Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6213090" data-attributes="member: 4937">When the players don't know the rules and don't expect to know the rules, the DM is placed in a very high trust position by default.  Effectively, he really can't get it wrong because no one knows what right is, and rules arguments seldom break out except when the ruling unexpectedly puts the PC in a very bad position, with the player then balking, "Are you sure that is right?  That can't be right."  I had that situation occur in the very first session of my current game.  The PC got put down to 1 hit point, and since he was used to 3e rules, he tried to take an evade action.  Under my rules, differing from standard 3e, this doesn't work.  When I told him, he balked.  I had to explain him the logic of my rules, which at that time he didn't trust (or me), and explain what the system expects you to do in this situation.  (The short of it is that I have a quasi-wound track system, with a 'wounded' condition reached before 'dying', and that once you are grievously wounded it's too late to try to run away.)  He's now perfectly cool with it, but the time his character was about to die (first session) and he wasn't.   With much less knowledge of regular 3e, my other players have usually done less vociferous rules arguing than he has on occasion.This occurs irrespective of how many rules that there actually are.  In fact, this is an excellent example of why rules arguing is independent of the number of rules.  In this case, the players don't really know if the system is rules heavy or rules light.</blockquote>

Verification