Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6370044" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya.&nbsp;Sorry Paraxis, I'm going to also &quot;rule against you&quot;. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;I've been doing this shtick (DM'ing) for three and a half decades, give or take a year, and one thing that I've seen over those long years is desire by &quot;game designers&quot; to try and codify everything. This has only made the play of the game, IMO, significantly worse. I've been lucky enough to generally have the same players for a decade or three, and so our tastes are known and accepted at the table. I have run one-offs for other people as well. The thing I've noticed happening more and more as rules systems become more &quot;codified&quot; (re: 3.x onward), is that I see more negative emotions at the table.&nbsp; What I mean by negative emotions is simply that; the player comes in with some expectation....like, he brings his &quot;Ultimate Book of the Arcane&quot; (or whatever), and he expects to be able to use it. I may give it the once-over, and if I don't like what I see, it's generally &quot;Nope, sorry. I don't own that and am not likely to buy it. I don't think it fits in with my Greyhawk campaign anyway&quot;. At that exact moment I've become a &quot;bad/controlling/evil/unfair DM&quot;. Now, that's a whole optional book, so one may overlook that as a player foible. However, I've also had players get outright angry when I say &quot;The guard is unconvinced. He's fanatically loyal to his church, and he's not going to just look the other way because you rolled good on your Diplomacy check....which I didn't ask for....&quot;. I get all the normal stuff: &quot;You're not playing by the rules!&quot;, &quot;You have to at least consider my roll of 29!&quot;, &quot;You have no idea how this skill works, do you?!&quot;, etc. All because it made no sense in the game situation and circumstance...so I didn't treat the roll as an instant &quot;I'm your bestest friend now!&quot; thing.&nbsp; By having books upon books upon books to &quot;codify&quot; the rules, it bogs the running of a game (and the enjoyment of doing it!) down to a level that really isn't worth the effort, IMHO. It also only takes one &quot;clarification&quot; on a supposedly vague rule to shanghai a session for a good 10 to 15 minutes as the player (it's usually a player nowadays, sorry) flips open a book to point out that this is the &quot;official way it's supposed to be done now&quot;. As if some other DM's rulings are somehow better simply because his rulings got printed in a book. &gt;<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f635.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="o_O" title="Er... what?&nbsp; &nbsp; o_O"&nbsp; data-smilie="12"data-shortname="o_O" />&lt;&nbsp; Anyway, what I would have no problem with is a sort of &quot;Sages Corner&quot; thing (if you're too young to remember that, it was a little section in Dragon magazine that the game designers would speak up on how they would handle a particular situation or rule. I'd welcome it...as long as there were always at least two different suggestions/rulings. I don't think that 5e would benefit from that sort of thinking...&quot;we're right, you're wrong...do it our way if you know what's good for you&quot;. Right now they have a good momentum going. One where the DM is an integral part of the running of a game....and not just &quot;the guy rolling for monsters&quot; behind the screen.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 6370044, member: 45197"] Hiya. Sorry Paraxis, I'm going to also "rule against you". ;) I've been doing this shtick (DM'ing) for three and a half decades, give or take a year, and one thing that I've seen over those long years is desire by "game designers" to try and codify everything. This has only made the play of the game, IMO, [I]significantly worse.[/I] I've been lucky enough to generally have the same players for a decade or three, and so our tastes are known and accepted at the table. I have run one-offs for other people as well. The thing I've noticed happening more and more as rules systems become more "codified" (re: 3.x onward), is that I see more negative emotions at the table. What I mean by negative emotions is simply that; the player comes in with some expectation....like, he brings his "[I]Ultimate Book of the Arcane[/I]" (or whatever), and he [B]expects[/B] to be able to use it. I may give it the once-over, and if I don't like what I see, it's generally "Nope, sorry. I don't own that and am not likely to buy it. I don't think it fits in with my Greyhawk campaign anyway". At that exact moment I've become a "bad/controlling/evil/unfair DM". Now, that's a whole optional book, so one may overlook that as a player foible. However, I've also had players get outright angry when I say "The guard is unconvinced. He's fanatically loyal to his church, and he's not going to just look the other way because you rolled good on your Diplomacy check....which I didn't ask for....". I get all the normal stuff: "You're not playing by the rules!", "You have to at least consider my roll of 29!", "You have no idea how this skill works, do you?!", etc. All because it made [I]no[/I] sense in the game situation and circumstance...so I didn't treat the roll as an instant "I'm your bestest friend now!" thing. By having books upon books upon books to "codify" the rules, it bogs the running of a game (and the enjoyment of doing it!) down to a level that really isn't worth the effort, IMHO. It also only takes one "clarification" on a supposedly vague rule to shanghai a session for a good 10 to 15 minutes as the player (it's usually a player nowadays, sorry) flips open a book to point out that this is the "official way it's supposed to be done now". As if some other DM's rulings are somehow better simply because his rulings got printed in a book. >o_O< Anyway, what I would have no problem with is a sort of "Sages Corner" thing (if you're too young to remember that, it was a little section in [I]Dragon[/I] magazine that the game designers would speak up on how they would handle a particular situation or rule. I'd welcome it...as long as there were [I]always[/I] at least [U]two[/U] different suggestions/rulings. I don't think that 5e would benefit from that sort of thinking..."we're right, you're wrong...do it [I]our way[/I] if you know what's good for you". Right now they have a good momentum going. One where the DM is an integral part of the running of a game....and not just "the guy rolling for monsters" behind the screen. ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification