Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruined" data-source="post: 2177127" data-attributes="member: 113">I like this question because it keeps my focus on both sides of the screen, instead of my normal GM approach. For me, a lot of it boils down to trust and fairness. I don’t mind taking certain liberties with the rules as a GM to make situations interesting or to increase the difficulty of challenges for the PCs. But in my mind, I always try to keep a fair approach to it. Our groups are all in it for the fun and the story, and the relation between Player and GM is not adversarial in the least.That being said, I have taken offense when GMs seem to handwave certain rules because they are uncomfortable or feel threatened by them. Easiest example was Attacks of Opportunity. One of my best friends was running a 3.0 game and as soon as we launched into battles, he realized that he didn’t understand them and wanted to do away with them. Easy to see the difficulty, as it took me a while to get them under control, but to just throw them under the rug?  And what of my character with Combat Reflexes?  I got miffed at the time, but we worked it out. I took some time afterwards, taught him the ropes for AoOs, and watched out for them on both sides for the next few games.  I also bowed out of a campaign I was recently invited to because in the writeup, the GM stated he felt that ‘wizards were too powerful’ and listed a bunch of scenarios where he would be putting the screws to all spellcasters. That’s cool if he wanted to play that way, being his game and all, but the whole combative sound of the post turned me away.</blockquote>

Verification