Dms, dont you wish

[DragonLancer]

As a player, I'd be the one cracking open the PH if the DM rules in a way I think to be contrary to the rules. If it turns out to be true, I point this out to the DM, who can either change the rule however he likes or use the rule as written. For me, it's all about consistency. Either the rule in the book, or the DM's custom rule, I like to know that it's going to be the same over the course of the game, and to personally know how it works.

The DM has made a call for this situation, don't argue with him or try and point rules out. Do so after the game. What the DM says goes.

 

[Belen]

I do wish there was a more rules lite version. If anything I wish I could make a rules calling without some player flipping through his PHB and poking his grubby little finger at some rule that disputes my claim. If I don't give in then I look like I am cheating but if I do cave in then I look like I have no backbone and I am letting the rules run my game. I hate having every little situation spelled out... give me a little freedom any day.

Amen, brother! It's entirely too annoying to have to stop the game in order to look up some esoteric rule. I do not mind if someone wants to come to me after the session and talk about how my ruling may have contradicted the "rules." Yet, I have a huge problem with stopping the flow of the game, just to find some rule that gets used once a year.

It causes too much bickering in a gaming group, especially if the rule is not concrete and needs interpretation, then we have people debating the darn thing to death.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Dont you wish(No funny remarks about a Wish spell are to be in this thread ) that there were not so much rules. And that more could just be left up to judgement calls, that your players did not argue about you with.

Absolutely not.

In my opinion, a comprehensive system can only enhance the playing experience, no matter what you want out of the game - unless what you want is "The DM tells a story and the players get to listen, what fun!"

 

[hong]

The DM has made a call for this situation, don't argue with him or try and point rules out. Do so after the game. What the DM says goes.

You know, contrary to popular supposition, your penis will not shrink if you admit to making a mistake while the game is still going.

 

[Whisper72]

You know, contrary to popular supposition, your penis will not shrink if you admit to making a mistake while the game is still going.

Are you sure??? What could otherwise have caused it???

 

[Arnwyn]

Dont you wish that there were not so much rules. And that more could just be left up to judgement calls,

No, certainly not. My players and I value consistency. I played previous editions, and when something came up that a rule didn't cover, we made a rule and recorded it for future reference (thus adding - wait for it - a new rule). Thus, if there "were not so much rules", I'd be making new ones anyways. 3e nicely codifies things and makes them readily available for the players.

that your players did not argue about you with.

Strangely enough, with consistent, readily available, and easily referenced rules, the number of arguments during my game has dwindled to almost zero. How 'bout that?

With 3e, I cannot possibly fathom how a large number of rules arguments (not play-style arguments, which is an entirely different animal) can possibly occur, unless the DM is just changing rules on the fly and not bothering to inform the players (either that, or I've just bullied all my players into meek submission of my absolute authority). Either way, I win!

 

[Arnwyn]

My players are obseesive about AOOs and when the mage wants to cast fireball it is all about counting squares which takes up time, or him taking forever to decide what to do.

As others have mentioned, this is more a player problem than a rules problem. Simply don't allow the counting of squares - when it's the mage's turn, he goes or you pass him by. Make the goob count squares in his head during the other players' turns... demand at least a minimum level of competence. (This is what my group does, and it works great.)

 

[rogueattorney]

Dont you wish(No funny remarks about a Wish spell are to be in this thread ) that there were not so much rules. And that more could just be left up to judgement calls, that your players did not argue about you with. I ahve never played any other edition but 3.0. But I wish there was a Rules-lite version of D&D. It is more like my players run the game than I do.

I really agree with you. I won't DM 3.x because of the rules bloat. I just don't want to deal with it. If you want a rules-lite version of D&D, get copies of the old Basic and Expert rules. All the rules you need in about 100 pages. They're easily available for download from svgames or rpgnow and also quite cheap on ebay.

R.A.

 

[Frost]

It's unfair simply to leave it in DM hands.

I have to admit, I couldn't disagree more. To me, "DM" is the same as "judge" or "refree," i.e., the DM makes the call. Football players don't use the rules to hold sway over the refrees, nor should D&D players do so with DMs. It seems that some folks (both players and DMs) forget that D&D is not an adversarial game, i.e., the DM is not competing with the players.

 

[Ourph]

Either the rule in the book, or the DM's custom rule, I like to know that it's going to be the same over the course of the game, and to personally know how it works.

This attitude bothers me as a DM. In some cases, the players don't need to know how the rules work, they just need to tell the DM what actions their character is taking, roll the dice the DM tells them to and listen to the results.