Now if you come up with something that actually compares to a gaming situation, and not being a jerk then I would tell you how I respond to game related situations.But that's just my point, wraith - those situations I was talking about involve the DM being a jerk. Thus, it's completely irrelevant whether some Rule Zero line in the rulebook gives him whatever power he chooses.
As said before, there is a great many situations between the level-headed guy making a ruling on an unclear situation and letting you reverse an action since it was based on that ruling (or making it near the end of the session where the difference is trivial), and the other guy making up houserules on the spot and refusing to compromise at all because he doesn't know the actual rules of the game, and has the "right" to make them up as he sees fit.
And thus, I am arguing against the blanket statement that it makes a bad player to not always accept everything coming from a GM's mouth as gospel.
As far as 'blanket statements' go, you've now mischaracterized and misquoted mine.
I said that there is a time when you need to stop arguing with the GM and accept the ruling. You are welcome to look at any of my previous posts within which that very thing was stated, multiple times.
If you are referring to someone else's blanket statement, make that clear, since my name is the only one that has come up thus far with the terms "blanket statement" or "all in his head" applied.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now if you come up with something that actually compares to a gaming situation, and not being a jerk then I would tell you how I respond to game related situations.But that's just my point, wraith - those situations I was talking about involve the DM being a jerk. Thus, it's completely irrelevant whether some Rule Zero line in the rulebook gives him whatever power he chooses.
From what I understood the GM did not know he was wrong. That is why we were saying you were wrong to hold the game up, if that was a real life situation.
Even if he is being stubborn about a game it is not on the same level as breaking personal property.
And this is not even about rule 0 to me. That is different from the GM having the final say. That is just how the game works. Once the GM has made up his mind there is no point in arguing anymore. If this was the only time the GM ever did this I would just talk to him after the game, and try to find a solution. If this is a constant thing with him never admitting a mistake I find a new group.
My practice is to make the most annoying RL the rule adjudicator and heap it all on him. (Odd, can't recall a single female I've saddled with this) I also pass off initiative tracking, running the melees, adventure logs, etc. I just provide the interaction with my world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My practice is to make the most annoying RL the rule adjudicator and heap it all on him. (Odd, can't recall a single female I've saddled with this) I also pass off initiative tracking, running the melees, adventure logs, etc. I just provide the interaction with my world.
Hmm...
My DM makes me do a lot of that stuff...