You must be one lucky gamer. If what you describe is true, then you have found the perfect gaming group, and should hold to them as long as you can.
For the rest of us, your comment reads like idealized hopes and dreams. In my experience, it's never been about a game stopping "without a ruling", it's been about the players/DM never agreeing on the ruling, which leads to an entire sessions wasted on whether or not that barrel could hold X or Y item on a wagon.
"The rest of us"?
I've never had a game session break down into an entire session arguing about rules. As a GM, or as a player it's just not worth interrupting the game and arguing over. Find a simple fast way to resolve the issue in game and resolve it then move on. Then you can debate rules out-of-session or over email.
If something is impossible to resolve then you can either come up with a compromise, or worst case, the player can make a different character that doesn't lean on contentious rules.
I value my gaming time too much to waste it away with pointless arguments.
Ok, I was "in the moment" and should not have made such a declarative statement as "the rest of us." Poor use of words on my end.
But just as with Wraithstrike's comment, what you say sounds lovely. If every gaming group ran that smoothly then this would be a much more popular hobby. IF your group indeed runs just that smooth, then you are a lucky, lucky ogre.
Unfortunately, just as Urizen pointed out above, when someone is hard-set on getting their point across(kinda like I sound now) it doesn't end with "just a house rule and move on." In the case he mentioned with the player referring to Vegas gambling, everyone at the table was pleading to just "house-rule it and move on." He wouldn't budge. This stopped the game in it's tracks. Thankfully by the time his tirade was over, it was time to end the session anyway, so we left it at that.
I understand now. I have never gamed with anyone that determined to get their point across at the table. Most GM's would be happy if players just accepted what they said instead of having to get their point across in the middle of a game. IMHO some people don't like the idea of other people thinking they are wrong on certain issues. Pathfinder may be his area.
I would pull him aside after the game and ask him could we game first, and he can get his point across later from now on.
This is liberating.Went commando today?
No.
FULL. METAL. JACKET.
That'll be hell on the spellcasters.
|
Flash cards make it all better.
Perram's spell cards FTW!
Players with spellcasters who cast a spell they don't fully understand and don't bother looking it up before there turn is one of my pet peeves. Either have the stuff down pat or look it up and have it ready *before* your turn starts.
Spell cards (Perrams or I've seen others) are a great resource.
Homerule it and get over it?
Zombie likes! Can we get t-shirts now?
I still want to see Jason get the full back tattoo. Someone should pitch a Kickstarter drive!
Flash cards make it all better.Perram's spell cards FTW!
Players with spellcasters who cast a spell they don't fully understand and don't bother looking it up before there turn is one of my pet peeves. Either have the stuff down pat or look it up and have it ready *before* your turn starts.
Spell cards (Perrams or I've seen others) are a great resource.
Thanks! I wasn't aware of this.
** spoiler omitted **
Homerule it, and get over it.
Man it is catchy.
Anyone halfway competent with Latin? How would it translate?
Anyone halfway competent with Latin? How would it translate?
Domus sceptrum is , quod adepto super is.
I am working on an Elvish Translation right now.
Eska axan ta ar mapavanwa ta.
Anyone halfway competent with Latin? How would it translate?Domus sceptrum is , quod adepto super is.
I am working on an Elvish Translation right now.
d.s.s. q.a.s.s!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{wacks self in head with Core Rulebook}
Domus sceptrum is , quod adepto super is.
"House image he, because [nonsense] above he"?
"House image he, because [nonsense] above he"?
My grandfather used to say that all the time. Right up until the guys in the white coats showed up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{wacks self in head with Core Rulebook}
All credit goes to Spes Magna Mark for the excellent Latin Vulgate translation.
How much longer will we be introduced to the KSL offshoot of the OGL and be licensed accordingly?What is KSL?
It's a clear-channel news-talk radio station out of Salt Lake City. Owned by the Mormon church, IIRC.
I don't know of any poster claiming that not knowing what a rule was has stopped their game.
If you have any link to these "I won't play without a ruling" threads I would like to read them though.
I'd be interested in what Ravingdork has to say about this sort of thing.
I'd be interested in what Ravingdork has to say about this sort of thing.I don't know of any poster claiming that not knowing what a rule was has stopped their game.
If you have any link to these "I won't play without a ruling" threads I would like to read them though.
He never said as much, but I never asked either. I guess I have a question to ask for the next in-game issue that comes up.
NECROMANCY!!!
Homerule it, and get over it.
Why would we want to do that?
Because some people need to be reminded of it.
Sorry, saw a bunch of spoilers when reading through the page and couldn't help myself.
Homerule it, and get over it!
Months later it still has a satisfying full mouth flavor.
We have a weird reversed version of the traditional problem at the table I'm a player in.
Basically what happens is a player will bring up an unusual issue or take an action that the DM or another player is pretty sure is against the rules or is being done wrong.
The DM then makes a mad grab for the rule books and starts to look it up...simultaneously two or three of the other players will start demanding that the DM put the rule book down and do his f%*$ing job of making a call and moving on. Meanwhile the DM is trying to forestall the rising litany of complaint at delay of the game with statements like "this will just take a couple of minutes guys**" or "We might as well look it up now, then we will know it in the future***".
** No it won't, if we are lucky it will take only eight or so minutes but there are a lot of ways it could easily stretch out longer.
*** No, when this finally comes up again we'll remember that we have looked this up before but no one will be able to remember what it was that we found.
|
My standard answer is 'this is how we're running it. we can figure out the rule after the game'. The best part is, by the end of the game, the players have forgotten the argument.
"Let's go with this for now and figure it out later" has spared my group sooooo many potential rules arguments over the years.
|
|
After the Sneak Attack debacle with a 2E-only player, I have found it to be the wisest course.
Thinking about it, I had the most fun with my friend's first character ever, a cleric, when I bent the rules to help him out of tight spots. He'd ask if I was sure, and I'd say "St. Cuthbert has made it so". :)
|
|
After the Sneak Attack debacle with a 2E-only player, I have found it to be the wisest course.
Sneak Attack debacle?
On a related note, my gaming group house ruled the detect scrying spell out of existence years ago during a long-running 2E campaign after a player humorously misread it as detect scurrying.
To this very day, no matter what edition we are playing, the spell can only be used to find small animals that are moving rapidly about.
Sneak Attack debacle?Your standard "What do you mean they changed Backstab? Sneak Attack is totally unrealistic!" compounded with "I don't have the time or interest to read the 3.5 rules".
I had a game grind to a halt in 3.5 when a player with the paladin/rouge multiclass feat went to sneak attack a flanked opponent and my resident rules lawyer ruled that using sneak attack was against the paladins code.
For about 10 mins until he decided that since sneak attack is only hitting vitals that it couldn't be anymore evil than a critical.
Another famous arguement that carried over for 3 weeks after the dm made his ruling was about a Truenamer spell that kept the target from moving. Two players were actually argueing that since it descibed the tendrils coming from the "ground" they would hold the guy in place and drag him out of his carriage and he would float in the air until it wore off.
|
|
That would be followed by a ''Get out of my house, right now'' from me.
Well, it wasn't my house, but I understand the sentiment. It was a brand-new group with only one player I knew beforehand, thus we were going easy getting to know each other. I managed to have a very polite email discussion with the player and his wife about our conflicting game styles that resolved peacefully with them bowing out due to time constraints and too many players in the first place. So far the group isn't perfect, but it is what we have and we're all friends now.
|
Years back one of my best friends decided he wanted to try his hand at running D&D, and I was hesitant because I didn't think he'd be able to handle it (he's very non-confrontational and indecisive), but it meant a chance for me to actually play Age of Worms, so I loaned him all the books he'd need.
It got really ugly when another player in that game (who had never played tabletop before, and only knew the game from Neverwinter Nights) decided to demand the DM make a ruling that would kill everyone in the party who couldn't uncanny dodge. And since he was playing a rogue, that meant kill everyone in the party but him.
The rules were unclear, though common sense dictated that he was wrong as wrong could be - his contention was that by closing a door and hiding behind it, a kenku could restart the combat with new initiatives, and because this door could be opened and closed as a free action (magic door), the kenku would get to act once for every action the party took, with the end result that everyone in the party (except this player's rogue) gets sneak-attacked by a kenku we know is there and who attacks the same way everytime.
Since it would kill the whole party, I was pretty adamant that the rules said no such thing. He was adamant that they did. The GM refuse to make a ruling. Campaign ended there, and that other player and I are no longer on speaking terms.
The rules were unclear, though common sense dictated that he was wrong as wrong could be - his contention was that by closing a door and hiding behind it, a kenku could restart the combat with new initiatives, and because this door could be opened and closed as a free action (magic door), the kenku would get to act once for every action the party took, with the end result that everyone in the party (except this player's rogue) gets sneak-attacked by a kenku we know is there and who attacks the same way everytime.
What.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These overabundance of Paladins and their rigid myopic codes of black and white morality?
Home rule it. And get over it.
P.S. Hello thread. Daddy misses you.
|
Years back one of my best friends decided he wanted to try his hand at running D&D, and I was hesitant because I didn't think he'd be able to handle it (he's very non-confrontational and indecisive), but it meant a chance for me to actually play Age of Worms, so I loaned him all the books he'd need.
It got really ugly when another player in that game (who had never played tabletop before, and only knew the game from Neverwinter Nights) decided to demand the DM make a ruling that would kill everyone in the party who couldn't uncanny dodge. And since he was playing a rogue, that meant kill everyone in the party but him.
The rules were unclear, though common sense dictated that he was wrong as wrong could be - his contention was that by closing a door and hiding behind it, a kenku could restart the combat with new initiatives, and because this door could be opened and closed as a free action (magic door), the kenku would get to act once for every action the party took, with the end result that everyone in the party (except this player's rogue) gets sneak-attacked by a kenku we know is there and who attacks the same way everytime.
Since it would kill the whole party, I was pretty adamant that the rules said no such thing. He was adamant that they did. The GM refuse to make a ruling. Campaign ended there, and that other player and I are no longer on speaking terms.
I second UR
What.