Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2238680" data-attributes="member: 4937">I feel that someone should tell you that randomly putting words in all caps does nothing to strengthen your point.There was a point right?  I realize that its too much to ask for a flame to contain a logical train of thought, but it would be nice if it had a thought.Straight up.  My assertion is that it is not absolutely necessary for the players to know the rules.  That isn't an opinion.  That's provable using a proof by contrapositive.   All I have to do is present one player that played the game and enjoyed it without knowing the rules - we have several examples in this thread alone - and my assertion ceases to be an opinion.  'Not necessary' is a whole lot easier to prove than necessary because necessary requires a proof reducto ad absurdum and you cannot provide that because I have the counter example.Now, you may argue however you like that your way is more fun than my way.  That is an opinion.  You may argue for the moral superiority of your way compared to mine, and that is an opinion.  You may even be right, because just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it isn't true.  But you may also be wrong, and I don't see alot of people backing up thier opinion with anything like logic.Let me ask you this - suppose the PC had been the one with the blink spell and the DM had the magic missiles.  Suppose the PC goes, "Oh crap.  Look, this rule doesn't make sense.  I've got total concealment through at least part of the round.  It's only fair that there be at least some miss chance against those magic missiles."  Does that sort of appeal by a PC sound like something that you've had happen in the last 20 years of gaming?  Now suppose the DM buys the argument as being reasonable, and/or wants to avoid a lengthy debate over something trivial, and/or wants to give the PC a chance to stay alive and says, "Ok, sure.  20% miss chance on the missiles."   Do you have any problems with this scenario?If you don't, and you argue, "No of course not.  Everyone agreed to the rule change through a democratic process.", then my question is how often in the 20 year history of your gaming have you seen a DM say to the PC's, "Oh crap.  Look, this rule doesn't make sense.  I've got total concealment through at least part of the round.  It's only fair that there be at least some miss chance against those magic missiles.", when an NPC is the one suffering from the ruling?  How often have you done that?  How often have you ever seen PC's cut the NPC's some slack, and say, you know that rule just isn't fair?  How often have you ever seen the party overturn a ruling as being too harsh on the NPC's?  It seems to me that what are argueing by of 'democracy' for a game that is in fact actually controlled by the PC's, and that the purpose of the DM in such games is merely wish fulfillment.  You arguing for a game in which the only characters that have a chance at fair break when the rules don't seem quite right are the PC's, and that to me suggests a game which encourages rules lawyering and metagaming.On the other, if you do think that there is something wrong with that, and argue something like, "Heck, no.  I don't put up with that sort of metagaming in my game, the rules are the rules and we stick by the rules no matter what because that's what we all implicitly agreed to when we set down.", then I put forward that I'm not the one running the game with a heavy hand.You can pretend that there is an easy answer to this paradox and that disputes between the DM and player are never over anything substantial because the rules are always clear.  I suggest the best answer is to cut the DM some slack, try to enjoy the game, and not waste time in arguments.  The DM puts in more work than anyone else.  The DM has more responcibility than anyone else.  If a player doesn't show up, the game goes on, but if the DM doesn't show up we go rent a movie.  The DM is in charge of any game that he's running and we're going to show some respect.  And, if it turns out Joe isn't a good DM, then we'll have Bob run the next session.  Then, when Joe is a PC in Bob's game, Joe shows Bob the same level of respect partly because he respects Bob and partly because its the right thing to do.  I just don't think that the game works as well when the players - who can't help but at some level be biased toward protecting the irreplacible things in the game world that belong to them - are granted the same or higher authority to arbritrate the rules as the DM.  I think as the many threads on this forum show, there are always going to be cases that are unclear, unbalanced, uninteresting, or simply aren't covered.  In every one of those cases there are any number of ways to rule that are perfectly valid and people's opinions will differ, and the game just don't work well in those cases by commitee.  Sure some DM's will make better easier to swallow rulings than others, some will be impartial, some will be tactful, and some will be immature, but ultimately it's DM's call and its always the DM's call.  And that's true whether its my table, or I'm a PC at some other DM's table.You see, for all the loud cries that I'm being rude and nasty, ultimately actually I'm the one arguing for civility, and you guys are the ones defending a PC party having a cow over an incident of no consequence.  It doesn't really matter whether the DM made the right call or not.  Being a DM is a tough and it takes alot of work, and any PC that gets in a DM's face over some petty rules issue hasn't spent enough time being a DM and hasn't got alot of manners.  And that goes for no matter how immature the DM has acted.  If he's a real grade A jerk, you still smile and say thanks for the game after its over and you still politely accept the calls even if he gets it wrong, and if you can't IMO the DM isn't the only one with an ego problem.  If you go back to the start, you'll find that was my point in the first place.You can go right ahead and shout and pretend you are clairvoyant enough to know what my game sessions are like if that makes you feel better.  I'm not sure that it actually reassures everyone of your level headedness, but that is just me.  Or perhaps you would like to join your voices to those that claim that you aren't playing D&D if you have house rule, but if that is the case we are going to have to admit that D&D is one of the least popular RPG's of all time - certainly almost no one was playing it.  What I would really like to hear you prove though is this assertion that it is always implicit in the social contract of every gamer group that the DM and players have pre-agreed to follow a set certain rules, and in that light would you explain to me what you think a 'rules lawyer' is?</blockquote>

Verification