Enough! I'm going back to old school.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
...geez I feel young.
I wonder how many on here were even born in 1984 (I have vague memories of Return of the Jedi, but that is pretty much it.

I saw A New Hope so many times in the movie theatre that my Dad forebad anyone else taking me again when I was reciting the entire film line for line during the last time he took me.

This was during the original run long before the death of drive-ins, the advent of cassettes and a few years before home video, PCs, the internet and cable.

Talk about feeling old ... ;)

Edit: 1970 as well. 1969 ? OooOoo :D


TriOmegaZero wrote:
In any case, I wouldn't continue gaming with a DM that copped an attitude at me. There are far too many gamers out there for me to waste time with a jerk.

Hmm... this means we might clash. I am a firm believer in Rule Zero... and in my opinion, my job is to give all of the players a good time; if this becomes imposible, I'll settle for the majority still having fun.

So, if in doubt, rather than putting a fast paced situation on hold to discuss the position of a comma in the rulebooks, or otherwise engage in rules legalese, I will decide to what appears to be common sense to me (or the rest of the troupe, if they chime in), calling upon my authority as GM.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

I said attitude, not Rule Zero. ;)

You can say 'that's not how I'm running it this time' without 'if you don't like it kiss my ass'.

Scarab Sages

Midnight_Angel wrote:
Gandal wrote:
1971 here
1970 here... do I get any lower bids?

1967 here :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So long and thanks for all the fish!

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Aretas wrote:

D&D/Pathfinder is not what it used to be. Players don't respect the DM like they did back in 2nd edition. Game Rules/mechanics debates at the table take the life out of the game

For now I'm thinking about just sticking with the Core book.

That's funny, I'm pretty sure some of the most ridiculous rules arguments I've witnessed was during a 2nd Edition game. I've also seen the GM positively shat upon by rebellious players in early edition. For us, often had to do with that we were young and didn't like doing as we were told.

Look--not saying you SHOULD play any given system. Find a game you like, find good players, play that game. Go, and may you have nothing but happiness.

But the idea that there was a magical time of gamey happiness where the GM was never disagreed with is JUST PLAIN WRONG. It's nostalgia wrapped in a big fat helping of denial. And it certainly isn't associated with any given system. I've played old versions of AD&D and seen rules lawyering right and left, and played Pathfinder and seen no arguments at all. I've also seen vice versa. It has nothing to do with the system, whatsoever, and everything to do with the players involved.

Maybe there was a time you played with a group of respectful players, and there weren't a lot of arguments. The system won't change the players' ability or inability to be disrespectful. If you're yearning to play with those people again, find them. If you're yearning for a simpler system, find it.

But there was rules lawyering and GM fighting since the game was born, and there is not a game system in the world that will do away with these things.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Russian Roulette doesn't have any arguments. :)


Starfinder Superscriber
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
...geez I feel young.
I wonder how many on here were even born in 1984 (I have vague memories of Return of the Jedi, but that is pretty much it.

I was 15 and hand been playing 1st ed, Star Frontiers, and whatever the freaking spy RPG was that TSR put out.

Anyhwo in the meantime, you kids get off my lawn!

And what is it with kids nowdays and their loud rock and roll music and their hoola hoops?


Top Secret?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
And remember, to get your players to respect the DM, the DM has to earn that respect.

Not true. To keep players, the GM has to earn respect. But, a GM does not have to worry about earning the respect of his players. He can simply uninvite them from the table.

In fact, the way I think it should work is
A.) GM demands respect from his players
B.) Players unable or unwilling to give that respect leave
C.) Remaining players with have concerns respectfully and at the appropriate time bring them up to the GM
D.) The GM responds to those concerns

I've got no problem kicking a disrespectful player out of the table regardless of their sense of entitlement.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
You can say 'that's not how I'm running it this time' without 'if you don't like it kiss my ass'.

*laughs* Indeed. However, if the player in question insists we clarify things ZOMGNOW, or starts acting pissed when I put my foot down... I will give him attitude :)


Starfinder Superscriber
Cornielius wrote:
Top Secret?

That's it, thank you Cornielius!


You should go back to 1e, that was a time when players feared the DM.


Aretas wrote:
Odraude wrote:
There was a time when people respected the DM?

Yes! It was an age of high adventure!

A time before the dreaded race of the Rules-Lawyer was spawned. Some sages say they came to the Prime Material plane from an extra dimensional rift from some unknown realm.

Of course the problem is that rules lawyers predate 2nd edition, perhaps even AD&D. You won't be escaping them that easily.

Sczarni

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I said attitude, not Rule Zero. ;)

You can say 'that's not how I'm running it this time' without 'if you don't like it kiss my ass'.

Ah but here we have a difference in play style. By 'fluid' I also mean 'rough and ready' or 'the carnage of battle'. I'm not there to coddle my players I'm there to challenge them. I don't abuse them but by willingly playing in my game they accept me as final arbiter and overall God. I'm blunt and honest to a fault and if you see that as being a d!ck, oh well.


drbuzzard wrote:
Of course the problem is that rules lawyers predate 2nd edition, perhaps even AD&D. You won't be escaping them that easily.

Nah, they emerged from whatever realm they come from, somewhen in the not-so-distant past... and then travelled back in time to spoil even our memories of the good old times.

*ducks for cover*

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Midnight_Angel wrote:

*laughs* Indeed. However, if the player in question insists we clarify things ZOMGNOW, or starts acting pissed when I put my foot down... I will give him attitude :)

I don't tolerate players that cop an attitude at me either. Plenty of replacements waiting to join in.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Shady_Motives wrote:
Ah but here we have a difference in play style.

Where? You'll have to point it out to me.

Shady_Motives wrote:
By 'fluid' I also mean 'rough and ready' or 'the carnage of battle'. I'm not there to coddle my players I'm there to challenge them. I don't abuse them but by willingly playing in my game they accept me as final arbiter and overall God. I'm blunt and honest to a fault and if you see that as being a d!ck, oh well.

What does this have to do with anything I have said?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Golly gee, three people Favorited my comment!?! Finally, my dreams of internet stardom are nigh ;)

Well, I wasn't born until '87. However, my dad had been playing since the beginning (I think he was 13?) and was the one that got me into it when I was 6. Admittedly, I just liked the pretty multi-sided dice. And I got to play my fighter, Batman, through second edition. Still, I remember in those wee years of my childhood that we'd get rules lawyers that would get mad or bothered when a rules issue came up. Whenever that happened, I'd just have Batman kill their character and suddenly, no more arguing.

I was going somewhere with this... but I'm drawing a blank here. So, just have your son or daughter stat up Batman the fighter and threaten to one shot characters or something.

Silver Crusade

Also, a guy in full-plate is already "challenged" enough with it's low saving throws that screwing him over a natural 20 is just Nintendo Hard, not Challenging Hard.

Plenty of ways to screw one already that don't allow a saving throw.


Maxximilius wrote:
Also, a guy in full-plate is already "challenged" enough with it's low saving throws...

How so? Last time I checked, your Saves, inclusing Reflex, were merrily unaffected by any armor penalty your gear might incur.


Spes Magna Mark wrote:

Q Is for Quit Whining & Play the Game :)

About that blog entry to which you link, do you realize that it says "But regardless of now nice, professional, and personable Vic Wentz, Liz Courts, James Jacobs, and other Paizoans are, they don’t run my game"?

Sorry, but when an article brings up spelling, you know that it will be scrutinized.

Silver Crusade

If you wear a full-plate and wield a tower shield, it is likely that you possess a low Dexterity score around 14, and are a class with a slow Reflex save progression.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hiya.

First...1969 here. Playin' since '80.

Second...I've actually found that as a DM, my players attitudes (same players for at least 10 years...25 for some) towards the role of DM do change based on the game system we are playing.

And, I'm sorry to say, when I did DM Pathfinder, the attituded was a much more "modern" one. What that means is they, as players, felt entitled to 'stuff'; more XP, buying magic items they want in town, being allowed to use Feat X or Class Y from Book Z, etc. When I tried to use...ahem..."logic", to make a ruling on some situation that came up, I would more often than not find myself arguing about why I'm not using rule such-n-such, or why I'm modifying the bonus/penalty/DC for whatever. They rules in Pathfinder seem to subconceously encourage rules-debates with the DM. It's as if they think that because they read it in the PHB/AdvancedPHB/BookOfTheMonth, that *anytime* situation C shows up in-game, result N *must* be used...not realizing that a lot of the time the DM (re: me) knows about stuff that's going on that they have no clue.

Last time I DM'ed Pathfinder was back in...maybe last summer? After that we did some Star Frontiers, some Marvel SH Advanced, some GURPS (I was a player in this one! :) ), some Dark Dungeons, and some 1st Ed AD&D. Just starting another Dark Dungeons campaign, set in Golarion as we were all intregued by it when we did play DD in it previously. Anyway, I noticed a strange thing. When playing those, my players started to deffer to my judgement more and more. They have stopped flipping books all session, and in stead just look at their character sheet and ask things like "My Secondary Skill is listed as Farmer/Gardener. Can I tell if the food in this inn is fresh?". Another had the Trader secondary skill and asked if she recognized any of the merchant houses symbols on any of the crates they found in a dungeon store room. This was significant because they generally NEVER used to think "outside what narrow skills and feats they had" when we played PF. By the time last weekend hit and everyone made new DD characters, one of the players (a former 3.x optimization min/max addict) actually told me: "I'm making a half-orc barbarian by the hand out you gave...but if there's anything you want to change on him now or later, let me know, it's no problem."

I guess for me, the rules system with a 'more broad' approach to skills and abilities and whatnot tends to place more of the notion of the players looking not to a book to find an answer to an in-game question, but more rightfully to the DM. Maybe it's just me and my style of DM'ing, but IMHO the players need to find a DM they trust to make decisions that they find enhance the RPG session. If a player is playing with a DM that is making decisions that are "dumb", "annoying", or "wrong" in his mind, that player should go find another DM. The DM isn't "bad"...the DM just sees and runs a game differently. Give me the good ol' days when DM's had a reputation...some were good, some bad, some were labled 'killer DMs', others 'Monty-Hall DMs'...but one thing was certain; back in the day, players had a lot of variety to choose from in terms of campaign style, outlook, and quality. I'd take that over the homogenized-and-neutered-GM's that seem rather previlant after the onset of 3e.

YMMV, of course. :)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Liberty's Edge

It is much easier to find new players than to find a good GM.

If players don't like the way the GM runs, they can become one.

I find the easiest way to fix a problem player is make them a GM and have them have to deal with the complaints from players.

Worked on me when my GM did it to me.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:
Worked on me when my GM did it to me.

Followers often understand their leaders better when they themselves have to lead. :)

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Worked on me when my GM did it to me.

Followers often understand their leaders better when they themselves have to lead. :)

Quoted for truth.

In what will be a shock to no one on the messageboard, I used to argue rules with my GM a lot when I started.

After I started to GM, I became the most manageable player you can imagine. Few things derail the fun of a group more than a player trying to GM from the other side of the table.


Born in 1968. Been playing since 1981.
There has been a 60-year old posting on this board. Came up in another thread about oldest board participant.

I distinctly remember seeing the trailer for Star Wars when I went to go see Freaky Friday and Gus at the local drive-in. And we knew about rules lawyers back in the 1980s too. There are just some types of players who are like that. I'm not even sure there are more of them today than before except that the internet tends to bring us all together and I encounter them more.

Ultimately, I think people have to remember that this is an RPG, not a computer game and not a board game. It's not run by algorithms nor do the rules define the entirety of the options. It's refereed and a negotiated experience and subject to variation.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Gandal wrote:
What about resuming your copies of AD&D 2nd ed books?
I like 3rd edition. You can do a lot more with the character. It gives mechanics to most of the "stuff" in 2nd edition.

Indeed. A lot of people talk about how modern systems are too codified, and how it doesn't allow for imagination and going outside the rules to make stuff up.

I say they are allowing themselves to be constrained.

I've heard it said that every new feat means characters can't ask the DM to do something, because they don't have the feat.

Example wrote:

Player: "Hey, can I lunge forward to strike someone out of my reach, but take an AC penalty?"

DM: "No, you don't have the Lunge feat."

I say this is not a fault of having the feat, but a fault of the players and DM letting the rules constrain them.

You want players to be able to ask to do things on the fly?

Let them.

Abolish the feat progression in your game. Let ALL feats be available to all characters. And when a player says 'hey can I do this' say 'yeah, here are the rules for it'.

People talk about 'rulings instead of rules', but rulings are just rules you haven't made up prior. The benefit of having feats instead of making it up off the top of your head is that you don't have to waste time figuring out a fair way of letting the player do what he asked. You've already got the tool, and you don't have to worry about remembering how you did it last time. It's consistent and, if written well, balanced.

If a rule constrains you, consider not using it. If you have a rule that works, use it.

Hey ToZ - I agree with everything you said - but when your anser is to fundamentally change the game system to something else (which again I really agree with) then the system might have some issues.

I think the bigger point is that mechanics swung from being too abstract in the older days of RPG's to being too defined now. I mean it's all a moot point anyway - if pathfinder isn't cutting it for you go find a system that agrees with you better. If Pathfinder was all I played I'd go nuts. I love Pathfinder, but it's SO mechanical and that's a frustration I can understand... but that's what makes the combat so appealing.

Basically pathfinder is (to me, mechanically speaking) a big combat engine. It's awesome for dungeons and combat, and kind of meh for storytelling. I know, I know - Storytelling has nothing to do with a games specific mechanics and everything to do with how you run and blah blah blah BUT - most of the role-playing encounters you run up against in the course of published material is really a skill check with added modifiers based on RP'ing.

Like ToZ - I like to monkey with the system to see what works and doesn't work for me. As an experiment I ran an adventure recently where I took charisma as a score and all the social skills (sense motive, diplomacy, bluff, etc) out of the game entirely. It was a really different game for the players and I, and it was kind of interesting to watch them adjust (they all started at the end of 3.5/beginning of Pathfinder, I started way back).

Just my 2 cents.

Shadow Lodge

Does the system have issues, or do you have issues with the system? ;)


Aaron Bitman wrote:
Sorry, but when an article brings up spelling, you know that it will be scrutinized.

Thanks! The funny thing is that I even looked up Mr. Wertz's name to make sure I had the spelling correct, and I still messed it up. Corrections have been made.

If you feel like it, go through all 26 A to Z posts and proof them also. :)


amethal wrote:
Well, the first edition AD&D DMG talks about rules lawyers, even if it doesn't quite call them that.

Indeed! My favourite thing to note when people say that there are too many rules arguments nowadays is to point out that Dragon Magazine's "Sage Advice" column was complaining about the deluge of rules inquiries....in issue #37 (May 1980).


TOZ wrote:
Does the system have issues, or do you have issues with the system? ;)

I'll take BOTH for 700, YOU MOUNTEBANK!

Shadow Lodge

...I'm not sure if I should be insulted or complimented by that...

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jeraa wrote:

I've debated going back to an older edition myself. But I realized it won't help - the majority of the problem isn't what edition of the rules you are using, or what materials you are using in a particular edition, its a problem with the players themselves.

Its the players not respecting the DM, not the system disrespecting the DM.
Its the players debating rules, not the system debating the rules.

Fix the players, fix the problem.

A lot of it is a sense of player entitlement. The problem was fed by the decision made by WOTC to produce the majority of it's rulebooks for players instead of DMs. Each month a new hardback of player toys came out, and player options mushroomed by the bucketload. This would not have been that much of a problem save that the splatbooks were uneven in quality and especially in game balance.

The other problem was the profusion of charop messageboards like this one. I can not think of a better way to kill interest in this game than by tossing a new gamer into these message boards. I'll stress that I don't consider this the fault of Paizo, it's just how the gamer community has evolved with an increasing focus on "winning" what is supposed to be a cooperative game.


TOZ wrote:
...I'm not sure if I should be insulted or complimented by that...

It's an SNL quote! Of course you should be complimented!

(when I read your response I was sitting at my tesk muttering "that's what your mother said last night" In my worst bad connery impression)

Silver Crusade

Odraude wrote:
There was a time when people respected the DM?

Yes there was.

When player's don't respect their DM the DM doesn't respect his/her player's.

Liberty's Edge

ciretose wrote:
Find new players.

Seconded. Or if not new players learn to say no to the ones he has.

If the OP does not want spicy taco flingng feat at his table it's not allowed. It drivers me crazy as both a player and a DM when DM who can't say no blame the options the system gives you. And it's not like 2E did not have a wide variety of options. I had alot of 2E material. I had to be careful what I allowed and what I did not allow. Hell every rpg offers many options to players. So I'm not sure why the OP is pciking on PF.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was born in 1976. I've been playing and running RPGs for over 20 years.

The Rules Lawyer is nothing new. I remember hearing the term in the days of AD&D.

My first DM used to say, "The Dungeon Master isn't god; the Dungeon Master tells god what to do".

Things were definitely more "hard core" in those days (or maybe it was just my DM). He was the best DM I've ever had. He ran the most epic, balls-to-the-wall game. The kind of game where you were always afraid of dying, and had a huge sense of accomplishment when you survived. He was always fair, and impartial, and he would hear you out, but in the end, his word was law.

In those days there were no cookie cutter "builds". People didn't go to forums (they didn't exist) and mindlessly ask for someone to give them a character build. People made their own characters from the ground up, and they had personality. They weren't just a collection of stats on a piece of paper. Back then, you were required to justify EVERY thing your character took during creation. You had to fit it into your character's background and story. Min-maxing was a great way to inspire the DM to tear up your character sheet (which in those days was just a piece of notebook paper) and tell you to start over and do it right.

You can still have an equal gaming experience today. Those games didn't come easy. There were min-maxers and rules lawyers even then. It was the DM's job to deal with them--to get them to see the error of their ways, or if that was impossible, tell them not to bother coming back.

There was respect for the DM, but that respect was earned. We had awesome adventures. There was no running of published modules, each adventure was created by the DM, custom crafted for your character. I'm not saying modules are a bad thing, they can be done very well. But when they are, it's because the DM put a lot of time into modifying the module for his group.

I think the key is to be very clear with your players in the beginning what you expect from them. Tell them what kind of game you're running. Lay down the ground rules. Tell them what books/supplements you'll be using, what options are available for play. As a DM, you don't even have to use everything in the CORE book, much rather anything else. Maybe a gnome just wouldn't fit in the game you have planned, or a player trying to play a wizard would be more trouble than it's worth, or whatever. As long as it's stated ahead of time, the players have the option to either play in your game and abide by the rules or not play in that particular game.

It's possible that the new d20 system has led to a bit more rules lawyering, but if so, I think it's because the rules actually make sense, are systematic, and accessible to everyone. 2nd edition was a mess. I remember in those days every DM I played under had his own set of house rules. It was practically required by the game because the rules as written didn't work or make sense. In that kind of climate, you came to every gaming table expecting not to know all the rules because there would be a lot of modifications by that particular DM. It's hard to rules lawyer a DM when he's made a lot of the rules himself. My own 2nd edition campaigns were highly modified. All my campaigns used the same rules, but they were filled with my own house rules I'd developed over the years.

I ran 3.5 and now Pathfinder with no real changes to the rules. The system is tight enough there's no need, and there's enough options for players I don't feel I need to create new ones. But in the end, Rule 0 still applies as much today as it ever did.


If the GM wants respect, they should be packing some serious heat. I recommend a Magnum with hollow points. Provided you are a good shot, you can intimidate the players by getting in some target practice before the game. Don't forget to reload.

(Just a joke. I don't own a gun or ever plan on owning one)


TriOmegaZero wrote:

You realize the rules already say Acrobatics can't be used in heavy armor, right?

In any case, I wouldn't continue gaming with a DM that copped an attitude at me. There are far too many gamers out there for me to waste time with a jerk.

Sorry to split hairs with you TOZ but the rules actually say
PFSRD-Acrobatics wrote:
You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor. If an ability allows you to move at full speed under such conditions, you can use Acrobatics to move past foes.

You can use the acrobatics skill for crossing surfaces or jumping even in heavy armor. You could also use it as a 7th level fighter because at that point his armor no longer reduces his speed. :)

As to the OP, I think enough people have said it clearly already, but I'll reiterate anyway. It's not a system problem it's a player problem, or perhaps more pointedly a players as they interact with the GM problem. Establishing respect for your rulings and creating a culture of non-questioning, comes from knowing the rules well (or being able to quickly find them -- thanks Combat Manager) and making them work fairly and for everyone's fun.

I'd hate to be accusatory and say "what you have is a personal/table problem," but it's entirely possible that that is exactly what you have.

Edit: Also wanted to say I was born in 1975, been playing since 85, and we were rules-lawyering back then as well. That is until we found a GM that didn't stand for rules bickering at the table.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
nathan blackmer wrote:


I think the bigger point is that mechanics swung from being too abstract in the older days of RPG's to being too defined now. I mean it's all a moot point anyway - if pathfinder isn't cutting it for you go find a system that agrees with you better. If Pathfinder was all I played I'd go nuts. I love Pathfinder, but it's SO mechanical and that's a frustration I can understand... but that's what makes the combat so appealing.

To me, d20 in practically ALL it's iterations has become the death of 1000 modifiers. I'm not a math dummy by any means...and I have a BS in mathmatics, a minor in physics, and a couple of years as a math teacher backing that statement up. But when I engage in one of my hobbies, I'm doing so to have fun, not to prove that I'm decent in math. Now hey, maybe some of you enjoy playing Accountants & Bookkeeping, and good on you. But I think that there is a certain point where the tedious accounting portion of the game overshadows the fun part, and that point comes far quicker with a more rules-dense game like Pathfinder than for a lighter system like (for example) Swords & Wizardry.

...
[waits for his froggy commission check]
...

nathan blackmer wrote:


Basically pathfinder is (to me, mechanically speaking) a big combat engine. It's awesome for dungeons and combat, and kind of meh for storytelling. I know, I know - Storytelling has nothing to do with a games specific mechanics and everything to do with how you run and blah blah blah BUT - most of the role-playing encounters you run up against in the course of published material is really a skill check with added modifiers based on RP'ing.

I'd have to agree. The thing is, I don't seen any really need for an RPG to have "storytelling" mechanics.

nathan blackmer wrote:


Like ToZ - I like to monkey with the system to see what works and doesn't work for me. As an experiment I ran an adventure recently where I took charisma as a score and all the social skills (sense motive, diplomacy, bluff, etc) out of the game entirely. It was a really different game for the players and I, and it was kind of interesting to watch them adjust (they all started at the end of 3.5/beginning of Pathfinder, I started way back).

Damn, I gotta come visit again sometime. Well, I will be a LOT closer fairly soon. See you then, Nate!


Bill Dunn wrote:

Born in 1968. Been playing since 1981.

There has been a 60-year old posting on this board. Came up in another thread about oldest board participant.

I distinctly remember seeing the trailer for Star Wars when I went to go see Freaky Friday and Gus at the local drive-in. And we knew about rules lawyers back in the 1980s too. There are just some types of players who are like that. I'm not even sure there are more of them today than before except that the internet tends to bring us all together and I encounter them more.

Ultimately, I think people have to remember that this is an RPG, not a computer game and not a board game. It's not run by algorithms nor do the rules define the entirety of the options. It's refereed and a negotiated experience and subject to variation.

I think there are a lot less rules lawyers now. Probably half as many. All the PVP and Power Gamers I knew, who made up the majority of the problem players and rules lawyers, went to go play WoW and left table top behind. Now days, the closest thing to a rules lawyer I ever meet at the table are story focused people who are upset that either the rules as written, or the GM, are giving them rules that contradict the image they have of what's happening. They don't care as much about stacking high numbers on their character sheets as they care about those numbers meaning what they think they should mean.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I've noticed is that I see more people arguing about D&D rules on the internet compared to 20 years ago. So obviously D&D rules are getting worse and people are getting more argumentative.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
hogarth wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that I see more people arguing about D&D rules on the internet compared to 20 years ago. So obviously D&D rules are getting worse and people are getting more argumentative.

Nature of the internet.... there are more arguments about everything because response is so rapid, cheap, and without consequence.


hogarth wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that I see more people arguing about D&D rules on the internet compared to 20 years ago. So obviously D&D rules are getting worse and people are getting more argumentative.

Har har!

And yeah Kthulhu - it'll be nice to have you state-side again we were all talking about how we missed you last night!

Liberty's Edge

Jeraa wrote:

Its the players not respecting the DM, not the system disrespecting the DM.

Its the players debating rules, not the system debating the rules.

Fix the players, fix the problem.

This. And one surefire way to do this is to EARN their respect.


hogarth wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that I see more people arguing about D&D rules on the internet compared to 20 years ago. So obviously D&D rules are getting worse and people are getting more argumentative.

I was thinking about this the other day, or rather, I was think about how the internet has affected rules interpretation.

There's a vocal population that sneers at house ruling as Doing It Wrong. It seems to me that's a direct effect of being able to come to these message boards an hit the faq button.

Until the internet came along, the only way to get an official rules clarification was to write to Dragon magazine a really hope they answered your letter in Sage Advice. Best case scenario, given snail mail and printing times, you're looking at a two to four month delay, and that's if they read your letter immediately on arrival and decide on a answer that instant. Given the options, house ruling was the reasonable choice.

I guess I'm saying the internet enables rules lawyers, but what are you gonna do? There have always been people who are pig-headed enough to argue about rules instead of play; hell, I've been that guy more than once.


Hitdice wrote:
hogarth wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that I see more people arguing about D&D rules on the internet compared to 20 years ago. So obviously D&D rules are getting worse and people are getting more argumentative.

I was thinking about this the other day, or rather, I was think about how the internet has affected rules interpretation.

There's a vocal population that sneers at house ruling as Doing It Wrong. It seems to me that's a direct effect of being able to come to these message boards an hit the faq button.

Until the internet came along, the only way to get an official rules clarification was to write to Dragon magazine a really hope they answered your letter in Sage Advice. Best case scenario, given snail mail and printing times, you're looking at a two to four month delay, and that's if they read your letter immediately on arrival and decide on a answer that instant. Given the options, house ruling was the reasonable choice.

I guess I'm saying the internet enables rules lawyers, but what are you gonna do? There have always been people who are pig-headed enough to argue about rules instead of play; hell, I've been that guy more than once.

I don't think that the internet enables rules lawyers. For example, I don't care if a house rule I write, or a ruling I make on the fly, or a rule I invent during a game on the fly, contradicts RAW or not. If I was running 3.5, a player could get Monte Cook to come to my house to tell me I'm wrong, but it wouldn't change how I run the game. The ONLY way a rules lawyer can convince me of his point is to show HOW a RAW supports the mental image I have of the game, or how it makes more sense with the genera conventions we have been playing by.

Nothing empowers rules lawyers except weak GMs.


I'm one the gamers that see d20 as overly codified. In that having specific DCs listed for various uses of a skill are a nuisance. Why in the hell do you need a specific DC. What's wrong with a basic description of what the skill encompasses and then allow the GM the freedom to set the DC...not tumbling through a threatened square is a DC15 or through an occupied square is a DC25 Tumble/Acrobatics check.
Breaking the rounds into Standard, Move, and Swift is another nuisance. It's the extra details that I have always found frustrating as a GM and player.

Meta-magic feats are another thing that were a poor add-in, specifically the item creation feats. I've never used them as a player or a GM. Gathering materials and knowledge to create items is the stuff around which many an adventure can and continues to be had. As a GM, I have some players that game to the hobby after 3E was released. They get frustrated that I don't allow them. My stance as a GM, don't like it, find another GM. I won't budge.

I've always been of the mind that story not details are what's most important to running and playing a session, with the rules to be bent or discarded as suits the needs of the GM running the game. I'm fine if my GM tells me that I can't try something or decides to improvise in way that flies in the face of the rules. I don't think save or die spells are a bad idea. Too many of my current gamers and those I have gamed with in the last 6 or 7 years, disagree. No one is wrong, we just have different perspectives of what is considered enjoyable for a game.

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Enough! I'm going back to old school. All Messageboards