Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9000867" data-attributes="member: 6801845">When I DM I make rulings during the game if necessary but follow up with a &quot;Let's discuss it after the game&quot;.&nbsp; There are, of course, exceptions if I'm just misunderstanding something.&nbsp; It's about speed of play and flow, 99% of the time it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things and I'd rather the game keeps flowing (whether I'm the DM or player) than to figure out the &quot;correct&quot; answer.When it comes to house rules, most of mine are beneficial to the players.&nbsp; I do listen to feedback and try to get consensus but I'm the only one that has to be happy with the direction of the game.&nbsp; I've never had anyone quit because of a ruling, I can't even remember having a significant disagreement.&nbsp; Had a minor disagreement on the idea that heat metal needed to be tweaked*, but it was a two-minute discussion and we moved on.My experience is that the hypothetical control freak DM either doesn't exist or isn't a DM for long.&nbsp; If you want to vote on everything, go for it.&nbsp; I don't think it's necessary, I play with (mostly) mature adults.&nbsp; If a DM has house rules or consistently makes calls I don't like I'll discuss it with them.&nbsp; If it persists, I'll find another game.&nbsp; No DM is for everyone.*This came up fairly early in my DMing 5E, I think auto-perma-disadvantage on anyone wearing armor is unbalanced for the spell level.&nbsp; I was always holding back from using it on the PCs because I thought it was stupid, but it was a go-to spell for the bard.&nbsp; I changed the rule so that if it's cast on armor it does damage, no disadvantage after the first round. Still powerful, no longer the first spell cast every combat with a bad guy in armor.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 9000867, member: 6801845"] When I DM I make rulings during the game if necessary but follow up with a "Let's discuss it after the game". There are, of course, exceptions if I'm just misunderstanding something. It's about speed of play and flow, 99% of the time it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things and I'd rather the game keeps flowing (whether I'm the DM or player) than to figure out the "correct" answer. When it comes to house rules, most of mine are beneficial to the players. I do listen to feedback and try to get consensus but I'm the only one that [I]has to be [/I]happy with the direction of the game. I've never had anyone quit because of a ruling, I can't even remember having a significant disagreement. Had a minor disagreement on the idea that heat metal needed to be tweaked*, but it was a two-minute discussion and we moved on. My experience is that the hypothetical control freak DM either doesn't exist or isn't a DM for long. If you want to vote on everything, go for it. I don't think it's necessary, I play with (mostly) mature adults. If a DM has house rules or consistently makes calls I don't like I'll discuss it with them. If it persists, I'll find another game. No DM is for everyone. [I]*This came up fairly early in my DMing 5E, I think auto-perma-disadvantage on anyone wearing armor is unbalanced for the spell level. [I]I was always holding back from using it on the PCs because I thought it was stupid, but it was a go-to spell for the bard. [/I]I changed the rule so that if it's cast on armor it does damage, no disadvantage after the first round. Still powerful, no longer the first spell cast every combat with a bad guy in armor.[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification