Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 7656459" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Thanks for the examples. Suppose that your &quot;Circle maneuver&quot; example related to an rule that came from the book instead of house rules. Would that change how you felt about the player objecting to the ruling? Because that is the only identifiable difference I see between your example and Hussar's plate mail vs. chain mail example, and it is also very close to the manticore example (with the additional difference in that case of a &quot;lengthy discussion&quot; although we don't have any indication who was doing most of the talking in that lengthy discussion, or what the content of the discussion was). Why do you feel that Hussar's examples are more like your Luke + Death Star scenario (&quot;unacceptable&quot;) than they are like your Circle Maneuver example (&quot;acceptable&quot;)?Is it simply about tone? Would it get your hackles up if the player said, &quot;No, Circle Maneuvers don't draw an attack of opportunity&quot;? By flatly contradicting you, he is challenging your authority as DM by treating you as a peer who can be argued with?Yes. That's why your using it to characterize everyone else in this thread feels like a straw man.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 7656459, member: 6787650"] Thanks for the examples. Suppose that your "Circle maneuver" example related to an rule that came from the book instead of house rules. Would that change how you felt about the player objecting to the ruling? Because that is the only identifiable difference I see between your example and Hussar's plate mail vs. chain mail example, and it is also very close to the manticore example (with the additional difference in that case of a "lengthy discussion" although we don't have any indication who was doing most of the talking in that lengthy discussion, or what the content of the discussion was). Why do you feel that Hussar's examples are more like your Luke + Death Star scenario ("unacceptable") than they are like your Circle Maneuver example ("acceptable")? Is it simply about tone? Would it get your hackles up if the player said, "No, Circle Maneuvers don't draw an attack of opportunity"? By flatly contradicting you, he is challenging your authority as DM by treating you as a peer who can be argued with? [COLOR=#000000] Yes. That's why your using it to characterize everyone else in this thread feels like a straw man.[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification