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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hazardjsimpson" data-source="post: 2239043" data-attributes="member: 26993">bah --And being  rude does, somehow? I love your rationale. Another self-indulgent rude comment, I'll file appropriately. *flush*Anyway, my supposition was not that players can have a good time playing without knowing the rules. I've run many "freeform" games over the years. Strange, they have rules too, some may call them "guidelines"... But, that's not the issue I was discussing. My issue was that it's not fair play to change the rules "willy-nilly" mid-game on your players and not tell them. But hey, it's my opinion, and apparently not yours.Logic eh? Ludicrous at best. You're playing a game of semantics and changing the subject I was even talking about. You aren't even arguing the same point I am, and haven't realized it, so if that's logic, count me out. Contrary to how much you'd really like to convince yourself, you are indeed stating an opinion. Providing a single gamer that fits your hypothesis isn't a proof of anything, anymore than one person saying that they saw a UFO makes it proof either. Unlike mathematics, experience is subjective. The same holds true for 100 gamers or 1000 gamers, because as long as the same number of people don't agree with you, it becomes subjective. Just because you say 1+1=4 and your friend says "Aye" doesn't make a proof.This is where I think you keep getting confused. First off, I *have* had rulings go both ways, often times because the group sees an NPC getting shafted and thinks "Hey, that could happen to us sometime, and it doesn't seem fair to us, so let's fix it." Maybe it comes from our time together house-ruling many different RPGs and not just D&D. One thing about my group is that since we've been playing together over 10+ years now as a whole group, we understand the equation of fairness - "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." Your example is totally different from what was presented, as well, I feel. In the original post, it wasn't that , it was "Suddenly Blink doesn't work that way, so sorry, because it's not what I wanted to happen." Well, what about what the PC's wanted to happen? What about the experienced Wizard knowing what would happen, and then it didn't? If that's the play feel you want, great. I'm no babe in the woods tho, and by the "rules" of the game, any PC level 1 or higher is considered to be above the "regular class" and have experience above and beyond the norm. And that's how I like to play, so good for me! But, the debate wasn't over house-rules, it was over the DM arbitrarily changing them mid-game in a way that effected not just the PC's , but the global use of the Blur and MM spells within the game to be specific. That's a big discrepancy over house-ruling, don't you think?As far as wish fulfillment, I disagree. I think we consider the DM to be another player in the group, albeit one who provides a rich scenery and a host of other things. It's an interactive story, involving several main actors, and a director who runs the rest. IMO, really, we're all playing a game together. I've run sessions that have turned out amazing, and the one I'm playing in now leaves us hungry for more every time. Sometimes the DM says "Crap, I can't remember how this works" and we all research for 2-3 mins and come up with it. We take smoke breaks and a dinner break to discuss any issues that came up and how we can avoid them in the future. Someone always takes notes, and I always add them to our house list. We haven't had a rules argument in I can't count how many years, and it's great. But, we enjoy using the rules. They're fun for us to learn, poke at, modify, and play with. Do I play RAW D&D? Hell no. But I also let everyone know when something's changed, and if there's a flaw in the thinking, my players let me know, and we make it work. It's sure not a courthouse or anything so judicial at our games.I don't disagree at all here, but again, that's because you're not seeing what my point was. In those examples, the key was that the decision involved the players input. The original post did not, and the players were hit with it willy-nilly, with a bad explanation. This may work in your group, but assuming it does everywhere is short-sighted.Right, but then here comes Bill, and when he runs his session, he decides that all Plate Mail blocks magical effects, and horses can fly. He doesn't mention this until his BBEG Fighter flies in on his horse and ignores all damage effects, for the "feel" it produces. And then on the next night Bill runs, he decides that horses have suffered a magical disease, and now none can fly, and all are too weak to carry anything more than their own weight. In addition, this disease brought about the return of a Dead God whose very presence on their plane reduces all magic spells to level one spells only. Too bad for the PC's who thought they bought flying horses after last session! Sucks for the mages! But mmm, the flavor...Good DMing or poor? If they players feel cheated by it, it's poor. Giving the PC's something that they expect - reliability in the way the world they live in functions - is essential.Roleplaying and Roll-playing are 2 different things, yes - but there's an honest mixture of both in D&D. Because you choose to focus on story and ignore the rules at will works for you - but it doesn't , and won't, work for many other people , especially if people are just learning the concept of games, or like to know the "rules" they can work within. I've played many many "Roleplaying" based characters, and the current PC I run is frankly, a combat , roll-playing machine. Others in the group are all the personality, my job is to kill. Efficiently. And by knowing the framework of the rules, and what options, choices, feats, skills, and paths I can take that will work in the way I expect them to later, is important to me. Again, that's my opinion.Key words: "I just don't think" --> This is an opinion statement. I agree with the "ultimately DM's call"... Never didn't. But again, you miss the point: Changing rules on the fly without warning the players before the session isn't arbitration, it's poor DMing, IMO.LOL. You're probably right, but that doesn't happen in my group. Again, with mutual respect and the "social contract" that everyone's there to have a good time works out well. It may very well be that in your group, with your players, in your setting, that it works out for you to just take the calls, no matter how wrong, and smile and whatnot. As a group, my players are mature enough to handle having someone say "Hey, are you sure that's how it works?" or "DM, the book says something different, is this right?" - Our DM either says "Oh, let me see that" , looks at the rule and says "ok, that doesn't effect this" , or "trust me", or "I'll explain later" - in which case we know to trust him , and shut up.  Often times, he'll say 'Oh, I'm glad you caught that, because I wasn't sure if I was doing this right." and then he appreciates the input. Sometimes, it's caused us to get our asses kicked as a party, but who cares? It's FUN, we get along. What else is there?Refer back to your comment about how you're the one trying to be arguing for civility. Puh-leez. Don't embarass yourself by being openly contradictory, at least.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" /> Well, I'm certainly not attempting to should, or be clairvoyant, and I don't have to "prove any assertations" to you, regardless of how much you like to flex your vocabulary. If I did, your own hypothesis of the lone gamer who agrees with me should be enough, so no need to be redundant there, right? I'm not really concerned about your sessions - you and yours have a good time, that's fantastic, that's what gaming and RPG is all about. The fact that you do it in your own manner is great, I'm completely with that program as well, power to the people. I don't have to be psychic to see that you're conceited and rude, and being as how those are undesirable traits in a DM to me, the rest is easy to add up. 1+1=2 and all that. It's working for you though, apparently, so what do I care?IMO, a "Rules Lawyer".Rules Lawyer: Noun : An individual who memorizes the rules to a contest or game and then utilizes that knowledge at every point it would become primarily beneficial to their standpoint within the game. A rules lawyer is also known for attempting to exploit loopholes or find broken rules specifically in an attempt to exploit them for personal gain.A player who takes the time to learn the rules is simply a good player, IMO. And one who can contribute more to a session where something does come up. Leaving everything to the DM is fine... Assuming DM's never make mistakes, use personal bias, or screw up. Which of course, never happens.   :\</blockquote>

Verification