Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 4884416" data-attributes="member: 307">Sure, as I said before, house rules are fine, and I don't have any problem with them. I use them often when I DM. But they need to be outlined ahead of time and agreed upon by everyone, or at least eveyone needs to get a chance to agree or decide the game isn't for them.But that's not what happened in the situation being complained about, and not what many in this thread have advocated. They have advocated the idea that the DM should just rule however he feels, and any player who complains about that has "entitlement issues" because they have dared to challenge the perrogative of the DM to screw around with them at all times.I'm not failing to see that. I'm noting that this is not what has happened in the situation at hand. It is also not what those who's comments I have commented upon have advocated. They have advocated that the DM should change things at will, in the interest of "fun", and that players who think that is a problem are somehow whining complainers with entitlement issues. (Because back in the day, apparently, being a jerk of a DM was the way things were supposed to be - on the other hand, in my "back in the day" DMs who acted like that ended up by themselves in short order).If the DM doesn't abide by the rules of the game, and it is okay for him to do so, why is he not a "cheating prick", but the player who decides what is good for the goose is good for the gander is a "cheating prick"?So now the changes in the rules are just to provide fun? But if the players are complaining about the changes, are the changes really fun? Think about that for a bit.Or, in my case, someone who spends about 90% of his game time DMing. Recalibrate your answers with than in mind.</blockquote>

Verification