Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8394641" data-attributes="member: 23751">Right now I'm arguing what RAW gives the DM.&nbsp; In 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e, the DM has the power to change rules on the fly.&nbsp; That as written is absolute power.&nbsp; 3e was a bit different in that it was also very rules heavy and spelled out(or tried to) every little thing, so some players were a bit more resistant to DMs changing things.&nbsp; I excluded 4e since I really don't know that edition well enough to comment.When it comes to how I run my personal game, I take the players and their desires into consideration.&nbsp; For the 5e campaign I just started I had a list of 14 or so new house rules I wanted to try out.&nbsp; I gave the list to the players and had them vote on them.&nbsp; Anything that got a majority or unanimous vote was in.&nbsp; If it got less than half it was out.&nbsp; If it was a 2-2 tie, I broke the tie.&nbsp; If I didn't really care about the rule and just put it out there for the players, I voted against it and the rule wasn't put in.&nbsp; If I did care about it, I voted for it and it was added.&nbsp; ONE rule was voted down by the players and then enacted by me anyway.&nbsp; It was the rule that said that creatures resistant or immune to non-magical weapons could not be hurt by a magical weapon without a plus.&nbsp; Their reasoning was that it was an added complication to the game.&nbsp; My reason for enacting it anyway was that without that rule, they weren't going to be finding little or no magical weapons.&nbsp; In the last campaign I ran I gave out some +1 weapons and the PCs ran roughshod over creatures that were intended to be more of a challenge due to their resistances.&nbsp; It unbalanced those fights and a very large number of creatures are balanced around that mechanic.&nbsp; I let them know that this way they can still find cool magic weapons.&nbsp; They understood my reasoning and that was the end of it.My rather long winded point is that the ultimate authority is there for me to use, but it should not be used in that manner without good reason and/or without taking the players into consideration.&nbsp; And in my experience, the vast majority of DMs understand this and don't abuse that power.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 8394641, member: 23751"] Right now I'm arguing what RAW gives the DM. In 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e, the DM has the power to change rules on the fly. That as written is absolute power. 3e was a bit different in that it was also very rules heavy and spelled out(or tried to) every little thing, so some players were a bit more resistant to DMs changing things. I excluded 4e since I really don't know that edition well enough to comment. When it comes to how I run my personal game, I take the players and their desires into consideration. For the 5e campaign I just started I had a list of 14 or so new house rules I wanted to try out. I gave the list to the players and had them vote on them. Anything that got a majority or unanimous vote was in. If it got less than half it was out. If it was a 2-2 tie, I broke the tie. If I didn't really care about the rule and just put it out there for the players, I voted against it and the rule wasn't put in. If I did care about it, I voted for it and it was added. ONE rule was voted down by the players and then enacted by me anyway. It was the rule that said that creatures resistant or immune to non-magical weapons could not be hurt by a magical weapon without a plus. Their reasoning was that it was an added complication to the game. My reason for enacting it anyway was that without that rule, they weren't going to be finding little or no magical weapons. In the last campaign I ran I gave out some +1 weapons and the PCs ran roughshod over creatures that were intended to be more of a challenge due to their resistances. It unbalanced those fights and a very large number of creatures are balanced around that mechanic. I let them know that this way they can still find cool magic weapons. They understood my reasoning and that was the end of it. My rather long winded point is that the ultimate authority is there for me to use, but it should not be used in that manner without good reason and/or without taking the players into consideration. And in my experience, the vast majority of DMs understand this and don't abuse that power. [/QUOTE]

Verification