NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5336688" data-attributes="member: 55271">I agree with this. Nobody's infallible, and I've got a lot of intelligent, well-informed players. Refusing to tap their rule expertise in addition to my own is, IMO, a mistake.OTOH, I have had players who attempt to analyze the rules when they don't have all the facts. For example, I remember one player who would become argumentative every time a creature used Combat Reflexes because he'd gotten it into his head that "only one AoO" was some sort of universal rule and simply could not accept that monsters might have Combat Reflexes.So while I'm more than willing to hear corrections, I also think the DM needs to have the "this discussion is over" veto button without needing to engage in a debate or fully explain why this particular rule should or should not factor into the current situation.This I disagree with. While it's certainly possible for DMs to have bad house rules, I don't think there's anything wrong with having clearly stated house rules for a game. Particularly when it comes to D&D. (Which, after all, wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the house rule kit-bashing of Arneson and Gygax.)"Clearly stated", however, is an important part of that. As a player I should not be side-swiped unexpectedly when the rules suddenly don't work the way I thought they did. (I also think it's generally important that mid-stream changes in the ruleset be discussed and largely agreed upon as a group.)</blockquote>

Verification