Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 7716191" data-attributes="member: 463">Has a player ever argued with me about the rules when I GM? Mmm, no. Not that I can recall. If a rules issue is raised (usually it's how exactly a particular spell works) we look up the text, I adjudicate, play continues. Nobody argues.As a player I am a bit rules-lawyerly, and have a tendency to ask &quot;Is that a house rule?&quot; if the GM gets it wrong. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; But I don't argue.If it's a non-rules adjudication (how an NPC would react, say) then certainly there's no argument.Edit: I recall one time in 2011 one of the players in my 4e game looked a bit miffed that I hadn't rolled a Bluff check for captured dwarf slaver Kazon Kul lying to the PCs vs their Passive Insight (he offered toescort the PCs out into the wilderness to his fellow slavers' base &amp; help the PCs vs his friends), but had roleplayed out what he said in character (&quot;Oh yeah, I'll help you fight them, you can trust me...&quot;) and had expected them to request Insight checks if suspicious. They gave him back his crossbow. When they reached the slaver base &amp; the dwarf slaver then started shooting at the PCs she seemed annoyed at me for not having rolled the dwarf's Bluff or told her to make an Insight check earlier. I thought this was a bit silly - if I'd checked their Passive Insight or requested a check then they would have known he was lying, and I don't think Insight works like that. There was a disagreement, but I wouldn't say she argued about it.(It might be significant that player is an Ethics professor, they have some odd notions.) <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh&nbsp; &nbsp; :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 7716191, member: 463"] Has a player ever argued with me about the rules when I GM? Mmm, no. Not that I can recall. If a rules issue is raised (usually it's how exactly a particular spell works) we look up the text, I adjudicate, play continues. Nobody argues. As a player I am a bit rules-lawyerly, and have a tendency to ask "Is that a house rule?" if the GM gets it wrong. :D But I don't [I]argue[/I]. If it's a non-rules adjudication (how an NPC would react, say) then certainly there's no argument. Edit: I recall one time in 2011 one of the players in my 4e game looked a bit miffed that I hadn't rolled a Bluff check for captured dwarf slaver Kazon Kul lying to the PCs vs their Passive Insight (he offered to escort the PCs out into the wilderness to his fellow slavers' base & help the PCs vs his friends), but had roleplayed out what he said in character ("Oh yeah, I'll help you fight them, you can trust me...") and had expected them to request Insight checks if suspicious. They gave him back his crossbow. When they reached the slaver base & the dwarf slaver then started shooting at the PCs she seemed annoyed at me for not having rolled the dwarf's Bluff or told her to make an Insight check earlier. I thought this was a bit silly - if I'd checked their Passive Insight or requested a check then they would have known he was lying, and I don't think Insight works like that. There was a disagreement, but I wouldn't say she argued about it. (It might be significant that player is an Ethics professor, they have some odd notions.) :heh: [/QUOTE]

Verification