Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6242570" data-attributes="member: 5143">Well, our group jointly agreed(me included) that rules aren't guidelines.  They are the way the game works.  If we aren't going to follow the rules then we are creating an imbalance between the monsters and the PCs favoring one side or another.  The designers created the rules to create a certain balance.  If you forget to apply an AOO or just decide not to do it for sake of time, that could be the damage that kills one of the PCs or one of the monsters which makes the difference between winning and losing.Our official rule always was "If you want to change any of the rules, bring it up after the game.  Even the DM.  During the game, we follow the rules as written precisely."  With the unwritten rule that it was everyone at the table's job to make sure the rules were followed, even by the DM.  After all, the DM is human, he can forget a rule and misapply a rule the same way anyone else can.  If I were to suggest that someone stop correcting me in the middle of the game, the likely response would be "Great, you get to kill all of us off because you keep getting the rules wrong, then after we ALL die we can discuss it afterwards and we then have to go back to this battle and refight the whole thing with the correct rules.  Seems like a big waste of time when we can just correct the mistake right now."I've always felt that the DM should be mostly an equal in the group.  His job is to make the game interesting, balanced and fair.  If rules are being broken, it really is up to the DM to correct them no matter who broke the rule, even themselves.  That way it didn't appear like he was playing favorites.  Also, I don't really view the DM has having the power to kick people out of the group.  I won't kick people out of my group without a VERY good reason.  Even then, I take a vote amongst the other players to make sure I'm not the only one bothered by the behavior.  If I'm outvoted, I'll let them stay.It didn't hurt that although I was running a home game once a week, I was generally running 3-4 sessions of Living Greyhawk a week for most of the same players.  The LG rules were very specific.  The DMs were judges, they were impartial.  They did NOT change the rules.  They were there to interpret the rules and adjudicate if the rules were not clear about a specific situation but there were to be no house rules or changing of the adventure.  All rules applied and you were not allowed to ignore a rule because you didn't like it.I certainly couldn't imagine telling Dave Christ at Gencon that I kicked a player out of a LG session that they paid for simply because they said "shouldn't I hit more enemies with that burning hands?"  Questioning the DM isn't against any RPGA, D&D or Convention rule.I admit, that I got very used to running LG adventures and my DMing style outside of LG adventures basically was the same as during them.  My players got used to this style as well.  But it wasn't just Living Greyhawk that made us play that way.  My very first game of 3e D&D ever(long before I had even heard of Organized Play or Living Greyhawk) the DM didn't like the fact that his 5th level fighter had died in 1 round to 1st level characters.  So he just kept adding hitpoints to the enemy so it would survive longer.  I read the rule book all the way through and a rough calculation of the damage we had done seemed to be over 150 and I knew there was no way for a 5th level fighter to have that many hitpoints.  It coloured me against the DM and the game was no fun at all for me because I wanted to play a game where the rules were followed.  We defeated the enemy fair and square but the DM was cheating because he didn't want his precious NPC to die so easily.</blockquote>

Verification