Voadam
Legend
QUOTE]Originally posted by Mortaneus
The difficulty is when you're the player running a character who's only hope is some fancy but technical move, and a GM who doesn't know how something is supposed to work rules against you being able to do it, despite the fact that you can crack the rule book and point to it, and you wind up getting screwed 'right at the moment' because it 'slows down play'.
For the player it happens to, you can forget about any tension, pacing, or fun. I've seen players get so frustrated by this happening that they'll start getting nasty, start ignoring the game, or just leave, causing the game to take a serious turn for the worse, BECAUSE the GM didn't take the time to figure out how it really works.
The difficulty is that 3e is a VERY tactical game as it is written, and as it is often run and played. It's on the level of a board game, or wargame. And in a game with as much emphasis on proper tactics and rules, everything HAS to be right. Everyone MUST be familiar with how things work, and you have to play exactly by predetermined rules (whether from the book, or house-ruled). In a game like 3e, the Gm's primary task rules-wise is to make decisions on things the rules don't cover, or are vague on. The rules still need to be consulted, however. Saying 'we'll play it this way for now and look it up later' doesn't work. You MUST look it up, or at least reference a reliable source. If you don't, things tend to come apart really quickly.
The only time this can work out is when you're not really bothering to play by the rules anyway, or the only person who really knows the rules is the GM.
In this sense, I agree that 3e is stifling. The rules are too complete, set in stone, and deviation from them can cause MAJOR problems, because the players often know them very well too. [/QUOTE]
I disagree with you.
The nature of the game requires the players to cede final rules calls to the DM. I do advocate allowing the pcs to bring up quick rules challenges when they have the rule in front of them, but there is rule 0. A DM saying "I'm not going to stop the middle of this big combat for 20 minutes to debate and figure out the exact convoluted specific mechanism right now, it's too much of an interruption to what's going on so this is how it is now" is completely appropriate. I have seen games come to a screeching halt because a player is not willing to accept how the DM handles a minor rule call in the middle of combat. The more other players there are the more important it for a player not to do this. It is no fun to sit around for 20 minutes watching an argument when you are waiting for your turn in a big combat.
As a roleplaying game, bad things can happen to your character. yes a PC may be screwed by not getting to use an official complex rule, but given a choice between good story at the moment and playing by exactly the official rules, I'd suggest the DM go with story every time.
The difficulty is when you're the player running a character who's only hope is some fancy but technical move, and a GM who doesn't know how something is supposed to work rules against you being able to do it, despite the fact that you can crack the rule book and point to it, and you wind up getting screwed 'right at the moment' because it 'slows down play'.
For the player it happens to, you can forget about any tension, pacing, or fun. I've seen players get so frustrated by this happening that they'll start getting nasty, start ignoring the game, or just leave, causing the game to take a serious turn for the worse, BECAUSE the GM didn't take the time to figure out how it really works.
The difficulty is that 3e is a VERY tactical game as it is written, and as it is often run and played. It's on the level of a board game, or wargame. And in a game with as much emphasis on proper tactics and rules, everything HAS to be right. Everyone MUST be familiar with how things work, and you have to play exactly by predetermined rules (whether from the book, or house-ruled). In a game like 3e, the Gm's primary task rules-wise is to make decisions on things the rules don't cover, or are vague on. The rules still need to be consulted, however. Saying 'we'll play it this way for now and look it up later' doesn't work. You MUST look it up, or at least reference a reliable source. If you don't, things tend to come apart really quickly.
The only time this can work out is when you're not really bothering to play by the rules anyway, or the only person who really knows the rules is the GM.
In this sense, I agree that 3e is stifling. The rules are too complete, set in stone, and deviation from them can cause MAJOR problems, because the players often know them very well too. [/QUOTE]
I disagree with you.
The nature of the game requires the players to cede final rules calls to the DM. I do advocate allowing the pcs to bring up quick rules challenges when they have the rule in front of them, but there is rule 0. A DM saying "I'm not going to stop the middle of this big combat for 20 minutes to debate and figure out the exact convoluted specific mechanism right now, it's too much of an interruption to what's going on so this is how it is now" is completely appropriate. I have seen games come to a screeching halt because a player is not willing to accept how the DM handles a minor rule call in the middle of combat. The more other players there are the more important it for a player not to do this. It is no fun to sit around for 20 minutes watching an argument when you are waiting for your turn in a big combat.
As a roleplaying game, bad things can happen to your character. yes a PC may be screwed by not getting to use an official complex rule, but given a choice between good story at the moment and playing by exactly the official rules, I'd suggest the DM go with story every time.
) incompetence.
