So, how exactly does that rather thin and awkward tangent feel that you are desperately clinging to ?Murder everyone that questions a DM!
If a player dares question you, hit him upside the head with your DMG!
If that doesn't work, use the chair of persuasion!
How does it feel to only wish to hear only replies that agree with you? To not be challenged. Oh right, that is how "some" like to DM as well. No questioning allowed.
|
IMHO, more importantly be able to experess their views in a cognant and intellectually cohesive manner. Once proven, THEN grab the swear-shaker and apply liberally!!!I think I used to use, "Go take an aerial fornication in a circular mobile piece of pastry with a hole in the center".
I am not against semi-appropriate profanity. Such as smashing your thumb with a hammer. I just think people should be able to express themselves without using a crutch which view profanity as.
Again, just my 2 cp.
Considering how much swearing I do in game, especially given my tendency to roll ones at very inopportune moments, I'd have to say I agree...
Here's another gem...
Dwarven fighter announced that he's hit one of the "dead levels" (what a pathetic concept to begin with), and wants to "take a level of cleric".
I said, NO. I've never once heard you mutter a prayer to Moradin, Invoke the wrath of Clangeddin at discovering you were out of ale, or anything else that could be loosely associated with becoming a cleric.
If you really want to do this, you'll need to go and beseach a dwarven priest of the God you choose for training in the clergy...
Dwarven fighter says "but that's not in the ruleboook"....
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I would say just shoot Sebastian, but why waste a bullet on him?You would invoke the wrath of the SPCA or something. Plus, my gf thinks his avatar is "cute" and she would be sad...
String him up, then his Avatar can swing there so everyone can still see how pretty it is... at least until it decays and gets flyblown and maggotty.
How does it feel to only wish to hear only replies that agree with you? To not be challenged. Oh right, that is how "some" like to DM as well. No questioning allowed.
You truly might wish to consult with a Dr. That mass lodged in your rectum is festering.
Give it a rest.
Here's another gem...
Dwarven fighter announced that he's hit one of "dead levels" (what a pathetic concept to begin with), and wants to "take a level of cleric".
I said, NO. I've never once heard you mutter a prayer to Moradin, Invoke the wrath of Clangeddin at discovering you were out of ale, or anything else that could be loosely associated with becoming a cleric.
If you really want to do this, you'll need to go and beseach a dwarven priest of the God you choose for training in the clergy...Dwarven fighter says "but that's not in the ruleboook"....
Yeah! What a total idiot! I mean its not like his character is the one thing he actually has any control over in the entire game. I mean the DM is GOD! He controls everything, including the PCs as well. If the DM says you take a level of fighter, then you take it and you like it for being blessed to even get to play anything. Hell if the DM says you have to play a commoner with all stats at 8, you do it and like it.
Yeah! What a total idiot! I mean its not like his character is the one thing he actually has any control over in the entire game. I mean the DM is GOD! He controls everything, including the PCs as well. If the DM says you take a level of fighter, then you take it and you like it for being blessed to even get to play anything. Hell if the DM says you have to play a commoner with all stats at 8, you do it and like it.
So, you'd allow this...and then when he decided to become an Arcane Trickster as well, you'd be ok with that?
Yeah, I think players have completely lost focus on making any kind of sense. Classes aren't anything but "skill packages" to them anymore, combinations don't have to have any basis in roleplaying or verisimilitude any more, no, they just have to make the character "uber"...
It's kinda like when you're playing World of Warcraft online, and somebody comes on asking "What's the best class to play?" or "What are the best professions to take?"
Yeah! What a total idiot! I mean its not like his character is the one thing he actually has any control over in the entire game. I mean the DM is GOD! He controls everything, including the PCs as well. If the DM says you take a level of fighter, then you take it and you like it for being blessed to even get to play anything. Hell if the DM says you have to play a commoner with all stats at 8, you do it and like it.So, you'd allow this...and then when he decided to become an Arcane Trickster as well, you'd be ok with that?
If he met the requirements for a prestige class, why not? I've got enough characters to micromanage as the DM, I don't have to go micromanage the players characters as well to massage my ego. Let them multiclass, it almost always is worse than sticking with a class. One level of cleric, oh that is scary!
Besides which the assumption that seems to be made is that only things that happen "on stage" ever occur. That seems like of silly in the long run to me.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I said, NO. I've never once heard you mutter a prayer to Moradin, Invoke the wrath of Clangeddin at discovering you were out of ale, or anything else that could be loosely associated with becoming a cleric.
If you really want to do this, you'll need to go and beseach a dwarven priest of the God you choose for training in the clergy...
This is actually a pet peeve of mine from the player's side. The multi-classing rules do allow such a thing and if the DM is not going to be using those, I'd like to know in advance. I've had players in my campaigns that show up, do an adequate job roleplaying, and generally have fun at the table. I like playing with them even though they don't necessarily roleplay to the hilt. Such players frequently make choices that are driven by considerations other than roleplaying. I don't see a reason to try to force them into a more roleplay-centric playstyle if that's not what they're interested in. I will probe why they are making the change (e.g., I'd probably ask the player to explain why the PC decided to be a cleric), but I really hate it when a DM limits my choices over my PC without advance notice.
This is actually a pet peeve of mine from the player's side. The multi-classing rules do allow such a thing and if the DM is going to not be using those, I'd like to know in advance. I've had players in my campaigns that show up, do an adequate job roleplaying, and generally have fun at the table. I like playing with them even though they don't necessarily roleplay to the hilt. I don't see a reason to try to force them into a more roleplay-centric playstyle if that's not what they're interested in. I will probe why they are making the change with them (e.g., I'd probably ask the player to explain why he decided to be a cleric), but I really hate it when a DM limits my choices over my PC without advance notice.
I said, NO. I've never once heard you mutter a prayer to Moradin, Invoke the wrath of Clangeddin at discovering you were out of ale, or anything else that could be loosely associated with becoming a cleric.
If you really want to do this, you'll need to go and beseach a dwarven priest of the God you choose for training in the clergy...
*blink, blink* I'm agreeing with HIM. I must obviously be wrong. Sorry everyone, sorry!
If he met the requirements for a prestige class, why not? I've got enough characters to micromanage as the DM, I don't have to go micromanage the players characters as well to massage my ego. Let them multiclass, it almost always is worse than sticking with a class. One level of cleric, oh that is scary!
And what about the "Prestige" aspect of a prestige class? That is meant to be a class you take on because you earned it as a roleplayer with regards to the faction that teaches you....
Moronic Player - "Hey, I'm a Purple Dragon!"
NPC Purple Dragon - "No you're not, drop your weapons and disrobe. It is a shame and outright disgrace that you mock our unit. I am taking you into custody!"
This is actually a pet peeve of mine from the player's side. The multi-classing rules do allow such a thing and if the DM is not going to be using those, I'd like to know in advance. I've had players in my campaigns that show up, do an adequate job roleplaying, and generally have fun at the table. I like playing with them even though they don't necessarily roleplay to the hilt. Such players frequently make choices that are driven by considerations other than roleplaying. I don't see a reason to try to force them into a more roleplay-centric playstyle if that's not what they're interested in. I will probe why they are making the change (e.g., I'd probably ask the player to explain why the PC decided to be a cleric), but I really hate it when a DM limits my choices over my PC without advance notice.
I do not consider it Oscar Worthy Roleplaying to simply make it obvious that your character is pious and might someday consider going into the church. Nor am I forcing something on anyone. It just doesn't fit. Not in the slightest.
If he met the requirements for a prestige class, why not? I've got enough characters to micromanage as the DM, I don't have to go micromanage the players characters as well to massage my ego. Let them multiclass, it almost always is worse than sticking with a class. One level of cleric, oh that is scary!And what about the "Prestige" aspect of a prestige class? That is meant to be a class you take on because you earned it as a roleplayer with regards to the faction that teaches you....
Moronic Player - "Hey, I'm a Purple Dragon!"
NPC Purple Dragon - "No you're not, drop your weapons and disrobe. It is a shame and outright disgrace that you mock our unit. I am taking you into custody!"
That is why some have roleplaying requirements built into them. Being an arcane trickster on the other hand just means being a tricky arcane user. The prestige comes from being good at it.
That is why some have roleplaying requirements built into them. Being an arcane trickster on the other hand just mean being a tricky arcane user. The prestige comes from being good at it.
ohhh....RIGHT....
Back AWAY from the edge...We have *people* and *medicines* that can help you...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I do not consider it Oscar Worthy Roleplaying to simply make it obvious that your character is pious and might someday consider going into the church. Nor am I forcing something on anyone. It just doesn't fit. Not in the slightest.
Yes, but you're deviating from the RAW. It's a house rule, and as such, it should be communicated in advance. The rules allow for multi-classing without the player stating that he goes to church regularly, prays in his off time, or jumps through any other number of hoops you may come up with.
It's not rules lawyering in my book to ask the DM to play by the rules or to at least provide notice of the rules they will be changing. Particularly the rules relating to character development.
I do not consider it Oscar Worthy Roleplaying to simply make it obvious that your character is pious and might someday consider going into the church. Nor am I forcing something on anyone. It just doesn't fit. Not in the slightest.Yes, but you're deviating from the RAW. It's a house rule, and as such, it should be communicated in advance. The rules allow for multi-classing without the player stating that he goes to church regularly, prays in his off time, or jumps through any other number of hoops you may come up with.
It's not rules lawyering in my book to ask the DM to play by the rules or to at least provide notice of the rules they will be changing. Particularly the rules relating to character development.
*just plain laughs*
*suspends disbelief until it snaps under pressure*
*continues laughing incredulously*
While I can agree that arbitrarily saying "no" to a players' choice to choose a different class is somewhat disheartening for the player, I can also see the requirement for there being some kind of reasonable backstory to the decision.
If it is just a case of "I don't get any bennie's at this level so I'll take a class that gives me some" then I agree that the answer should be "No". However, if he has a good reason for making the change as was suggested then he should be allowed. I like reasonable choices that go toward the PC's role in world, not just for game mechanics or whim.
If it is a choice to try out a class to see how it plays and adds to the PC's story line then I would probably allow it.
It entirely depends on how the player approaches me with his choice.
Just my 2 cp.
It entirely depends on how the player approaches me with his choice.
Just my 2 cp.
Why should a player have to "approach" the DM for something that is allowable in the rules, unless you have already made it clear that you are deviating from them?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If it is just a case of "I don't get any bennie's at this level so I'll take a class that gives me some" then I agree that the answer should be "No". However, if he has a good reason for making the change as was suggested then he should be allowed. I like reasonable choices that go toward the PC's role in world, not just for game mechanics or whim.
I would prefer it if my players made choices that made sense for their characters and within the context of the campaign, but that doesn't always happen. There are definitely some choices that, while not expressly disallowed by the RAW, would be annoying enough that I would veto them. But, multi-classing is an important character customization tool and if I, as the DM, am going to limit it, I feel that I have a responsibility to communicate that fact to my players up front. Like I said, I would ask the player to explain the choice but, at the end of the day, if they aren't disruptive, I will let them play the game the way they want to play it. And if they want to ignore roleplaying and just play it as a tactical game, it's their loss, not mine. It frees up extra time for me to devote to the players that are making character-based choices.
My theory is to try and give my players what it is they seek from the game while also getting out what I like. I have some players who are very tactical and just like interesting fights. Others want story and character development. My gaming buddies are, well, my buddies, and as long as everyone's having a good time, it's up to them to choose how they want to play and what they want to do.
There are limits to the above, but in terms of the RAW, I expect the DM to follow them, with allowances for off the cuff decisions during play that would otherwise bog down the game. If the DM does not plan to follow the RAW, I'd like to know in advance, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that.
Silverhair wrote:
As a DM I say at the beginning that I may vary from the core rules at times but will try to be consistent.
I already covered your question.
While I can agree that arbitrarily saying "no" to a players' choice to choose a different class is somewhat disheartening for the player, I can also see the requirement for there being some kind of reasonable backstory to the decision.
If it is just a case of "I don't get any bennie's at this level so I'll take a class that gives me some" then I agree that the answer should be "No". However, if he has a good reason for making the change as was suggested then he should be allowed. I like reasonable choices that go toward the PC's role in world, not just for game mechanics or whim.
If it is a choice to try out a class to see how it plays and adds to the PC's story line then I would probably allow it.
It entirely depends on how the player approaches me with his choice.
Just my 2 cp.
<gets all moist and teary eyed>
I love you, Man!!!
Silverhair wrote:
As a DM I say at the beginning that I may vary from the core rules at times but will try to be consistent.
I already covered your question.
So where is the line? When is it ok for a player to make a decision about their character without consulting you? Can a player take the toughness feat without asking, for example, or do they have to come to you and ask permission and justify the choice, "My character has been doing lots of situps when we rest during the day." When you micromanage, you have to micromanage all the way.
|
|
It entirely depends on how the player approaches me with his choice.
Just my 2 cp.
Why should a player have to "approach" the DM for something that is allowable in the rules, unless you have already made it clear that you are deviating from them?
Show me the PrC rules in the PHB, please.
I CAN show you the rule in the DMG that says they're optional and up to the discretion of the DM...
As far as the fighter/cleric example, yeah, nothing in RAW disallows it, but some of us DMs do like players to have reasons beyond [insert mechanical consideration]...
An example from my own experience and has been posted on these boards was I had a player that wanted to begin as a 1st level Sorcerer and then take levels as a Barbarian. Personally I had a problem with that as I saw Barbarian as more of a lifestyle than as a class. But after several suggestions were made on these boards and the player and I talked we came to an agreement. He eventually decided to play something else then the game died. So it didn't come of anything. But that is what I am advocating, a discussion between the player and the DM as to what can be done story wise, not just mechanic wise.
Why should a player have to "approach" the DM for something that is allowable in the rules, unless you have already made it clear that you are deviating from them?
Show me the PrC rules in the PHB, please.
I CAN show you the rule in the DMG that says they're optional and up to the discretion of the DM...
As far as the fighter/cleric example, yeah, nothing in RAW disallows it, but some of us DMs do like players to have reasons beyond [insert mechanical consideration]...
<stays all moist and teary eyed>
I'm at home!!! You *get* me!!!
<balls shamelessly into your shoulder>
An example from my own experience and has been posted on these boards was I had a player that wanted to begin as a 1st level Sorcerer and then take levels as a Barbarian. Personally I had a problem with that as I saw Barbarian as more of a lifestyle than as a class. But after several suggestions were made on these boards adn the palyer and I talked we came to an agreement. He eventually decided to play something else then the game died. So it didn't come of anything. But that is what I am advocating, a discussion between the player and the DM as to what can be done story wise, not just mechanic wise.
Oh yeah, hard and fast..Barbarian is something you can ONLY start taking at first level...and you must have a good story as to why you are a barbarian if you were not originally from a barbaric culture (plains indians versus the Elves of Evermeet)...
So where is the line? When is it ok for a player to make a decision about their character without consulting you? Can a player take the toughness feat without asking, for example, or do they have to come to you and ask permission and justify the choice, "My character has been doing lots of situps when we rest during the day." When you micromanage, you have to micromanage all the way.Silverhair wrote:
As a DM I say at the beginning that I may vary from the core rules at times but will try to be consistent.
I already covered your question.
Dear lord...give it up for christ's sake. You have NO point that you could possibly be hoping to make.
Just sad, really.
Now as a GM I have no problems with players correcting me if I am wrong...If you are the GM, how can you be wrong?As a GM.. I can miss a rule.. or read it wrong.. If a player corrects me..I have no problem with that..
Or was that sarcasm?
It was sarcasm, and assenine sarcasm at that.
My apologies for my bad spelling. Sometimes my brain gets ahead of my fingers.
I suspect that no matter what we say Mr. pres man is not going to understand our points. He has his own opinion and is welcome to it. Just allow us the same privilege.
So where is the line? When is it ok for a player to make a decision about their character without consulting you? Can a player take the toughness feat without asking, for example, or do they have to come to you and ask permission and justify the choice, "My character has been doing lots of situps when we rest during the day." When you micromanage, you have to micromanage all the way.Silverhair wrote:
As a DM I say at the beginning that I may vary from the core rules at times but will try to be consistent.
I already covered your question.
And what pray tell is wrong with asking your players to justify character developement choices?
If we are to allow characters to play their characters exactly as they want, without restriction, where do we draw the line? 'Oh sure, you can kill another commoner in front of the city guard, they won't interfere, your a PC after all. Oh and the Dawnflower still thinks your charming and witty, so she will grant you prayers.'
Now as a GM I have no problems with players correcting me if I am wrong...If you are the GM, how can you be wrong?As a GM.. I can miss a rule.. or read it wrong.. If a player corrects me..I have no problem with that..
Or was that sarcasm?
While it was sarcastic, the sad thing is there are DMs that actually believe what I posted. That by being the DM, you can not be in error. That you if you say something, that is how it is, no matter how obviously incorrect it is from the rules. Because the rules are just "guidelines" and the DM is the ultimate arbitrator and it is the DM's game and not the group's game. As I said, sad.
Oh yeah, hard and fast..Barbarian is something you can ONLY start taking at first level...and you must have a good story as to why you are a barbarian if you were not originally from a barbaric culture (plains indians versus the Elves of Evermeet)...
*twitch* And rogues can only come from cities to. And if you go an entire level in an urban setting you can't take another level of druid or ranger and ...
And what pray tell is wrong with asking your players to justify character developement choices?
Nothing as long as DMs have to justify the ecology of every dungeon they run. Seriously though, if that is how the group wants to play and it is all known going in, no problem. The problem arises when a DM gets something stuck up their rear and starts demanding justifications out of the blue for things that previously had been fine without them.
EDIT: also there is often inconsistency. For example, a ranger who has never tried to two-weapon fight, suddenly at 2nd level gets the TWF feat from his class and is very good at it. DM doesn't make an issue about it at all. But the fighter, who also had never done any fighting with two weapons in game, that used his 2nd level fighter bonus feat to take TWF is suddenly forced to justifiy it. That lack of intellectual honest on the part of some DMs is often what gets peoples "rules lawyer" hackles up. What other choice does the fighter have in that case when they are being unfairly singled out?
If we are to allow characters to play their characters exactly as they want, without restriction, where do we draw the line? 'Oh sure, you can kill another commoner in front of the city guard, they won't interfere, your a PC after all. Oh and the Dawnflower still thinks your charming and witty, so she will grant you prayers.'
Well you are talking about two different things there. The players playing their character and the consequences of their actions. Sure a player could run around and kill a bunch of commoners in my game. I would be a crappy DM for telling them no. But that doesn't mean that other NPCs in the setting aren't going to come after them, or even their own party members for that matter. That is the great and terrible thing about roleplaying, the freedom for the players to make choices. If they want to fireball the judge in the middle of court, sure, but prepared for the natural consequences of that choice. Free will is a wonderful thing.
I have had a couple of people say to me "You're the DM, so you're God!" - I hate that. Tell me I'm wrong about a rule - it's good. That way we're all on the same page, and it's all fair. Tell me you didn't enjoy a particular adventure or encounter in a constructive way - again, great! That way, I'll know next time not to run something like that. We both get to enjoy ourselves.
I have had a couple of people say to me "You're the DM, so you're God!" - I hate that. Tell me I'm wrong about a rule - it's good. That way we're all on the same page, and it's all fair. Tell me you didn't enjoy a particular adventure or encounter in a constructive way - again, great! That way, I'll know next time not to run something like that. We both get to enjoy ourselves.
<gets all moist and teary eyed>
I love you, Man!!!
I have had a couple of people say to me "You're the DM, so you're God!" - I hate that. Tell me I'm wrong about a rule - it's good. That way we're all on the same page, and it's all fair. Tell me you didn't enjoy a particular adventure or encounter in a constructive way - again, great! That way, I'll know next time not to run something like that. We both get to enjoy ourselves.
I have tried to express a similar idea throughout this thread. It started out talking about how annoying it is as a DM to have players trying to dictate how we run our games. I agree that it is indeed a two way street. However, that aside, if I as the DM make a ruling and you have a problem or question with it then talk to me at break or afterward. If you can show me quickly where I am mistaken then do so, but do not sit there and take up valuable time agruing with me over some rule. If at break I find I agree with you, once we restart I will make the announcement and the correction. I have never hinted that I have the idea that “The DM is GOD”. As I have said here I do not know it all. I just dislike the one’s that want to agrue points and take up game time. There is little enough of that as it is for it to be wasted with arguments.
As it points out in the WotC DMG on page 6 under Adjudicating, the DM is in charge. It also covers some of the points of good DMing. The books give us guides to use in running the game. It is somewhat confusing trying to playtest a Beta and not knowing exactly where everything is covered. That is why I feel some common sense should enter into the equation.
Just my 2 cp.
Don't be hating....
Dang Playa Haters!
|
|
Wow. I think you read one thing, and thought it was another. Start your own post.
No, I see exactly what I thought I saw; something that several other people apparently saw as well, and which your responses have more than confirmed.
My last three campaigns lasting over a five year period with one group, and two campaigns going over a one year period with another group, had strict rules on available character races, classes, and concepts. These were made quite clear to the players ahead of time, and everybody fully embraced structure, contributing to the set up and development of the characters.
When the players managed to develop their characters to a point that they began overwhelming any thing I threw at them I did not accuse them of pulling something out of nowhere, I simply adapted the structure of the challenges to force them to go further to deal with it. If something in a new release was used and proved overwhelming above and beyond that we discussed it and if needed agreed to exclude it from the game, and allow any PCs affected an open rebuild to compensate for the newly excluded material.
If there was a disagreement over a mechanical function, depending on the circumstances we either deferred it to finding it in the rules, with combat rolled back one or more rounds if needed, or we deferred to a full discussion after the session, with everyone going home and searching the FAQ and other rules for references, discussing them, and arriving at a consensus as to how to use the rule.
I have dealt with rules lawyers in the past. If you really know the rules that much better than me, fine. Just be sure to apply the rules to yourself.
I am a rules lawyer. I have broken systems to the point of having to deliberately weaken PCs and NPCs to still have fun, and been called to resolve disputes.
I have dealt with rules weasels in the past as well. People who try and pretend to be rules lawyers but really just focus on selectively forgetting rules so they can use something that appears to be broken but has several other elements that control it. These people are also commonly known as "cheaters". I distinguish them because they make an effort to learn a rule they can use to their advantage, where most cheaters just want to ignore a rule that temporarily gets in their way. (Like marking damage and the like.)
So I repeate:
There is nothing wrong with knowing the rules of a game and expecting to see them followed in the game.
However, the issue here is that you (unsuccessfully) attempted to thread-jack and turn the intent of the thread around from one talking about gamers from a DM's perspective into one about DM's from a gamer's perspective.
I don't see how thats a thread jack in this case. It essentially represents the alternate point of view. I'm unclear as to way their is a need to stifle opposing view points.
Wow. I think you read one thing, and thought it was another. Start your own post.No, I see exactly what I thought I saw; something that several other people apparently saw as well, and which your responses have more than confirmed.
My last three campaigns lasting over a five year period with one group, and two campaigns going over a one year period with another group, had strict rules on available character races, classes, and concepts. These were made quite clear to the players ahead of time, and everybody fully embraced structure, contributing to the set up and development of the characters.
When the players managed to develop their characters to a point that they began overwhelming any thing I threw at them I did not accuse them of pulling something out of nowhere, I simply adapted the structure of the challenges to force them to go further to deal with it. If something in a new release was used and proved overwhelming above and beyond that we discussed it and if needed agreed to exclude it from the game, and allow any PCs affected an open rebuild to compensate for the newly excluded material.
If there was a disagreement over a mechanical function, depending on the circumstances we either deferred it to finding it in the rules, with combat rolled back one or more rounds if needed, or we deferred to a full discussion after the session, with everyone going home and searching the FAQ and other rules for references, discussing them, and arriving at a consensus as to how to use the rule.I have dealt with rules lawyers in the past. If you really know the rules that much better than me, fine. Just be sure to apply the rules to yourself.
I am a rules lawyer. I have broken systems to the point of having to deliberately weaken PCs and NPCs to still have fun, and been called to resolve disputes.
I have dealt with rules weasels in the past as well. People who try and pretend to be rules lawyers but really just focus on selectively forgetting rules so they can use something...
If you were an arrow, you'd be headed to Youngstown Ohio...and your target would be Rome.
Enjoy your own viewpoints. Now go crawl away.
I don't see how thats a thread jack in this case. It essentially represents the alternate point of view. I'm unclear as to way their is a need to stifle opposing view points.
However, the issue here is that you (unsuccessfully) attempted to thread-jack and turn the intent of the thread around from one talking about gamers from a DM's perspective into one about DM's from a gamer's perspective.
Please get on a flight to San Francisco. You'd fit in with them.
I have tried to express a similar idea throughout this thread. It started out talking about how annoying it is as a DM to have players trying to dictate how we run our games. I agree that it is indeed a two way street. However, that aside, if I as the DM make a ruling and you have a problem or question with it then talk to me at break or afterward. If you can show me quickly where I am mistaken then do so, but do not sit there and take up valuable time agruing with me over some rule. If at break I find I agree with you, once we restart I will make the announcement and the correction. I have never hinted that I have the idea that “The DM is GOD”. As I have said here I do not know it all. I just dislike the one’s that want to agrue points and take up game time. There is little enough of that as it is for it to be wasted with arguments.
As it points out in the WotC DMG on page 6 under Adjudicating, the DM is in charge. It also covers some of the points of good DMing. The books give us guides to use in running the game. It is somewhat confusing trying to playtest a Beta and not knowing exactly where everything is covered. That is why I feel some common sense should enter into the equation.
Just my 2 cp.
Silver, they are taking issue with the concept that in YOUR game, YOU as the DM *are* the God. They did not continue to read on where I commented on the idea that most of us are not looking to spoil the adventure or force anyone to have a bad time, quite to the opposite, I actively WANT people to enjoy my campaign. They also completely glazed over the concept of the game being a covenant between the DM and players...an agreement that the DM will make the rulings in a fair and attentive (open to suggestions and ideas) manner...but that their rulings are final. This is for THE BENEFIT OF THE @#$^%$^ GAME. All "they" are concerned with is their own fantasy little "uber" powers. Waaaa!
They're just pathetic little "me-me"'s who desperately need to revisit the attention that Ma-ma and Pa-pa apparently denied them during the suckling phase of development.