Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dmccoy1693" data-source="post: 3573842" data-attributes="member: 51747">Ditto.&nbsp; Interesting take.&nbsp; To a certain extent, I have to agree.&nbsp; My own idea:&nbsp; I'd actually want a WotC to encourage player imagination.&nbsp; What I mean is that I've seen enough DM's only allow published material (and usually only wizards published material) into their games.&nbsp; 1st ed pretty much was like:&nbsp; If you don't like the way your mage progressed, change it, come up with some other way you think a mage should progress.&nbsp; I'd really like to see that again.&nbsp; Don't get me wrong, I love the different takes on classes and PrCs and such, but I'm a firm believer in that the rules are there to serve the players, not the players there to serve the rules.&nbsp; i.e.&nbsp; One of the PCs in my game is a vampire.&nbsp; We recently found out that going to gaseous form is a standard action and going material is a free action; we've been doing it backwards.&nbsp; The DM said he's got to start doing it like that.&nbsp; I asked why and he responded, &quot;Well we should be doing it right.&quot;&nbsp; &quot;Right&quot; should be what the group (or specificly the DM) says, not what the book says.&nbsp; If we never discovered that, our group would have been fine.&nbsp; It's not like we're being graded on how closely to the rules we follow.&nbsp; It's that kind of strict adherance to a set of arbitrary rules that annoys me more then anything else about D&amp;D.&nbsp; I've played in and run plenty of other games and I don't see that nearly as often elsewhere.&nbsp; (From this alone, would you call me a neutral or chaotic alignment?)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dmccoy1693, post: 3573842, member: 51747"] Ditto. Interesting take. To a certain extent, I have to agree. My own idea: I'd actually want a WotC to encourage player imagination. What I mean is that I've seen enough DM's only allow published material (and usually only wizards published material) into their games. 1st ed pretty much was like: If you don't like the way your mage progressed, change it, come up with some other way you think a mage should progress. I'd really like to see that again. Don't get me wrong, I love the different takes on classes and PrCs and such, but I'm a firm believer in that the rules are there to serve the players, not the players there to serve the rules. i.e. One of the PCs in my game is a vampire. We recently found out that going to gaseous form is a standard action and going material is a free action; we've been doing it backwards. The DM said he's got to start doing it like that. I asked why and he responded, "Well we should be doing it right." "Right" should be what the group (or specificly the DM) says, not what the book says. If we never discovered that, our group would have been fine. It's not like we're being graded on how closely to the rules we follow. It's that kind of strict adherance to a set of arbitrary rules that annoys me more then anything else about D&D. I've played in and run plenty of other games and I don't see that nearly as often elsewhere. (From this alone, would you call me a neutral or chaotic alignment?) [/QUOTE]

Verification