Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BroccoliRage" data-source="post: 3091032" data-attributes="member: 38402">Beautiful, Frank. Just beautiful.See, the player's aren't the ones who should be arguing the rules. The player's don't have a say in the ref's rulings. The 3e-raised kids that play in my AD&amp;D game every week have to be reminded of this occasionally, as they think that they know everythign about the system that I do as DM, and they get mad when I don't allow access of the DMG to them. Sorry, that's how it is. There are no rules arguments because all of my rulings as DM are FINAL. No if's, and's, or but's. Perhaps this is written in the 3e DMG and PHB, but most of the players of the current edition who sit at my table seem very shocked when I'm not willing to discuss my rulings outside of an in-game justification. Yet, they keep returning, so I must be doing something right. It's my world. The player is free to move about and interact with it in any way he wishes, but it is I and I alone who determines who it reacts and interacts with him. I'm postive that there are many 3e DM's who think and act the same way, but the kids who need to be reminded of this from time to time in my weekly group are those who learned RPG's from 3e. I don't think any EDITION fosters rules arguments per se, I think DM's do. I have noticed a larger percentage of rules lawyers playing 3e, but I believe that is only because it is the most readily accessible edition. A breeding ground for rules arguments is not one of the flaws I find in 3e. I do, however, think that a stronger emphasis on the DM as final arbiter should be stressed in the books. If anything like Frank's quote exists in the core rulebooks, I missed it. I haven't read the current edition's core books in about 3 or 4 years.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BroccoliRage, post: 3091032, member: 38402"] Beautiful, Frank. Just beautiful. See, the player's aren't the ones who should be arguing the rules. The player's don't have a say in the ref's rulings. The 3e-raised kids that play in my AD&D game every week have to be reminded of this occasionally, as they think that they know everythign about the system that I do as DM, and they get mad when I don't allow access of the DMG to them. Sorry, that's how it is. There are no rules arguments because all of my rulings as DM are FINAL. No if's, and's, or but's. Perhaps this is written in the 3e DMG and PHB, but most of the players of the current edition who sit at my table seem very shocked when I'm not willing to discuss my rulings outside of an in-game justification. Yet, they keep returning, so I must be doing something right. It's my world. The player is free to move about and interact with it in any way he wishes, but it is I and I alone who determines who it reacts and interacts with him. I'm postive that there are many 3e DM's who think and act the same way, but the kids who need to be reminded of this from time to time in my weekly group are those who learned RPG's from 3e. I don't think any EDITION fosters rules arguments per se, I think DM's do. I have noticed a larger percentage of rules lawyers playing 3e, but I believe that is only because it is the most readily accessible edition. A breeding ground for rules arguments is not one of the flaws I find in 3e. I do, however, think that a stronger emphasis on the DM as final arbiter should be stressed in the books. If anything like Frank's quote exists in the core rulebooks, I missed it. I haven't read the current edition's core books in about 3 or 4 years. [/QUOTE]

Verification