Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 6141230" data-attributes="member: 1165">I see a lot worse rules-lawyering in 3.x/Pathfinder than I saw in 2e in face-to-face &quot;meatspace&quot;. I think it's because anytime the NPCs try to do something the PCs don't want (like escape), the players will use their rules knowledge to say &quot;he can't do that, it's cheating&quot;. The bad guy throws down his sword and wants to run away/withdraw? He'll just get charged. He jumps on a flying eagle and flies behind a building? He'll be followed and attacked at -4 (or however many range increments). He has cover? He'll be attacked at -8. Repeatedly, because an eagle can only fly so fast.I think the rules took away some authority from the DM. In theory the DM could call &quot;rule 0&quot; but in practice he had to follow the rules strictly.However, it's also dependent on personalities. I've never seen a group where everyone is a rules-lawyer.D&amp;D isn't the only game I've seen like this. Any game where the DM can't say &quot;just because&quot; can encourage this.I saw quite a bit of power-gaming in 2e. Thing was, the rules options were limited. I only ever saw power-gaming with kits and player's options. I was told by a DM, when I wanted to play a samurai one time using a kit, that I should use a ranger instead of a fighter, because the kit automatically gave me weapon specialization with the katana. So I got ranger skills, TWF and more badass katana attacks. (Admittedly I was being less of a munchkin than the other players...)People couldn't ruthlessly exploit mechanics because there were a lot fewer of them.3.x core rules have far more options, so it's easy to power game even if the DM is running a strictly core-only campaign.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="(Psi)SeveredHead, post: 6141230, member: 1165"] I see a lot worse rules-lawyering in 3.x/Pathfinder than I saw in 2e in face-to-face "meatspace". I think it's because anytime the NPCs try to do something the PCs don't want (like escape), the players will use their rules knowledge to say "he can't do that, it's cheating". The bad guy throws down his sword and wants to run away/withdraw? He'll just get charged. He jumps on a flying eagle and flies behind a building? He'll be followed and attacked at -4 (or however many range increments). He has cover? He'll be attacked at -8. Repeatedly, because an eagle can only fly so fast. I think the rules took away some authority from the DM. In theory the DM could call "rule 0" but in practice he had to follow the rules strictly. However, it's also dependent on personalities. I've never seen a group where everyone is a rules-lawyer. D&D isn't the only game I've seen like this. Any game where the DM can't say "just because" can encourage this. I saw quite a bit of power-gaming in 2e. Thing was, the rules options were limited. I only ever saw power-gaming with kits and player's options. I was told by a DM, when I wanted to play a samurai one time using a kit, that I should use a ranger instead of a fighter, because the kit automatically gave me weapon specialization with the katana. So I got ranger skills, TWF and more badass katana attacks. (Admittedly I was being less of a munchkin than the other players...) People couldn't ruthlessly exploit mechanics because there were a lot fewer of them. 3.x core rules have far more options, so it's easy to power game even if the DM is running a strictly core-only campaign. [/QUOTE]

Verification