Dms, dont you wish

[Orius]

Well, I started playing with AD&D2e, and a lot of the rules were either so confusing, so poorly written, or so esoteric that we ended up making up more than half of it on the spot anyway, which was quite enjoyable in its own way, but a bit difficult at moments, and really unbalanced as some of our players got really huge benefits (the spellcasters) while others fell behind in terms of comparitive power.

Same here. When 2e first came out the assumtion at TSR was that players would start with Basic, then move up to AD&D. But almost halfway through 2e's run, at about the same time I started playing, Basic faded into obscurity. So the 2e books, particularly the DMG, was written with the assumption that the reader knew how to wing it. That's why I don't really have a problem with the 3e rules set up. Granted it can be pretty overbearing sometimes espeically in combat concerning grids, but if you don't use minis, it's fairly easy to just ignore squares and grids and wing it.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

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.

I'm of the opinion that players should always know all the rules pertaining to their character's abilities - and I mean that sentence both ways, since players who don't know the rules that govern their PC's capabilities frustrate me as a fellow player, much less as a DM.

I think it's absolutely reasonable to insist that players not attempt to persuade the DM with metagame arguments - I've seen people say dumb things like "I'm pretty sure a guardroom full of unsuspecting orcs would be louder than you seem to be assuming, so my character should know whether or not this is the guardroom door he's listening at." That kind of statement ignores a whole range of DM knowledge about the situation - whether or not there are multiple rooms with noisy inhabitants which could be mistaken for the guardroom, whether or not the guards are rowdy, whether or not the guards are as unaware as the player assumes - and there's no place for it in the game as far as I am concerned.

More realistically, players who demand to know the source of an NPC's ability to survive their PC's assault - "How could he make that save? What level is he? He can't possibly have a modifier big enough!" - are far more common, and perhaps even more irritating. The DM can have secrets, and players should accept it when she does.

To me, though, the idea that the players of a game should be kept ignorant of the rules affecting their PCs' abilities smacks of the worst kind of "GM = God" thinking from the early days of the hobby.

 

[DragonLancer]

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

So they tell me. But thats not what I am saying. DM's can make mistakes, but don't slow the game down pointing everything out. The situation may not work out as you think because theres situational modifiers (as an example) that you don't know about. Whatever the cause, go with it till after the game, then check with the DM.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

I'm of the opinion that players should always know all the rules pertaining to their character's abilities - and I mean that sentence both ways, since players who don't know the rules that govern their PC's capabilities frustrate me as a fellow player, much less as a DM.

I think it's absolutely reasonable to insist that players not attempt to persuade the DM with metagame arguments - I've seen people say dumb things like "I'm pretty sure a guardroom full of unsuspecting orcs would be louder than you seem to be assuming, so my character should know whether or not this is the guardroom door he's listening at." That kind of statement ignores a whole range of DM knowledge about the situation - whether or not there are multiple rooms with noisy inhabitants which could be mistaken for the guardroom, whether or not the guards are rowdy, whether or not the guards are as unaware as the player assumes - and there's no place for it in the game as far as I am concerned.

More realistically, players who demand to know the source of an NPC's ability to survive their PC's assault - "How could he make that save? What level is he? He can't possibly have a modifier big enough!" - are far more common, and perhaps even more irritating. The DM can have secrets, and players should accept it when she does.

To me, though, the idea that the players of a game should be kept ignorant of the rules affecting their PCs' abilities smacks of the worst kind of "GM = God" thinking from the early days of the hobby.

This is my main problem with mine, they freak out when an enemy hits them for a large amount, or saves against something that they thought would work.

 

[hong]

So they tell me. But thats not what I am saying. DM's can make mistakes, but don't slow the game down pointing everything out.

Oh, poppycock. Noone said anything about pointing "everything" out. But a DM who has a hardon for never being countermanded is a DM with an ego problem.

The situation may not work out as you think because theres situational modifiers (as an example) that you don't know about. Whatever the cause, go with it till after the game, then check with the DM.

Contrary to popular supposition, situational modifiers do not provide carte blanche to get careless.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

This is my main problem with mine, they freak out when an enemy hits them for a large amount, or saves against something that they thought would work.

You need to take their hand and reassure them that they'll be okay, it's just bad luck on their part, just try again and they're sure to succeed this time . . . hahaha.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

You need to take their hand and reassure them that they'll be okay, it's just bad luck on their part, just try again and they're sure to succeed this time . . . hahaha.

I know, I just get "You're not listening" thrown at me until they get their way. Alas, such is the peril of being DM for those who think "realsim" is the most important thing in the game.

 

[DragonLancer]

Oh, poppycock. Noone said anything about pointing "everything" out. But a DM who has a hardon for never being countermanded is a DM with an ego problem.

Contrary to popular supposition, situational modifiers do not provide carte blanche to get careless.

Look, all I am saying is that the DM has made a calling and you as the player should not be correcting him on such during the game. Its not an ego issue, and I have no idea where you have got that idea from.

 

[hong]

Look, all I am saying is that the DM has made a calling and you as the player should not be correcting him on such during the game.

Why ever not? Leaving everything until the session is over just means more potential for massive screwage to be retconned.

 

[Camarath]

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!

Some people can not be bothered to actually read and remember the rules. I played with a DM who after 3 years of running 3e honestly believed that entering rather then leaving a threanted square provoked an AoO. He also had a tendency to make rule calls on the fly based on his own sense of "realsim" (lol). That game died after my brother and I left the game because the random and inconsistent "common sense" rulings negated most of our charcter's abilities (and fun).