This is something I've had to go through for many years with many different people. Mainly starting with 3.5, they would say that you could or couldn't (mainly couldn't) do something for such and such reason. I don't mean GMs as it's their business if they want to do house rules.....as long as they make them clear at the begining of the game, but that's not what I mean.
One time I used polymorph (3.5) to turn into a Hydra, then a player at the table will tell me "oh well you can't do that because their multiple heads will disorient you and such." I've never seen that in the book.
I had Fire Immunity and I decided to go into a pool of lava. Then I hear "fire immunity wouldn't protect you from that because it's too hot and would bypass the immunity." um.. lava deals fire damage, I'm immune to fire damage, cut and dry, case close.
I was using haste while I casted timestop and a player said "if you used time stop while using haste you'll start to age like crazy." Maybe this was a concept in 2nd edition, but I don't see it now.
Another time I was talking about how I wanted to multiclass a Monk with a Cleric (pathfinder). A person was telling me why I wouldn't be able to and she said something like "you can't because your ki would interfere with your divine energy." I don't rememeber seeing that in the book. Where is it?
I don't mind too much if people question the logic of the game, but it's really annoying when players feel that it's neccessary to grab things out of the air and try to make it a part of the game.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Wait, in your first paragraph, you had me all set up to think you were about to tell stories of people disrupting your game with "RAW" ("rules as written"), but then all your examples were of people pulling stuff out of their arses that goes against the rules.
What was your point, then? I'm confused.
Wait, in your first paragraph, you had me all set up to think you were about to tell stories of people disrupting your game with "RAW" ("rules as written"), but then all your examples were of people pulling stuff out of their arses that goes against the rules.
What was your point, then?
The point was that despite the RAW, they decide to come up with things that ignore them. I probably could have made it more clear in my topic title, sorry.
Wait, in your first paragraph, you had me all set up to think you were about to tell stories of people disrupting your game with "RAW" ("rules as written"), but then all your examples were of people pulling stuff out of their arses that goes against the rules.
What was your point, then? I'm confused.
Anti-RAW people can be disruptive, too.
My two cents: I'm not crazy about having too many house rules as a player (of course, as a GM, my house rules are amazingly awesome fried gold). HOWEVER, if you're going to have house rules, PLEASE let me know what they are up front!!
If new rules keep sprouting up every five minutes, I feel like I'm in a funhouse or in Dementia Five.
I once had an ST tell me (this was OWoD LARP) that he could take one of the books and pick out a rule, then find something in another book that completely contradicted the original rule. He basically said it was his job to take this jumble and see what would make sense for the situation.
I do tend to like my games pretty rules light and not so nitpicky. Whatever helps in not bogging down the game.I once had a GM tell me *sounding like Tommy Chong* Man, I couldn't give two s**t's about weapon proficiencies."
Gaming with him has been some of the best in my life.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Show me the player who can play the game by the rules, only as they are written, and I'll show you a flying pig monkey who can code in squel using only words written in pig latin.
There's a big gap between your absolutist statement and the OP's stories of players (not the GM, the players) interrupting the game with weird crap out of left field that has nothing to do with anything and trying to insist that the game works that way.
Responding to an absurdity by pointing out an opposite absurdity does nothing but show you to be absurd.
I do have a (modest) set of house rules, but those go out in PDF before the game starts. Otherwise it is RAW, or at least group-consensus of RAI.
Producing house rules as they become relevant in play is extremely unfair.
I once had an ST tell me (this was OWoD LARP) that he could take one of the books and pick out a rule, then find something in another book that completely contradicted the original rule. He basically said it was his job to take this jumble and see what would make sense for the situation.
He/she exaggerated. There were a few rules in old WoD that weren't contradicted by rule from another book (example: you roll one d10 per dot in your dice pool :P).
When I first read the title, I thought it was being asked whether anyone plays IN THE RAW (especially since the OP has 'Sauce' in his alias). Unless you're gaming with Sasha Grey and friends, likely not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another time I was talking about how I wanted to multiclass a Monk with a Cleric (pathfinder). A person was telling me why I wouldn't be able to and she said something like "you can't because your ki would interfere with your divine energy."
...what?
I think I just had an brain aneurysm caused by someone's sheer stupidity.
There was a product that said stepping in lava should be no save and even that said immunity from fire should protect you. I forget what it is called right now.
Which makes no sense, otherwise fire elementals wouldn't be able to live in volcanoes.
I use most of the rules as written, besides a few that I went nah, don't like that...
Vital strike with spring attack
Weapons are finesseable (sp?)(no weapon finesse or agile manuvers, they are automatic feats)
A few others
I play RAW until it gets in the way of the game, then I make $#!+ up.
Thats about right...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a problem with players putting thier two cents in on a ruling. It's the DM's job to arbitrate the rules not the other players.
I play by RAI(RAW as intended). :)
But in all seriousness I stick to the book for the most part, and I have a list of houserules I hand out before every campaign. The rules are the same, but I email it anyway.
Not everything is on the list, but the important stuff is. I also check everyone's character sheet in case one of my unwritten rules needs to be mentioned. As an example I ignore the number of rounds it takes to disable complex devices. It is always 1 round.
I don't mind players giving input. Sometimes the GM is wrong. I know that when I have not played in a while it takes me a session or two before I get back to normal. Now with that said I prefer it to be someone who knows the rules. :)