think 3e has more of a learning curve because you have to really know the rules to figure out where they are and how to fix them. 4e is far more limiting; trying to start a DM on that is like trying to teach a child to walk using crutches. I learned a lot about what a game should &quot;feel like&quot; and how to DM during my relatively brief 2e experience, and I think it's a problem that newer gamers than I may not have that experience (and frankly rather scary that people who have learned how to DM these systems think they know how to DM). I'd rather see people start with simpler and more vague rules to learn how to DM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 5986672, member: 17106"] Sure seems like the OP was right about bad experiences. I think the social contract [I]requires[/I] the DM to change around the rules. Quite often this is happening because a player asks to do something off the book, and the DM comes up with a way to allow it. Another common reason is to change things behind the curtain if it looks like the PCs are in trouble in order to ease up on them. Given that a good DM will change things in such a way that makes things more fun for the players, good players are not likely to consider it a "contract violation". If anything, players have a right to be pissed off when a DM enforces an on-the-book rule that makes no sense instead of exercising his discretion (and there are always going to be lots of bad rules). I think this is true. D&D grew organically. This I don't agree with. I think 3e has more of a learning curve because you have to really know the rules to figure out where they are and how to fix them. 4e is far more limiting; trying to start a DM on that is like trying to teach a child to walk using crutches. I learned a lot about what a game should "feel like" and how to DM during my relatively brief 2e experience, and I think it's a problem that newer gamers than I may not have that experience (and frankly rather scary that people who have learned how to DM these systems think they know how to DM). I'd rather see people start with simpler and more vague rules to learn how to DM. [/QUOTE]

Verification