barbarians rage - who is my friend?

[Scion]

Just to clear a few things up

He isnt an idiot, he simply had an opinion that was reinforced by another wotc product. I just wanted some things to point out to him to see if they would change his mind.

He isnt my dm, though he may be at some point in the future. We were just having a friendly discussion and looking over the BoED to see what was useful and how the things could be used.

No worries all No dm's toes crushed, no ego's bruised. I just went looking for some clarification.

Thanks for all of your comments! Good stuff!

 

[Camarath]

Here, apparently, the DM saw the rules and drew a conclusion that the player (and most of us) do not share. The player shoudl point out the difference of opinion once, but if the DM decides to go with his original interpretation, the issue should be considered resolved.

I would like to point out that it the DM is just a DM not the poster's DM at least not at this time. Scion stated that he was not his dm yet, but might be at some point so it was best to get strange things out of the way. It do not believe that RAW support the in questions DM's view. Since Scion is not playing in a game with him Scion does not have to submit to house rules persented as a valid interpretation of the core rules. If someone asked on this board if it was correct that barbarians sould not to be tell friend for foe while raging I would tell the that I see no support for that in the rules. If a DM wishes to house rule something more power to him but as far as I can see that is not what is happening here. It appears to be a rule disagreement between two people who are not currently in a game together about what the rule say. In that situation I see nothing wrong with stating that one of them is wrong.

edit: Sorry I had not seen that Scion had posted to clear up some of the thing I talked about in my post.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Don't forget... I didn't say he is a fool, merely that he sounds like one. Crucial distinction

 

[Scion]

I am unsure whether to show him this thread or not Even with such distinctions..lol

He's a cool guy though, I'm sure he can roll with the punches.

 

[Sejs]

The DM is God. He makes the rules.

No, the guys who make the books make the rules. The DM applies, interprets, and in some cases changes these rules as they relate to his game.

If a DM says that all dwarves are 8 feet tall, have a con penalty and love tap dancing, hey - go nuts. But that's something they made up to apply to their game; it's not what the book or the rules describe dwarves.

 

[James McMurray]

But as far as their game is concerned, it is the rules. That's what the quote is referring to. Nobody is trying to say that the DM wrote the PHB.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The DM is God.

And players have feedom of religion.
A god who makes bad rules might find himself a god without worshippers. And what is a god without worshippers? Surely not god any more.

Replace god with DM and worshipper with player.

What I want to say is: The DM can really rule away all he likes. But it isn't true that everything the DM makes is all good. DM's are people, too, and people sometimes foul things up. Nothing you can't solve, but if he insists on that stuff, he might lose all his players. It's not just the DM's game, it's everyone's game, and they all should have fun.

 

[James McMurray]

Exactly. Nobody is saying that the DM always mkes the best rules, just that he always makes the rules. Unless you're lucky enough to find yourself in amore democratic group of course.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The DM is God. He makes the rules. A wise DM listens to advice from players, but he is the final judge. If players don't accept that - without question - the questions that arise lead to harsh feelings and resentment. Pointing out a difference between the RAW and the words of the DM is fine, but if he says that he has a different interpretation, accept it and move on. If you find this makes his game into something you'd rather not play, ask if you can change characters and play something you'd enjoy or respectfully bow out and leave the game. Arguing never does any good.

A DM is never "plain wrong" unless he (or she) decides he was plain wrong.

No, sorry. It's perfectly possible for the DM to be plain wrong.

Making statements like this, that a DM never needs accept that he's plain wrong, and never needs to compromise unless he feels particularly benevolent is encouraging willful ignorance and blind bullheadedness, which I think you'll find are the causes of harsh feelings and resentment you refer to, rather than the effect of people with every right to have input in a game being willing to exersize that right.

 

[Endur]

Define "plain wrong."

The Gm rolls a d20. The numbers say 15. Your PC's AC is 18. He says you were hit. Is he right? Is he wrong?

Maybe his monster has +3 or more to hit. Maybe his monster normally only has +1 to hit, but he decided to give his monster a +2 competence bonus so it could hit you. Maybe he just wanted the monster to hit you and didn't care what he rolled. Maybe he just can't count. Maybe his monster doesn't have a weapon or its a pacifist monster and he forgot about its lack of weapon or higher morals.

Under which circumstance is a GM "plain wrong"?