Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3441608" data-attributes="member: 22779">100% agree.&nbsp; However, KM's point is more that writing that a game is &quot;demanding&quot; and &quot;advanced&quot; is perhaps a turn off for a number of people.&nbsp; Since the quote is being held up as a very good way to write Rule 0, I think the criticism isn't far off.&nbsp; This is exactly how I've done it as well.&nbsp; The DM's that I've played with in 3e have also done the same thing.&nbsp; Granted, I did have one player who insisted on reading the riot act every time he thought I got the rules wrong.&nbsp; Unfortunately, he was the worst kind of rules lawyer - one that only thinks he knows the rules, rather than one who does.&nbsp; After umpteen arguements around the table, that campaign evolved a house rule where you could challenge any ruling, but, if you were wrong, you lost xp for the entire session.&nbsp; If you were right, no harm no foul.&nbsp; It was harsh, but, it did cut down on the rules lawyering.&nbsp; It meant that he had to actually open the book, read the rule and THEN argue with me about it if I was wrong.&nbsp; That I have no problems with.&nbsp; Heck, I rely on my players rules-fu all the time.&nbsp; I've got a couple of fairly decent rules gurus in my game now, so, I'm perfectly comfortable turning to one and saying, &quot;Hey, how does this work?&quot;I respect that this is your opinion, but I disagree.&nbsp; High level 1e play was entirely broken.&nbsp; The PC's were moving on to the Dieties and Demigods by then and treating it as the Monster Manual.&nbsp; Nothing in the books could challenge very high level parties.&nbsp; Looking at high level modules like Queen of the Demonweb Pits and Isle of the Ape, the primary source of challenge seemed to be stripping abilities away from the PC's in order to tone them down.&nbsp; Nerfing or banning spells, lowering plusses on weapons, blocking access to clerics regaining spells, that sort of thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3441608, member: 22779"] 100% agree. However, KM's point is more that writing that a game is "demanding" and "advanced" is perhaps a turn off for a number of people. Since the quote is being held up as a very good way to write Rule 0, I think the criticism isn't far off. This is exactly how I've done it as well. The DM's that I've played with in 3e have also done the same thing. Granted, I did have one player who insisted on reading the riot act every time he thought I got the rules wrong. Unfortunately, he was the worst kind of rules lawyer - one that only thinks he knows the rules, rather than one who does. After umpteen arguements around the table, that campaign evolved a house rule where you could challenge any ruling, but, if you were wrong, you lost xp for the entire session. If you were right, no harm no foul. It was harsh, but, it did cut down on the rules lawyering. It meant that he had to actually open the book, read the rule and THEN argue with me about it if I was wrong. That I have no problems with. Heck, I rely on my players rules-fu all the time. I've got a couple of fairly decent rules gurus in my game now, so, I'm perfectly comfortable turning to one and saying, "Hey, how does this work?" I respect that this is your opinion, but I disagree. High level 1e play was entirely broken. The PC's were moving on to the Dieties and Demigods by then and treating it as the Monster Manual. Nothing in the books could challenge very high level parties. Looking at high level modules like Queen of the Demonweb Pits and Isle of the Ape, the primary source of challenge seemed to be stripping abilities away from the PC's in order to tone them down. Nerfing or banning spells, lowering plusses on weapons, blocking access to clerics regaining spells, that sort of thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification