Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheEvil" data-source="post: 2243926" data-attributes="member: 23261">The GM can set up situations in the game to take advantage of rule oddities far more easily then the players can.  He controls the world afterall.  The main reason that sticking to the RAW is more 'fair' then spontaneous house rules is that everyone has access to the RAW ahead of time and can make their decisions based on it.  I will usually feel more aggreived if a GM's spontaneous HR kills my character then if a screwed up rule does.  A good natured 'The rules killed my character' post may follow as opposed to  a 'My GM is a total git' post.  That said, I agree with you completely about the real issue, thus my more recent post.The only problem I have encountered with this way of thinking is the absolutely amazing things people consider (or at least SAY they consider) reasonable/unreasonable.  Back in 2E, I had my paladin stand over an unconcious character to protect him.  The GM thought it was perfectly reasonable for the orc chief to chop of the character's hand, grab it up and run off without my paladin being able to do a thing because it wasn't his turn.  God, I love AoOs.  This situation also highlights some of the problems of older editions, since the rules didn't clearly spell out what should happen in this case.</blockquote>