NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8301864" data-attributes="member: 23751">In my opinion it's a yes to the first.  Assuming good faith DMing, the DM is going to do his best to be fair with his rulings, so it's a great design principle.  If the DM is acting in bad faith, no design is going to stop that. To the second part, it's a yes and no.  Some things the DM is going to need to just make rulings on.  Other things, like house rules, should at least be discussed with the players.My break is almost over and I will be back in the DM seat again.  Last session I handed out sheets to the other 4 members of my group with a list of house rules I was thinking about.  Most of them I liked, but I included some that I didn't care about one way or the other, but which they might like.  They noted on the sheets which ones they liked, didn't like, or didn't care about one way or the other.  If 3 or more were against a rule, I crossed it out and it won't be used.  If 3 or more liked a rule, it was in.  If it was a tie, I broke the tie.  We had a number of ties.  Some of them I liked and voted in favor of.  A few were ones I didn't care about and since some players didn't like them, I voted to keep those out.  During game play, though, if a situation comes up and I need to make a ruling, I'm not going to stop the game to take a vote.  I'm going to unilaterally make that ruling and we will move on.  If they players really don't like how it went down, they can talk to me outside of game time and make their case.</blockquote>

Verification