Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3758324" data-attributes="member: 22779">Melan, I believe the problem lies somewhere in the middle.&nbsp; Do I absolutely trust a DM to never screw me over?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Do I absolutely distrust a DM?&nbsp; No.However, having experienced more than my share of piss poor DM's out there, I'm willing to bring a healthy dose of skepticism to someone's game.&nbsp; Am I going to start challenging the DM each and every time?&nbsp; No, of course not.&nbsp; But, then again, if what you are doing is fair and unbiased, then why would you complain about being audited?Nearly every problem I've ever had with a DM is because they thought that their pet rules were better than RAW.&nbsp; Every problem I've had with a player has probably stemmed from the same source.&nbsp; If it wasn't the DM suddenly ruling that spell research was at 1/10th the listed chance of success, it was the DM ignoring every attempt by the players to taunt the goblins so the players had to go into her fiendish trap room.There are a rather large number of poor DM's out there.&nbsp; There's an even larger number of mediocre ones.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is nothing wrong with wanting rules to be concrete enough to cover play.&nbsp; There is also nothing wrong with wanting more free form rules.&nbsp; However, the problem is, with free form rules, you have to accept that those adjudicating the rules are going to be prats.See, I've gotten to the point where I even roll my die rolls in the open.&nbsp; About the only ones I don't are search checks.&nbsp; EVERYTHING is auditable by my players.&nbsp; Not because they distrust me, but, because I have nothing to hide.&nbsp; And, as a fringe benefit, it lets me kill a LOT more PC's.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3758324, member: 22779"] Melan, I believe the problem lies somewhere in the middle. Do I absolutely trust a DM to never screw me over? No. Do I absolutely distrust a DM? No. However, having experienced more than my share of piss poor DM's out there, I'm willing to bring a healthy dose of skepticism to someone's game. Am I going to start challenging the DM each and every time? No, of course not. But, then again, if what you are doing is fair and unbiased, then why would you complain about being audited? Nearly every problem I've ever had with a DM is because they thought that their pet rules were better than RAW. Every problem I've had with a player has probably stemmed from the same source. If it wasn't the DM suddenly ruling that spell research was at 1/10th the listed chance of success, it was the DM ignoring every attempt by the players to taunt the goblins so the players had to go into her fiendish trap room. There are a rather large number of poor DM's out there. There's an even larger number of mediocre ones. There is nothing wrong with wanting rules to be concrete enough to cover play. There is also nothing wrong with wanting more free form rules. However, the problem is, with free form rules, you have to accept that those adjudicating the rules are going to be prats. See, I've gotten to the point where I even roll my die rolls in the open. About the only ones I don't are search checks. EVERYTHING is auditable by my players. Not because they distrust me, but, because I have nothing to hide. And, as a fringe benefit, it lets me kill a LOT more PC's. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification