Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Telas" data-source="post: 2236194" data-attributes="member: 20934">I think this argument has reached the critical mass stage, where arguing any point your opponent makes is somehow justified.&nbsp;&nbsp; :\ Storm Raven:&nbsp; You may want to know that Celebrim referred earlier to a massive house rule document that he does distribute to his players.&nbsp; This may have gotten lost in the suffle, and may explain the &quot;straw man&quot; comments.The whole &quot;if you change it, it's not D&amp;D&quot; is just silly.&nbsp; I don't know of a game without house rules or the need for on-the-fly rules interpretation.&nbsp; The DM has the right to reinterpret anything at anytime. No, it's not considerate or acceptable to do so, especially if it screws over a character, but it's his right.&nbsp; All this talk of an 'implied social contract' is sophomoric and ridiculous.&nbsp; Contracts give rights; players should indeed have a certain level of expectation, but they can't exactly sue or argue over it.&nbsp; Again: There's no law against bad DMing.&nbsp; Players hold no trump card in arguments with the DM.&nbsp; There's no guarantee that the RAW will be followed.&nbsp; There is, however, the option of politely discussing the matter afterwards or finding another table.&nbsp; I say this as a player whose character almost died when the DM interpreted a rule in midstream.&nbsp; I disagree with his interpretation, and mentioned it politely at the time.&nbsp; He overruled, and we talked about it afterwards.&nbsp; I still disagree with him, but it's his game.Finally, this is not a defense of the Killer DM or DMing as a power trip.&nbsp; It's his game, his rules, his interpretation.&nbsp; The DM is in charge of the table.&nbsp; If he's smart, he'll listen to the players and try to pitch the game to them, but the players do not have any &quot;right&quot; to challenge the DM on anything.Telas</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Telas, post: 2236194, member: 20934"] I think this argument has reached the critical mass stage, where arguing any point your opponent makes is somehow justified. :\ [B]Storm Raven:[/B] You may want to know that Celebrim referred earlier to a massive house rule document that he [I]does [/I]distribute to his players. This may have gotten lost in the suffle, and may explain the "straw man" comments. The whole "if you change it, it's not D&D" is just silly. I don't know of a game without house rules or the need for on-the-fly rules interpretation. [B]The DM has the right to reinterpret anything at anytime. [/B] No, it's not considerate or acceptable to do so, especially if it screws over a character, but it's his right. All this talk of an 'implied social contract' is sophomoric and ridiculous. Contracts give rights; players should indeed have a certain level of expectation, but they can't exactly sue or argue over it. Again: There's no law against bad DMing. Players hold no trump card in arguments with the DM. There's no guarantee that the RAW will be followed. There is, however, the option of politely discussing the matter afterwards or finding another table. I say this as a player whose character almost died when the DM interpreted a rule in midstream. I disagree with his interpretation, and mentioned it politely at the time. He overruled, and we talked about it afterwards. I still disagree with him, but it's his game. Finally, this is not a defense of the Killer DM or DMing as a power trip. It's his game, his rules, his interpretation. The DM is in charge of the table. If he's smart, he'll listen to the players and try to pitch the game to them, but the players do not have any "right" to challenge the DM on anything. Telas [/QUOTE]

Verification