Dungeons and Dragons

[Gemini Sunrise]

Yes, exactly. The one telling the DM/GM anything. The GM is always right. If he or she makes a mistake, then that becomes rule, or it gets corrected by the GM. The players do not pick up rulebooks and start arguments with the GM over rules. Well, at least not in our games. That's the understanding we've had for the past 20-25 years.

There's times one can't wait. Yeah, doubling sneak dice is kind of minor. But when a character dies because of a misunderstanding of how running out of HP works in Saga Edition (you don't die at all until you are dealt more damage than your Damage Threshold)? Yeah, I'll be speaking up right then and there.

[Maxilian]

Yes, exactly. The one telling the DM/GM anything. The GM is always right. If he or she makes a mistake, then that becomes rule, or it gets corrected by the GM. The players do not pick up rulebooks and start arguments with the GM over rules. Well, at least not in our games. That's the understanding we've had for the past 20-25 years.

That's the worst kind of DM, you're basically taking away the workshop of the players, is true that there's no reason to stop a game to check the rules, but if they know the rules, just fix that in the moment, it won't take long or anything (I normally prefer to do these things at the end of the session)

[Soulwind]

"NNNEEEEERRRRRDDDDD!!!!!!!"

Never tried it. It looks like the kind of thing I would have fun with, but I don't know the right people. I think I'll stick to videogames for the time being.

[Rafoel]

Played regularly with group of friends through High School, but after that they moved to different cities so the meetings ended ;(

[Maxilian]

There's times one can't wait. Yeah, doubling sneak dice is kind of minor. But when a character dies because of a misunderstanding of how running out of HP works in Saga Edition (you don't die at all until you are dealt more damage than your Damage Threshold)? Yeah, I'll be speaking up right then and there.

and 100% agree with these

[Endus]

Yes, exactly. The one telling the DM/GM anything. The GM is always right. If he or she makes a mistake, then that becomes rule, or it gets corrected by the GM. The players do not pick up rulebooks and start arguments with the GM over rules. Well, at least not in our games. That's the understanding we've had for the past 20-25 years.

If the DM has a valid reason for houseruling, fine, but "fuck you I don't care about the the rules" isn't really an acceptable statement for a DM; players need to be able to rely on the rules they know. Houserules are fine, but you should be able to write ALL your houserules down for your players before the game even starts. And be able to justify to them any future additions.

The DM is not the boss. He's the ref.

[Deleted]

That's the worst kind of DM, you're basically taking away the workshop of the players, is true that there's no reason to stop a game to check the rules, but if they know the rules, just fix that in the moment, it won't take long or anything (I normally prefer to do these things at the end of the session)

If you let the players run the game, then there's no point in having a GM in the first place. Once the GM gets corrected once, it will happen again, then again, and again, over smaller and smaller things, until you've got one or two people arguing with the GM constantly over absolutely irrelevant shit. The GM needs to have the last say.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleZero
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rule+0

And yes, of course there's the assumption that you don't let just anyone be the GM in the first place. Of course the GM needs to know the rules. That's all too obvious to even be stated. However, I'm talking about situations where a ruling has been made, the GM has said what happens, whether he's right or wrong, and one of the players just hangs on to the rulebook and keeps arguing. Those are the worst kinds of players. They need to let go and let the GM's ruling stand, or leave the game.

[Kathandira]

If the DM has a valid reason for houseruling, fine, but "fuck you I don't care about the the rules" isn't really an acceptable statement for a DM; players need to be able to rely on the rules they know. Houserules are fine, but you should be able to write ALL your houserules down for your players before the game even starts. And be able to justify to them any future additions.

The DM is not the boss. He's the ref.

Yeah, establishing house rules from the start is a must. And if a new house rule needs to be implemented mid-game, then the whole table takes a vote.

This is the way we do things at my house.

- - - Updated - - -

Btw, if any of you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend it. It's quite hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSynJyq2RRo

[Radux]

Yes, exactly. The one telling the DM/GM anything. The GM is always right. If he or she makes a mistake, then that becomes rule, or it gets corrected by the GM. The players do not pick up rulebooks and start arguments with the GM over rules. Well, at least not in our games. That's the understanding we've had for the past 20-25 years.

I mean, I'm in general agreement that what the DM says will go. I'll also agree that there's a time and place to bring up arguments/disagreements (as to not disrupt the game).

That said, if the DM is gimping me/going against the rules in my disfavor 'just because' or whatever, we're going to have problems; especially if I'm not consulted prior.

If you let the players run the game, then there's no point in having a GM in the first place. Once the GM gets corrected once, it will happen again, then again, and again, over smaller and smaller things, until you've got one or two people arguing with the GM constantly over absolutely irrelevant shit. The GM needs to have the last say.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleZero
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rule+0

The DM is the facilitator of the story/game for the players. It shouldn't be DM vs. players.

[Deleted]

The DM is the facilitator of the story/game for the players. It shouldn't be DM vs. players.

Exactly, it shouldn't be. It also shouldn't be GM vs the rulebook.

So let's say you would get to roll 5 dice. The GM says roll 4 dice. You roll 4 dice, and after rolling and after the situation has been handled, you realize you rolled one die too few. The GM says "well, you sneezed as you were swinging your sword, shit happens." That's the ruling. That's the end of the situation.

The kind of player I'm talking about wouldn't let that go, but would shove the rulebook in the GM's face and insist he gets a new roll, or gets to roll one die more.

[Gemini Sunrise]

Yeah, establishing house rules from the start is a must. And if a new house rule needs to be implemented mid-game, then the whole table takes a vote.

This is the way we do things at my house.

- - - Updated - - -

Btw, if any of you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend it. It's quite hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSynJyq2RRo

Online games are a bit easier that way. I just have my players make a post on the forum we use if they have questions about things or otherwise (or to tell me if I'm bringing the game down somehow, though I haven't had something like that happen yet).

[Radux]

Exactly, it shouldn't be. It also shouldn't be GM vs the rulebook.

So let's say you would get to roll 5 dice. The GM says roll 4 dice. You roll 4 dice, and after rolling and after the situation has been handled, you realize you rolled one die too few. The GM says "well, you sneezed as you were swinging your sword, shit happens." That's the ruling. That's the end of the situation.

The kind of player I'm talking about wouldn't let that go, but would shove the rulebook in the GM's face and insist he gets a new roll, or gets to roll one die more.

That's fine in that particular instance. However, the rules need to be agreed upon before the game starts. So in the case given: I, as the rogue, would just assume that my Sneak Attack would double on critical because that's how the rules state the mechanic works. If, however, the DM just says no you can't do that because reasons, then we're going to have a disagreement. The rules are there for stability, balance, and reliability. If we talk about that situation beforehand, and rule it a certain way, then no problems. It's when rules are changed on the fly (not out of forgetfulness or whatever) at the expense of the players when it becomes a problem.

[anyaka21]

Never did too much pen and paper rpging. Tried DnD, ADnD, Marvel, Shadowrun, etc... I think of all them, I liked Shadowrun the most due to the combination of tech and sorcery.

[breadisfunny]

Yes, exactly. The one telling the DM/GM anything. The GM is always right. If he or she makes a mistake, then that becomes rule, or it gets corrected by the GM. The players do not pick up rulebooks and start arguments with the GM over rules. Well, at least not in our games. That's the understanding we've had for the past 20-25 years.

well i'll never be playing in any of your games...ever.

[Endus]

well i'll never be playing in any of your games...ever.

Just to clarify this;

The game has agreed-upon rules. Those rules are the core rulebooks and whatever splatbooks are allowed. If the DM wants to overrule one of these with a houserule, that's fine, but if the DM is wrong about what the rules say, the DM is wrong. Period. If they refuse to abide by those agreed-upon rules, the DM is essentially cheating, and getting away with it because it's "their" game. It's like when you're playing basketball at Billy's house, and he travels, and you call him out, and he says "fuck you, you don't get to play any more". Billy's the one in the wrong, not you for calling out the error.

Houserules are fine, but they need to be clear and up-front, or the players aren't playing a game; they're actors in the DM's story, and they may as well just sit there and experience it, because the DM is ruling by fiat, rather than the rules of the game they're supposedly playing. I don't care how kludged-together your Calvinball game may be, compared to the base rules, as long as you're clear about what those rules are.

[Forgettable]

3.5 for life! It really gives you the most freedom to play any way you want to.

But of coarse, house rules and DM law also allow you to play any way you want as well.

I like 3.5 because that's where I started, but I recognize it has some balance issues. Because of those issues, I prefer pathfinder even though though both rulesets have enormous amounts of customization options (which I love!). I haven't decided my verdict on 5e because I haven't played it enough yet. Although like I said before, whatever ruleset your group prefers is definitely the way to go. Plus the rules are just a guide; you can modify them to however suits your group best.

[PizzaSHARK]

http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Bag_of_rats

That was a fun exploit. Got to use it a couple times, our GM was pretty cool about those things; as long as people were having fun and not doing things that ruined the entire campaign, it didn't matter that much.

Can't use that in Pathfinder, sadly.

Wasn't there some gimmick where a peasant could summon a chicken as a free action, so someone played a game as a non-classed peasant and flooded the dungeon with chickens?

[Celarent]

I played only a handful of times in high school when I was really trying to get a table, then once in college I was invited by younger friends to guest DM my first spring break. It was a complete hit, and the group of 5-8 played every summer for the next 3 years.

This was 20 years ago, so it was a bit of 2nd Edition influencing bare-bones house rules. My thing was storytelling, getting players immersed and then riffing off their expectations, with dice thrown to keep things honest. Really fantastic times we had.

I've actually been interested in going completely the other way and trying the retro West Marches style, but the prospect of a group isn't there right now . . . so every now and then I tinker with a sandbox world.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

Not sure if that is a good idea.
If you keep making up counters to "good" ideas, they will feel cheated.

Eh, in that exact scenario if they managed to beat an earth elemental somehow that'd be a lot of exp (exp is a bit harder to track but it's always been a good way to reward players instead of "okay... now EVERYONE levels up!") and I'd still give hero points (rerolls) for cool ideas so it satiates the players. Plus I think they'd amazed at this sudden turn of events and try to fix a way to topple down the elemental tower.

If I recall correctly, earth elementals do have weakness. It isn't really a "rocks falls, everyone dies" scenario.

And then after everything is said and done I'd close out with, "It's a good thing you dug under that tower because could you imagine being ON that and it was moving? You'd be so boned." Guy feels like a mastermind and I don't look like a douchenozzle, everyone wins!

[-aiko-]

Tried playing it once and it wasn't for me.