Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Carpe DM" data-source="post: 4919779" data-attributes="member: 677">I'm struck that this problem occurs in every game, and everyone has a solution, but no solution is particularly good. This means either that (1) D&amp;D players are not creative and inventive (which hypothesis I reject out of hand); or (2) that this is not a problem that can be solved with any one &quot;perfect&quot; solution. I think (2) is right.&nbsp; No amount of procedural shenanigans will make this problem go away.&nbsp; (For what it's worth, my personal rule as a player--when I rarely play rather than GM--is that if the GM makes a mistake that seriously affects the story, I look up the rule quietly, then raise the point once, when I have the book open.)Rather, this is a function of processor speeds.&nbsp; The players can parallel process, and the GM is stuck with a single processor.&nbsp; This means the players can one-way ratchet the rules by correcting errors that cut against them, while remaining silent on errors that benefit them.(Again, one might try correct this procedurally.&nbsp; My personal rule is that I point out one rules error that screws me for every rules error I point out that helps me.&nbsp; YMMV.)But all of these machinations are unhelpful.&nbsp; I think relationships are more important than rules.&nbsp; Your players need to understand that if they are going to do rules lookup, it needs to help the game.&nbsp; If they are cutting in on the GM's processing time, they're not helping.&nbsp; If they're easing the GM's processing time, they are helping.&nbsp; This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, this is a description of the two roles that rules-lawyering can play in a game. Carpe</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Carpe DM, post: 4919779, member: 677"] I'm struck that this problem occurs in every game, and everyone has a solution, but no solution is particularly good. This means either that (1) D&D players are not creative and inventive (which hypothesis I reject out of hand); or (2) that this is not a problem that can be solved with any one "perfect" solution. I think (2) is right. No amount of procedural shenanigans will make this problem go away. (For what it's worth, my personal rule as a player--when I rarely play rather than GM--is that if the GM makes a mistake that seriously affects the story, I look up the rule quietly, then raise the point once, when I have the book open.) Rather, this is a function of processor speeds. The players can parallel process, and the GM is stuck with a single processor. This means the players can one-way ratchet the rules by correcting errors that cut against them, while remaining silent on errors that benefit them. (Again, one might try correct this procedurally. My personal rule is that I point out one rules error that screws me for every rules error I point out that helps me. YMMV.) But all of these machinations are unhelpful. I think relationships are more important than rules. Your players need to understand that if they are going to do rules lookup, it needs to help the game. If they are cutting in on the GM's processing time, they're not helping. If they're easing the GM's processing time, they are helping. This isn't a hard-and-fast rule, this is a description of the two roles that rules-lawyering can play in a game. Carpe [/QUOTE]

Verification