Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark Hope" data-source="post: 3015029" data-attributes="member: 27051">I agree with pretty much most of the above points.  This, though, deserves some comment, imho:Rules-lawyering is a bad thing and should be avoided and quashed where it appears.  The other side of the coin, however, is the need for a certain amount of consistency.  Players have certain expectations when they play a game, and an understanding of the rules is one of these.  House-rules are fine (I use them myself) but they need to be announced before play starts.  Ad-hoc decisions are fine, but they need to have some consistency and happen for some reason other than just for the sake of making ad-hoc rulings.  A game where DM whim predominates is as bad as a game where the rules are slavishly followed in every instance.I've played every edition of the game and one thing that I appreciate about 3e is that it reduces the need for ad-hoc judgment calls.  I'd rather put my energy into other things (like pacing, plot, characterisation, thrills, spills and chills) rather than into remembering how I last handled grappling a giant octopus while balancing on a seaweed-slick mast afloat on a stormy sea.  One of the advantages of a tight rules-set is that it quickly fades into the background, allowing for the real meat of gaming to predominate.</blockquote>