Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9347423" data-attributes="member: 29398">Yes, and most of us would almost certainly do just that.And yet, when we do that we as DMs are removing from the players a power (however minor) that the game rules flat-out state they should own.My point - and I'm making it not for the first time here - is that putting the DM in the position of having to remove or deny player-side powers in order to make the game work is the wrong way to design a D&amp;D game.&nbsp; The rules should be written much more harshly, with options for the DM to relax them as desired, thus making the DM look like the good guy when she does so and so furthering harmony at the table.You'd think, after all that playtesting they did..... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Or they're simply players doing what players are supposed to do: advocate for their characters.Sometimes that advocacy expressly includes taking and holding a stand on rules issues where - as in this case - the rule is clearly worded in their favour.&nbsp; It's then, sadly, on the DM to either accept the player's position or to say &quot;no&quot; and rewrite the rule.Cool idea for one campaign - I like it! - but hard to justify repeating for every character in every campaign who has that background.And that's the other thing: what happens once sets precedent for it happening again whenever the same circumstances arise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9347423, member: 29398"] Yes, and most of us would almost certainly do just that. And yet, when we do that we as DMs are removing from the players a power (however minor) that the game rules flat-out state they should own. My point - and I'm making it not for the first time here - is that putting the DM in the position of having to remove or deny player-side powers in order to make the game work is [I]the wrong way to design a D&D game[/I]. The rules should be written much more harshly, with options for the DM to relax them as desired, thus making the DM look like the good guy when she does so and so furthering harmony at the table. You'd think, after all that playtesting they did..... :) Or they're simply players doing what players are supposed to do: advocate for their characters. Sometimes that advocacy expressly includes taking and holding a stand on rules issues where - as in this case - the rule is clearly worded in their favour. It's then, sadly, on the DM to either accept the player's position or to say "no" and rewrite the rule. Cool idea for one campaign - I like it! - but hard to justify repeating for every character in every campaign who has that background. And that's the other thing: what happens once sets precedent for it happening again whenever the same circumstances arise. [/QUOTE]

Verification