Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 2388494" data-attributes="member: 5143">I have friends who would argue about this sort of thing until their face was blue.&nbsp; They want to be the hero, they want to succeed.&nbsp; They only accept failure if they know it was judged without any bias.I think what he is refering to is closer to the situation where a player wants to trip an enemy but the rules only describe how to attack someone.&nbsp; How do you trip someone?&nbsp; How difficult is it?&nbsp; What rolls should you make?&nbsp; Will you remember what rolls to make next time someone tries to trip an enemy?&nbsp; Will you as a DM say &quot;you are jumping down on someone to knock them over, that's totally different than tripping, it needs a different roll&quot;?Now, someone tries to disarm someone, but there are no rules for that.&nbsp; What do you roll for it?&nbsp; How hard is it?&nbsp; Will your players start arguing about what roll they have to make once you make one up?&nbsp; i.e. &quot;Disarming should be a STRENGTH based check, I'm hitting his weapon hard, I'm not trying to finesse it out of his hands.&nbsp; Like that guy in that movie, do you think he had high dex?&nbsp; No, but he disarmed many people!&quot;&nbsp; Will the rule you come up with be so complicated in a pursuit of realism that each time someone tries the move the game slows to a crawl?So, the key in this situation is that the DM of a rules light game needs to have the skill to make up these sorts of things on the fly, be accurate enough to &quot;realism&quot; that their players at least accept their ruling without it ruining their disbelief of the setting, if not outright arguing (trust me, there are players who won't argue out of respect for their DM, but it will make the session less fun for them).Since most of us are not experts on combat with swords or quite a few other things we do in RPGs, our rules may make sense to us but there is someone in our group who knows more about the subject matter than we do.&nbsp; I prefer to let game designers spending the time researching &quot;realism&quot;, striking a balance between fun and function.&nbsp; I'll let them argue for weeks or months about a rule and its fairness and balance and come to an answer.&nbsp; That allows me as a DM to say &quot;You need to make a roll as decribed on page 56, if you have a problem with it, complain to WotC.&quot;&nbsp; I can shift the blame, quell arguements and move on with telling the story without the hassle.As for what Ryan said.&nbsp; I agree.&nbsp; When we used to play 2nd Edition AD&amp;D, our arguements were twice as long and much more annoying and as a DM, I hated it.&nbsp; 2nd Ed can be considered &quot;rules light&quot; compared to 3E.&nbsp; Even more rules light systems...they had even more problems.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 2388494, member: 5143"] I have friends who would argue about this sort of thing until their face was blue. They want to be the hero, they want to succeed. They only accept failure if they know it was judged without any bias. I think what he is refering to is closer to the situation where a player wants to trip an enemy but the rules only describe how to attack someone. How do you trip someone? How difficult is it? What rolls should you make? Will you remember what rolls to make next time someone tries to trip an enemy? Will you as a DM say "you are jumping down on someone to knock them over, that's totally different than tripping, it needs a different roll"? Now, someone tries to disarm someone, but there are no rules for that. What do you roll for it? How hard is it? Will your players start arguing about what roll they have to make once you make one up? i.e. "Disarming should be a STRENGTH based check, I'm hitting his weapon hard, I'm not trying to finesse it out of his hands. Like that guy in that movie, do you think he had high dex? No, but he disarmed many people!" Will the rule you come up with be so complicated in a pursuit of realism that each time someone tries the move the game slows to a crawl? So, the key in this situation is that the DM of a rules light game needs to have the skill to make up these sorts of things on the fly, be accurate enough to "realism" that their players at least accept their ruling without it ruining their disbelief of the setting, if not outright arguing (trust me, there are players who won't argue out of respect for their DM, but it will make the session less fun for them). Since most of us are not experts on combat with swords or quite a few other things we do in RPGs, our rules may make sense to us but there is someone in our group who knows more about the subject matter than we do. I prefer to let game designers spending the time researching "realism", striking a balance between fun and function. I'll let them argue for weeks or months about a rule and its fairness and balance and come to an answer. That allows me as a DM to say "You need to make a roll as decribed on page 56, if you have a problem with it, complain to WotC." I can shift the blame, quell arguements and move on with telling the story without the hassle. As for what Ryan said. I agree. When we used to play 2nd Edition AD&D, our arguements were twice as long and much more annoying and as a DM, I hated it. 2nd Ed can be considered "rules light" compared to 3E. Even more rules light systems...they had even more problems. [/QUOTE]

Verification