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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 8161669" data-attributes="member: 20564">Fair enough.  I just find there are times when there needs to be a decisions taken.  Be it a disagreement between the DM and some backstory, or something that happens during a session and all of the others are waiting, or the DM wanting to run classic Dark Sun and a player wanting to play a triton paladin.Ah, I think I have the example. Wizards publishes the Sage Advice compendium, questions that have come up where they have asked for official clarification on the rules, and the rules have been considered ambiguous enough that they felt the need to clarify it officially. (The Sage Advice feed has a lot more questions - the compendium is the only official, and it's curated to ones that are legitimately unclear.)So, we have documented cases where a players and DMs are looking for clarifications.  Is it a leap to believe that some of those clarifications could not have been resolved by a  compromise at the table?  Some of these can definitely be life-or-death, such as the one about what happens if a wild shaped druid is disintegrated down to 0 HPs.  Since we know these are real questions that have come up, can you entertain the possibility that a DM reading it one way and a player reading it the other with their character's life on the line may not be able to find a compromise?EDIT:  Just to give context, I'm for compromise first, and think the DM only has the authority the players give him - if multiple players disagree then maybe that's not a good match.  I just think that there are times humans will not be able to find an acceptable compromise even when acting in good faith, and being able to move forward is a good thing.</blockquote>

Verification