Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 3865599" data-attributes="member: 7883">Well, I think that some of the discussions can be valid.  It *is* somewhat rules-lawyering.  One of the players is a DM in another game, so he tends to question me on rules interpretations in game.  That's a little frustrating.  However, I want to be fair, so I'm willing to accept it to a degree, as long as it's not too disruptive, and isn't an issue with me not agreeing with a rule.He's not trying to manipulate the rules to his favour....seems like he's just trying to make sure they're applied fairly, as they are in the books.....whereas I haven't played or run a game in months, so I'm a little rusty, and I think I'm used to being a little more "fast and loose" with the rules than he is....my personal belief is not to let rules stand in the way of a good story, and I'm not really used to following them 100%.This I can accept as something where I'm just going to have to be aware of our differences, and try to be careful.The other aspect though, is a habit with calling the game world into question.  We're trying Midnight, and I know the players are more used to regular core settings from WotC.  So it seems like every game, we get into discussions regarding whether this or that is fair within the game.  Is it fair to give less items?  Is the Channeler class fair, since it will be "weaker" than the other characters, and consequently less fun to play, which is bad in the game.  I've pointed out that many players I've talked to on EN World and other sites maintain that the Channeler isn't as weak as it appears on paper, and let's at least try it before we throw out the idea.  Opening a discussion about how the game is about a genocide etc.....I know it is....but it's also about how the characters deal with it.Two sessions ago, the players had their dice rolling low....brutally.  Mine were rolling high.  Consequently, a small encounter ended up being more deadly than intended.  But when they're rolling 6's, and I'm rolling 20's, that's going to result in skewed difficulty in an encounter.  Which is part of the game.  Then one of the players says something like "call it, TPK", and the encounter isn't even done.  And they did end up surviving.  But I'm just wanting to say "play it.  See what happens, don't just give up because you didn't have a cakewalk".I've tried to be open about changes, about the campaign, etc.  I just don't want to be getting into these discussions/disputes in the middle of the game......afterwards, by e-mail, no problem.I've managed to take some of the discussions out of game to e-mail...things like rules changes I've thought of implementing....and I'm fine with discussing them out of game.  It would be nice if I could get a willingness to try things which lie outside of the core.  Part of this is likely simply that some players are devoted to the game "as is", whereas I see a lot of flaws with core 3E, and frankly, things that I wish hadn't been done, and I'm willing to try experimenting.Maybe it's just different players.  These ones are more "hardcore" than what I'm used to.  I think I mesh better with two of them, and I'm having more difficulty finding the balance point with the other two.  I want to make the game work, particularly since they're all friends with each other.  I don't want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".  With my last group, most of the players were pretty much willing to go along, as long as it was a good story, and they had fun, and 100% literal readings of the rules weren't as important.  And that could be part of the problem....if they're used to literal interpretations of the rules, then maybe I come across as unfair.  I don't know..So, at least from my perspective, that's what I've been feeling.  I'm hoping someone else might have run into a similar situation, and have advice about how to manage it.Banshee</blockquote>

Verification