Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9486610" data-attributes="member: 6877472">In the decades I've been playing TTRPG's, one thing I've noted is that it's very rare for two groups to be using the same rules.  Individual DM's have their own rulings, and usually copious pages of house rules.Even in public play, there's always some room for variance, so that your experience from group to group can be different.Often, when discussing rules, especially for games past, I run into a brick wall where I cite the rulebook, and get the response (or a variation thereof) "well, we didn't play it that way", which generally ends the discussion on the spot.This can lead to wildly different game experiences, as one can imagine, yet I've encountered people who can't seem to grok the idea that people played a game any differently than they did, and that if you did such a thing, you were/are "playing it wrong".I myself have my own house rules and rulings, but I always try to figure out how it's meant to work first, before tinkering under the hood.  Anyways, the point of this thread is to gather a little information on the topic.What experiences have you had where you and someone else were at loggerheads because one party deviates from the rules, yet insists their way is correct?Were you able to find common ground, or did you simply have to disengage, agreeing to disagree?Were there times when you ultimately decided you were wrong?I'll go first.Way back in my 2e AD&D days (yes, it's still AD&D, even if some 1e fans hate to admit it), sometime well before the current century, I had a Fighter with a ring of free action.  I asked to look in the DMG, and was referred to the spell in the PHB.  Ok.I looked at it and was amazed at how much this spell could do!  But it seemed like every time I tried to claim the benefits of the spell, whichever DM I was playing with had a problem with it (back in those days, it was fairly common to play the same character with multiple DM's!).The final straw was when I got poisoned and the DM said I was paralyzed.  "Aha!  I'm immune!""What?  Why?  How?"I told him as much, showing him the spell.  "I don't see how that can protect you from a poison that paralyzes you.  The ring protects you from magical paralysis.""It doesn't say that.""Well it only protects from magic.""What about underwater movement then?  It says I can move normally in water, that's not a magic effect!""That's an exception that is specifically called out."I was pretty peeved.  It seemed like no situation ever came up where my ring was of any use, despite supposedly being quite powerful!I was mad about it for some time, even though my character luckily avoided death, as a result of having "too many hit points" (according to most DM's, lol) thanks to a super high Con score and lucky hit point rolls.  Much later, however, I was pointed at the DM description of the ring, and it doesn't mention paralysis, magic or otherwise, at all, beyond hold spells!  Even though I was pretty sure the ring is intended to protect you from magical paralysis, the text didn't support that interpretation, so I had to admit I was in the wrong.Amusingly, years later, in 3e, I had a player with a Cleric with the Travel Domain, which gave him a limited use freedom of movement, and suddenly I understood why my previous DM's seemed to hate the effect with a passion, lol.</blockquote>

Verification