Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gizzard" data-source="post: 33403" data-attributes="member: 527">--------------------------------------------------------------------------It's strictly beer and pretzels, hack'n'slash, rules-lawyering gaming.--------------------------------------------------------------------------Is it just me, or does &quot;rules-lawyering&quot; not go with the other things here?&nbsp; Beer and pretzels means to me that we are all there to have fun, if Core Rules must be House Ruled on the fly so that fun is achieved, then so be it.&nbsp; But, alternately, its the sort of game where if a player says, &quot;But on page 367 of supplement X the Dwarven Urgosh is clearly described as blah blah blah blah....&quot; the DM replies by saying, &quot;Your loud compaints have loosened a rock in the ceiling above your head.&nbsp; It falls on your helmet with a loud clang.&nbsp; Take 4 points of damage.&quot;&nbsp; And everyone in the game laughs about it, because fun has triumphed over banality.Anyway, if instead you meant &quot;hack-n-slash, munchkinized gaming&quot; then thats fine too, but a different kettle of fish.&nbsp; Is everyone a munchkin?&nbsp; Or is the problem that only one player is a munchkin and he is not happy because a Ranger is not an inherently munchkiny enough class to keep up with the Fighter.&nbsp; If so, the solution could be as simple as offering to let him retire the Ranger and roll up a Fighter.&nbsp; (And having the other Fighter review his character sheet privately to make sure there is no fudging.)&nbsp; As for those who call the Ranger a cheater, I suppose its technically true.&nbsp; But, I've known tons of people who would shave the rules in their favor, or more simply imagine that the rules say something favorable that they do not.&nbsp; Its not necessarily a conscious action, they assume the most favorable interpretation is the correct one -- perhaps they should be considered optimists.&nbsp; Example:&nbsp; watch a football with a mixed group of fans.&nbsp; On any given controversial play, half will be convinced that their team recovered a fumble, the other half equally convinced by the same TV replay that their quarterback had his arm in motion.&nbsp; Its not like either fan group are &quot;cheaters&quot;, they just perceive the world with such strong biases that they aren't reliable judges anymore.&nbsp; So, unless the Ranger is flagrant in his disregard for the written rules, I'd be inclined to just call him &quot;fallible human&quot; rather than judge him harshly as a &quot;cheater&quot;.&nbsp; Keeping an eye on him seems like the correct path to follow, anything more harsh is probably too....um....harsh.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gizzard, post: 33403, member: 527"] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's strictly beer and pretzels, hack'n'slash, rules-lawyering gaming. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it just me, or does "rules-lawyering" not go with the other things here? Beer and pretzels means to me that we are all there to have fun, if Core Rules must be House Ruled on the fly so that fun is achieved, then so be it. But, alternately, its the sort of game where if a player says, "But on page 367 of supplement X the Dwarven Urgosh is clearly described as blah blah blah blah...." the DM replies by saying, "Your loud compaints have loosened a rock in the ceiling above your head. It falls on your helmet with a loud clang. Take 4 points of damage." And everyone in the game laughs about it, because fun has triumphed over banality. Anyway, if instead you meant "hack-n-slash, munchkinized gaming" then thats fine too, but a different kettle of fish. Is everyone a munchkin? Or is the problem that only one player is a munchkin and he is not happy because a Ranger is not an inherently munchkiny enough class to keep up with the Fighter. If so, the solution could be as simple as offering to let him retire the Ranger and roll up a Fighter. (And having the other Fighter review his character sheet privately to make sure there is no fudging.) As for those who call the Ranger a cheater, I suppose its technically true. But, I've known tons of people who would shave the rules in their favor, or more simply imagine that the rules say something favorable that they do not. Its not necessarily a conscious action, they assume the most favorable interpretation is the correct one -- perhaps they should be considered optimists. Example: watch a football with a mixed group of fans. On any given controversial play, half will be convinced that their team recovered a fumble, the other half equally convinced by the same TV replay that their quarterback had his arm in motion. Its not like either fan group are "cheaters", they just perceive the world with such strong biases that they aren't reliable judges anymore. So, unless the Ranger is flagrant in his disregard for the written rules, I'd be inclined to just call him "fallible human" rather than judge him harshly as a "cheater". Keeping an eye on him seems like the correct path to follow, anything more harsh is probably too....um....harsh. [/QUOTE]

Verification