Results 361 to 390 of 479
-
2019-01-10, 04:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
"If my spouse never finds out that I'm cheating on them then it's not wrong because they're not getting hurt by it".
That is an argument someone on these forums made in defense of fudging one time. It stuck with me.
-
2019-01-10, 04:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2017
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
So why can't you tell all this to the players who wants to join your game, instead of being dishonest about the nature of it?
Wouldn't it have been better if the DM had advertised his game better, so you understood what kind of game he was going to deliver? Then you could have chosen to not particpate. That's what we're asking you to do to those people who absolutely wants the possibility of being killed by a random goblin. So that they don't experience the same disconnect that you did above.
-
2019-01-10, 05:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
The thing is that, if you reserve the right to change the rules (as per rule zero) then you don't have to necessarily bring it up, because your ability to change the rules is documented. This is not a legal contract, it's not like you and your friends sit down and bring their attorneys and draft up a binding document. This is an evolving social thing. So if a DM initially says "I'm not fudging rolls" and they are playing with rule zero, then they can change that preference at a later date, possibly without even without informing the players.
If the players had a close encounter and then at the end of the session you announce "I have rethought my policy on fudging die rolls" Then you will rob them of any enjoyment they would have had in that victory. There's a reason that DM screen exists , because preserving illusions is very important to player enjoyment.
That isn't what is being asked though. At all. The player is asking about a specific thing the DM is doing. Which, yes, in a broad sense falls under rule zero, but it isn't rule zero. If asked directly about fudging rolls I would point to the relevant sections: rule zero and setting DCs, which definitely in essence give me permission within the rules to do so.
I don't see why it would be "not okay" because it's not something that will ever come out, and it's not something that's morally really wrong.
Well if you're bad at something, you'll probably have some good awareness that you are bad at something. Especially if that thing is bluffing. So if you're bad at it you shouldn't do it in the first place. If you're good at it then the player won't notice making that a red herring at best.
So if I roll behind a screen then there's no reason to tell the players that I fudge, then, no?
If the player in question thinks that he has "wasted hours of his life" over a fib about a die roll then he can grow the heck up. Honestly, if spending 60 hours or more of campaign time that he has enjoyed can be ruined by that then he's basically looking for things to ruin his enjoyment.
Edit:
THERE IS A BIG FRICKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHEATING ON A SPOUSE AND THIS. This is the equivalent of "No, honey, you look fine in that dress," "There wasn't any cereal this morning I got up, at least not enough for a bowl", this is a little thing, and trying to make it seem like a big thing "HOURS OF MY LIFE WASTED" is dishonest at the very best case. The worst case is that you'd decide to leave a game. But if you implied that saying a die result was different than it was in a game where the rules allow for it was equivalent to cheating on my wife, I would throw you out of my house. Because that is completely beyond the pale.Last edited by AMFV; 2019-01-10 at 05:13 AM.
My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2019-01-10, 07:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2017
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Yes, of course it's not a legal contract. It's a social contract and about respecting the opinions of your friends. Even if it's agreeing to disagree, that's ok too. If you understand what the player wants, saying "this is not a legal contract" isn't satisfactory if you chose to betray the trust anyways.
If the players had a close encounter and then at the end of the session you announce "I have rethought my policy on fudging die rolls" Then you will rob them of any enjoyment they would have had in that victory. There's a reason that DM screen exists , because preserving illusions is very important to player enjoyment.
That isn't what is being asked though. At all. The player is asking about a specific thing the DM is doing. Which, yes, in a broad sense falls under rule zero, but it isn't rule zero. If asked directly about fudging rolls I would point to the relevant sections: rule zero and setting DCs, which definitely in essence give me permission within the rules to do so.
Well if you're bad at something, you'll probably have some good awareness that you are bad at something. Especially if that thing is bluffing. So if you're bad at it you shouldn't do it in the first place. If you're good at it then the player won't notice making that a red herring at best.
So if I roll behind a screen then there's no reason to tell the players that I fudge, then, no?
If the player in question thinks that he has "wasted hours of his life" over a fib about a die roll then he can grow the heck up. Honestly, if spending 60 hours or more of campaign time that he has enjoyed can be ruined by that then he's basically looking for things to ruin his enjoyment.
-
2019-01-10, 07:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
If somebody cheats in a card game with their friends you normally break their fingers, right? The problem is that you folks are continuously drawing comparisons to things that much worse, describing this as a "betrayal of trust". But it really isn't this is somewhat like cheating at a friendly card game. The worst thing that should happen is that you decide not to play cards with that person again, it's not a "betrayal of trust".
Nope, no thanks. I have no interest in changing something that is working well for me, that has always worked well for me, and that is a tool I'm fairly confident that I know how to use well because somebody on the internet says that their personal game is better than it was because of that.
And YOU have misunderstood the words that I have directly said. I said that Rule Zero gives you the right to change the rules, which gives you the right to fudge since you can change the rules as you want to. A player who is opposed to fudging must by definition be opposed to rule zero.
Nope I'm pretty sure that I'm good at it, since y'know successful campaigns and stuff.
And it's just a game, again, what you are describing is MUCH more than an appropriate result for any kind of game. Like if you're playing a fighting game and the opponent just does a single move and causes a ringout. That's not against the rules, there are often gentlemen's agreements against it, but if somebody chose to do that I wouldn't stop being their friend or necessarily even stop playing with them.My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2019-01-10, 08:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Okay what you apparently need to realize is that this is a bigger deal to some people than it is to you. I don't care if you think fudging is a little white lie or whatever. People have told you, repeatedly, that they will not play in a game with fudging, will quit any game that turns out to have fudging, and will not play with someone who fudges and gets caught ever again. This is a big deal. It doesn't have to be a big deal to you to recognize that it is a big deal to some people. Continually making light of what these people care about is disrespectful and, frankly, a ****ty thing to do.
So yes, I do consider fudging dice after claiming you wouldn't to be equivalent to cheating on your wife. It's obviously less important because dice games are usually less important than long term romantic relationships. But I would consider fudging to be just as much of a deal breaker for the dice game as people tend to consider cheating to be in a marriage. You don't have to agree with that perspective, but you do have to recognize that this is a real thing for at least some subset of players and ignoring that fact is kind of scummy. People are allowed to put different priorities on things than you do.
-
2019-01-10, 08:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
I am going to make light of something that is light subject matter. This is a game, there is no money riding on it, not even really any pride riding on it. If you are so wrapped up in D&D that you would consider a DM who is acting within the rules (since again if Rule Zero exists and if the DM is allowed to set the DCs for something that gives them the right to fudge a result) to be doing something that is the equivalent of cheating on their spouse, you should not be playing D&D. Because you literally are unable to treat it as a game. That is not healthy.
A player is totally allowed to refuse to play in a game run with the systems that I choose to run, but in D&D, the DM is allowed to set the DCs, and the DCs present in the book are explicitly guidelines that they can modify as circumstances require, meaning that literally the DM can change the result of any roll they so choose. Also since rule zero is a thing in that system, the DM has the right to alter the rules if that will improve the game, and how you interpret the dice is part of the rule, again giving the DM the right to fudge. So if you're playing D&D with people the expectation is that the DM can fudge dice, unless there is a houserule set up beforehand to not use rule zero.My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2019-01-10, 08:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2017
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Exactly! That goes back to the maxim of fudging is ok if all the players are ok with it. So when you understand that a player is not ok with fudging, it is not to ok use rule zero as an excuse to fudge anyways. Because if you promised to not fudge you therefore also promised not use that part of rule zero.
Nope I'm pretty sure that I'm good at it, since y'know successful campaigns and stuff.
And it's just a game, again, what you are describing is MUCH more than an appropriate result for any kind of game. Like if you're playing a fighting game and the opponent just does a single move and causes a ringout. That's not against the rules, there are often gentlemen's agreements against it, but if somebody chose to do that I wouldn't stop being their friend or necessarily even stop playing with them.
-
2019-01-10, 10:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Good lord mate. Seriously.
There are some things people say that cant be debated or refuted because they are just so self evidently ridiculous, you know you're wasting your time even trying to debate or engage with the person that said them.
So dont be shocked if this is the last time we talk.
Take care, and good luck with your gaming (and, based of this post, also likely your marriage!).Last edited by Malifice; 2019-01-10 at 10:55 AM.
-
2019-01-10, 12:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
So, to tone down this first paragraph, let me just say, I've been disappointed by the past few pages.
I was going to post my own(ish) PoV, of how silly this discussion looks from the PoV of a Judge at a MtG tournament, and the idea of said Judge bending/changing the rules of the game to make the tournament "more fun", but, instead, I wanted to point out this gem:
While I ostensibly disagree with this post, I find it a much more convincing argument for an opposing PoV than any argument I would make for my own PoV, or any other argument made about fudging in this thread.
In other words, Kudos to JAL_1138 for a well-formed argument! May this serve as an example (shining or otherwise) of the caliber of post to which the Playground should aspire.
-
2019-01-10, 03:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
For ****'s sake. It's not about the act itself. There's nothing wrong with having sex with other people in and of itself. It's about the dishonesty and the disregard for other people's feelings. If the other people are okay with you fudging dice then it's like agreeing to have an open relationship, perfectly fine. If you know the other parties involved aren't okay with it, and say you won't do it, and then do it anyway, that's when it crosses a line.
And if you can't see the difference then I don't know what to tell you. It's not about the game. It's about being a liar.
-
2019-01-10, 03:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Last edited by Koo Rehtorb; 2019-01-10 at 03:08 PM.
-
2019-01-10, 03:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Actually, people that are bad at things are often unaware that they are bad at them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect
-
2019-01-10, 04:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2015
- Location
- Berlin
- Gender
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
@Quertus:
As has been pointed out multiple times, any competitive or outright PvP thoughts are fundamentally misplaced when it comes to that topic. Now please, try to form any argument that is not based on something like MtG but rather with the focus on one team of a soccer match.
-
2019-01-10, 08:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Well, actually, several people's comments about things being competitive are misplaced.
As some wise poster(s) before me said, the GM had many roles. One of these roles - the one that MtG judge parallels - is neutral rules arbiter. Only the most insane of players would claim that the MtG judge being neutral makes the relationship with the judge "adversarial".
Now, where the parallel may seem imperfect is that the D&D GM has to balance these various roles, the MtG judge seems pretty bound to just one role. But, personally, I'd prefer the GM to be just as purely a neutral rules arbiter. Just as I'd be aghast at a MtG judge who bent the rules because he loved the story of a player making it to the finals in their first time playing MtG, I'm personally not interested in a GM fudging things "for the story". The only "worthwhile" story that produces is the cautionary tale of the idiot GM who ruined his game - and I've told that story too many times already.
But, again, that's just me. You're* welcome to tell that tale if you* so desire, and your* players are welcome to exhibit Participationism. As much as I'd like to, I'm not going to tell you* that your* group is having BadWrongFun.
But that is not even what was under discussion. That's just me addressing my opinion on the misinterpretation of what was actually under discussion.
And I'd rather not contribute to the lowering of the average intelligence demonstrated on the Playground by returning to what was actually under discussion. I'm leery posting even this.
* General you to anyone who plays this way, not aimed at Florian or anyone else in particular.
-
2019-01-10, 11:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Does anyone else see the irony in AMFV's statements?
-
2019-01-11, 12:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
-
2019-01-11, 05:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2017
- Location
- las vegas
- Gender
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
The reason you dont make a rule for the bad time rules is because then its a RULE and your supposed to always do it. Like say you dont want random chains to off a party. So you say
"well no more then 1 crits for the NPC's per encounter"
Seems reasonable until you hit that double damage and roll a 1. Now that crit was worthless and theres no more drama in seeing the enemy possibly another. Because you've made it a rule your now supposed to follow it.
But when your okay with fudging you roll the damage behind the screen (that what I do, to hit rolls in the open damage behind the screen) you can take that 1 and its no big deal. Then you can roll a 20 next time and the players dont know, so if the PC target is too low and would end the game you call the 20 a 19 and he stays up for one last heroic effort. Now your rolling to hit in the open so maybe he dies next round anyway, or maybe he gets that last necessary hit in and drops the BBEG standing heroically amid the bodies of his allies, battered but unbroken.
If your stuck following a rule you have less freedom to allow for dramatic ebbs and flows and tempo control. Good stories always have fast points and slow points and points where it looks like the wont succeed. Being enslaved to gravity makes those concerns secondary to a rule. And that kinda sucks IMO.
The other thing is that how you handle those examples also kinda depends on where in the real life session you are. Early on game night? Plenty of time for the group to recover from a bad situation and get the night back on track so other way. So let the consequences flow. End of game night? Nope not gonna get derailed and slow things down on the way to a satisfying stopping point because of a bad roll or two. So we're going to steamroll right through the minor bits of bad luck and get to the good stuff.Last edited by geppetto; 2019-01-11 at 05:48 AM.
-
2019-01-11, 06:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2017
- Location
- las vegas
- Gender
-
2019-01-11, 10:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
-
2019-01-11, 11:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Showmanship. Obfuscation. Keep the players guessing. Maintaining an illusion of random chance that the players are trying to conform to their desired outcome. Keep people on their toes. Prompt the players. Get them focussed.
For many of the same reasons we bluff when playing poker. As DM you often dont want the players able to gauge an outcome from your actions, emotions, demeanor, dice rolling or otherwise. You want to keep them guessing. A dice roll, or the DMs face, actions, demeanor or the fact he's looking something up, is something their characters dont have access to.
For similar reasons, when the players are getting sidetracked or getting out of the game by talking among themselves, I'll occasionally roll some dice behind the screen, look at them (and ignore the result), pretend to look something up on a chart, frown, open my eyes wide and look worried for the players, look up and ask them 'What's your current party formation again?'
They shut up, and re-focus immediately.
A Player that meta-games based on that roll and showmanship is on a fools errand.
I'll also use the exact same technique when I want to insert a 'random' encounter (and many of my 'random' encounters, really are not random at all). I know what encounter I am going to throw at them already before I even roll the dice. The dice rolling, pretense of looking up something on a chart, worried expression on my face, and eyes widening in worry for the players is all an act. It's showmanship, to frame the encounter for the players. It makes them nervous (they assume that I've just rolled a 'killer' random encounter, when I've done nothing of the sort).
They dont know I havent just rolled a killer encounter. They dont need to know. The game is more fun in the fact they assume I have, based on nothing more than showmanship (faked rolling and feigned expressions of worry).
There is a reason to make fake rolls. Rolling a dice creates an illusion in the minds of the players, and that illusion can be a really useful tool to keep them guessing, shut down metagaming, bluff, create tension, focus the players on the adventure and get them off off topic chat, obfuscate what's really going on and a billion and one other uses.
Now there might be a better way of doing all of those things. But when I can achieve those things simply by dropping a hunk of plastic on the table, glancing at my notes, and acting a certain way in response, its not only convenient, but too useful of a tool for me to discard from my DMing arsenal.Last edited by Malifice; 2019-01-11 at 11:30 AM.
-
2019-01-11, 11:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Gender
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
-
2019-01-11, 11:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
A DM is not just a random number generator and impartial rules referee. We can get computers to do both.
A DM has a higher obligation. He's a man manager (he has to manage his players). He usually hosts the game. His overall responsibility is to ensure the enjoyment, entertainment, challenge and co-operation of the players.
It's more of an art than a science.
I've always likened the DM to more of a conductor of an orchestra than a referee of a sports match, with the players being both the audience and the musicians.
-
2019-01-11, 11:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
I think the whole idea of "rule zero" is greatly exaggerated by the internet.
In many games it doesn't exist at all, and it certainly isn't present in any of my home-brews. Even games that give the GM permission to freely alter the rules don't do so consistently between editions and typically have caveats on it. IIRC Pathfinder is the only game that has given carte blanche for the DM to do whatever they like on a whim. I know D&D and Mage, the only big name games I have played regularly, tend to waffle between editions on exactly how much power the DM has and how flexible the rules are.
"Rule Zero" afaict doesn't actually exist even in 3E. The term seems to have come from "Step zero" in the character creation chapter which reads "Check wit your Dungeon Master. Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules. You should also find out what the other players have created so that your character fits in with the group."
Likewise while the 3.5 DMG says it "okay" for the DM to develop house rules, it then goes on to gives half a page of warning about how you should only do this after very careful consideration of many factors. IMO people who claim the book gives the DM permission to do whatever they want whenever they want is taking something out of the text that isn't there.
Likewise while the DM is allowed to set the difficulty of skill and ability checks, afaict everything in the section says doing so should be based on the in-game faction, and there is nothing that implies that after the difficulty is set they can retroactively change it after seeing the results of the players roll.
But, don't take my word for it. The Geek Related Blog already said pretty much the same thing:
Spoiler: Long QuoteOriginally Posted by Geek Related
Honestly the whole idea of a rule zero is, imo, a silly one. A good DM isn't going to need such a rule, because they players will trust their judgement and allow them to work as they see fit. The only people who cling to "rule zero" are, in my experience, the power trippers, control freaks, and arrogant people who think they know better than everyone else, and the presence of such a rule in the book isn't going to make their players respect them or even prevent them from getting up and leaving.
As I said before, while I am against fudging dice rolls when I am behind the screen it isn't going to be a deal breaker one way or the other when I a player, a good DM who fudges is likely going to run a good game regardless, and a bad DM who plays by the book is going to be a bad DM regardless.
If the player is new to the game, and in this case tabletop RPGs in general, they won't be able to make an informed decision about nuts and bolts either.
In my opinion saying "Would you rather have a character who can is resistant to poison or to mind control?" Is a lot more informative than "Would you rather have proficiency in fortitude or will saves?" to a brand new player.
I guess it is debatable and we could have a discussion about whether my opinion is right or wrong, but at this point it would be purely academic as it is in the past and I have already told players that they are able to rebuild their characters if they like.
The player is definitely an attention seeker.
That said, he loaded up on flaws before the game even started and has been playing a goofball character since the first session, I think that is just who he is as a player rather than any commentary on his attachment to the specific game.
The gambling thing is a mechanical effect rather than a purely voluntary one, he took a flaw with mechanical benefits that requires his to spend X percentage of his money indulging in his vices each session.
I have never played in a game where the DM needed to put really strict rules in place. Normally the players kind of come to a consensus and you occasionally get one guy who refuses to get on the bus and needs to be talked to.
Its not so much min-maxxed characters I have a problem with as those that don't jive well with the rest of the party in either power level, tone, or role.
Well, you would be the only one.
I liked the idea as well, but it seemed like nobody was enjoying it at the table and the forums seemed to think it was the worst idea since 4E, so I decided it was probably just easier for everyone involved if I dropped it instead of reworking it.Last edited by Talakeal; 2019-01-11 at 12:04 PM.
Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2019-01-11, 11:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
-
2019-01-11, 12:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Last edited by Talakeal; 2019-01-11 at 12:03 PM.
Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2019-01-11, 12:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Huh?
No, my point was that rule zero exists for a reason. The text of the rules doesnt take priority over the reason why we play the game (to have fun).
Removing rule zero is like having a bureaucratic entity with no discretion to be flexible with their own policy. You wind up with nonsensical or absurd results because 'computer said no.'
It's like removing judicial discretion in sentencing (mandatory jail sentences for certain offences). If you do that you often wind up with disproportionate sentences for minor or technical offences (like 20 years in prison for stealing a bicycle and bringing it back).
A crap judge can make mistakes of course. But a good judge (or good public servant) should feel free to exercise discretion when the letter of the law might have been contravened, but common sense should prevail.
You seem to view the DM as some sort of objective, impartial number generator and rules arbiter, who is bound to the text in a fundamental manner, like it's some kind of immutable holy text, regardless of the results of such an interpretation or method.
Your obligation as DM (to the players, and to the game) is much greater than that.Last edited by Malifice; 2019-01-11 at 12:32 PM.
-
2019-01-11, 12:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
Except you can instead of fudging say "at appropriate moments you might get results changed if it makes a better narrative heck we can even start at appropriate moments to instead do theater instead of rolling dice" and that kind of thing can shape memorable events and be transparent.
On the other hand if you are gm to raw man 1, raw man 2 and rudisplork 1 then if you strand away from the divine rules of core without telling of course they will be angry.Last edited by noob; 2019-01-11 at 12:41 PM.
-
2019-01-11, 12:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
Re: Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)
I also totally disagree with your assertion that the only DMs who use rule zero are 'power tripping arrogant control freaks.'
That statement alone informs me that you see the DM as existing in some kind of antagonistic role contrasted to the players.
You've totally missed the point that the DM should be invoking rule zero only when the game demands it (absurd results, closing down a rules loophole that is making the game less fun, ensuring a better and more enjoyable and collaborative game and so forth).
While 'Pun-Pun' might be rules legal in 3.5, try it in my game and you can expect me (as DM) to invoke rule zero and simply shake my head. Ditto if a player is in need of a concept that he cant get into. I'll happily invoke rule zero to help him get the character he wants.
You use it as a tool to make the game run smoother, ensure everyone is having fun and to avoid absurdities that are occurring for no other reason than the text says so.
DMs make rulings all the time. You need to trust your DM isnt doing so for his own antagonistic douchebaggery, but instead to work with and assist and etertain the players, and for the good of the game as a whole.
I concede that plenty of antagonistic DMs are out there, but so are there a ton of antagonistic players. Lets just accept that our notional DM that we are talking about here, genuinely has the excitement, challenge, fun and entertainment of his players at heart, and is competent with the rules, and the mechanics that go on 'behind the curtain.'
-
2019-01-11, 12:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2015