Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sir Whiskers" data-source="post: 1580534" data-attributes="member: 6941">But, by the same token, the uber-DM who knows every single rule, all Sage rulings, errata, changes in books published later, etc. is also a myth. Just learning where to find a particular rule can be a challenge, much less memorizing them all. The pursuit of a rule for every situation is a chimera - it's simply not possible. Just to be clear, I support clear rules. Players absolutely need solid rules they can count on - the rules provide the framework within which we make (hopefully) good decisions with (mostly) predictable consequences. The more arbitrary the rules, the less the game revolves around and rewards skillful play. But too many rules creates the exact same situation as too few, as each group/GM uses only the rules they're comfortable with, "winging" the rest because it's too much work to keep track of them. So the question becomes - how much is too much? What situations really need a rule, and what situations can be left to gaming groups? IMO, 3E crossed  the line where more rules makes the game run less efficiently, not more.</blockquote>