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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7379449" data-attributes="member: 5100">I'll agree with this, too. I'd say I'm better than average, but that doesn't mean I always get it right the first time. Even the pros play test stuff.I didn't have a 3" binder, but I did use one of those legal accordion folders and I'm pretty sure my stack of house/setting rules was thicker than the 1E DMG. As I moved beyond AD&D, those eventually became outdated to the point I only have the pure fluff material around, anymore.I tried running 3E/3.5E as straight-up RAW. The system strongly encourages it and the couple times I did tweak things -- even with Unearthed Arcana content -- it was clear just how tightly that particular system was wound. Whether this is a feature or bug probably depends on perspective, but I would definitely count it as a bug and it was one of the things I grew to despise about the system. It's also a cultural contribution that has lasted beyond the run of that system and which I definitely consider as a negative. I don't have any beef with tables that want to play RAW and I've had the same sort of WTF moments with crazy GMs as many folks. I do think it's appropriate, however, for a GM to make rules for a variety of reasons.I do think that, when and how much it's okay to change needs to be a group/table social contract, though. As you say, you probably wouldn't have as much fun at [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] or my tables. Likewise, I wouldn't do as well in a 3.5 or Pathfinder game that was straight RAW. The "default mode" has shifted, over the years, though. AD&D kinda made the implicit assumption that each GM would have free reign to run their table as they saw fit. Gygax made some comments about how far you could push it and still legitimately claim to be playing D&D, but he certainly didn't argue that the GM had the right to run the table. The d20/3.5 era was the opposite. There was an almost explicit push towards making sure the GM had a hard time changing rules or even making on-the-fly rulings without a lot of thought and even specific permission from the players.Personally, I think there's a reasonable middle ground and that 5E is closer to it that any prior edition. The GM doesn't get to be whimsical in approach to the rules, but he needs the authority that comes with the responsibility of his role at the table. Don't change rules just to change them or that try to force the rest of the group to play a game only you like. On the other hand, it's your job to keep things moving. A good GM should not just know the RAW, but the underlying principles to why the rules behave that way. Once you've got that, you have the freedom to make rulings during play. You also have the option to intentionally deviate from RAW to encourage a certain flavor or play style. But... your job is also to make sure the rest of the table has fun, not push them around. A GM shouldn't have to run every ruling or house rule by the entire group or "put it to committee", but you should understand what sort of changes are going to make folks uncomfortable and respect those boundaries.As my lifestyle and time availability has changed, this means that I'm currently more in a mode of rules-light systems that allow me to use my experience to keep the game moving and fun without having to worry about minutiae that no one else has time to read, either. We're playing RPGs because we've always loved them, but we know we don't have the time we used to. Actually, most of my players are only reading the parts of the PHB that directly apply to their characters. They rely on me to keep things running and let them know when an appropriate UA article comes out (and even print it out for them, most of the time).</blockquote>

Verification