A phenomenom I've noticed in my gaming experience. [Archive] - Wizards Community

A phenomenom I've noticed in my gaming experience. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Count Arioch the 28th
02-25-08, 03:40 PM I've DM'd for a long time, and I've noticed a trend in every group I've been in.

I have had to retrain the players in how to play D&D due to them previous playing with (oftentimes bizarre) house rules.

Now, I'm a straightforward DM. I use the rules as written, and give a short typed list of houserules I will be using for that particular campaign. Everything is transparent and in the open as to how I will rule on a given subject.

It seems that I'm the only DM in my area that does that.
Sinfire Titan
02-25-08, 03:51 PM All DMs have to recondition new players to their style. Some DMs choose to instead alter their style to suit the players themselves. Some players can alter their styles to suit the DM's with little to no training. You are looking at the first instance of this situation.
Dog_O_War
02-25-08, 03:58 PM I've DM'd for a long time, and I've noticed a trend in every group I've been in.

I have had to retrain the players in how to play D&D due to them previous playing with (oftentimes bizarre) house rules.

Now, I'm a straightforward DM. I use the rules as written, and give a short typed list of houserules I will be using for that particular campaign. Everything is transparent and in the open as to how I will rule on a given subject.

It seems that I'm the only DM in my area that does that.

That's because your in Yo momma.

Seriously though, you are not alone. I've had to retrain DM's because they offered stupid and awful house rules. I'd use their crap rulings to break the game (quickly) then ask if we can play it as it was written.

Often I find the ones with all sorts of house rules are the ones that haven't actually read the rules.
Drag0nUL
02-25-08, 04:03 PM Although I haven't been into D&D for long, I've noticed that too, as both a player(in different groups) and occasional DM.

At least where I play this comes mostly from the manner D&D has spread around(in my country it was next to unknown until quite recently), in sort of a master-apprentice relationship. Some rules are quite easy to interpret the wrong way if you are new to the game and the person who is explaining you sees them in a certain way.
So we ended up with some pretty weird rules interpretations (like tumble adding +2 DC for each square, not for each opponent) which went unchallenged until somebody on the forums declared it to work otherwise.
Etarnon
02-25-08, 07:54 PM Here in Dayton, we generally play Rules as Written, for any game.

If it's going to be different, I write it up, and hand it out when I pass out the 20-50 page campaign orientation books, depending on which game I am running.
Orchomenos
02-26-08, 10:23 AM I've played in a group where they used the rules very loosely. This was more a group of friends who happened to play D&D than a group of D&D players. One of them mostly wanted to hack&slash, but still kept on listening in the more RP parts, so that was cool. He played a 3rd level (savage progression) minotaur, that is a young, medium-size minotaur. Still, each time he charged a goblin, this one litterally bumped the wall at the other side of the room. That was just one of many house-rules to keep the hack&slash player happy.

Now is that right or wrong? If you join this game with a RAW or Rule-Lawyer spirit, you will find this frustrating. But if you play your own character, you will have fun. As I said, it's mostly to have fun with friends than getting in the D&D universe.
Drag0nUL
02-26-08, 11:13 AM I agree. I have nothing against house rules(although I prefer the game to be as close to RAW as possible) as long as they increase the enjoyment for all the people taking part in the game.

The problem appears when 2 people(usually the DM and a player) have somewhat different interpretation of the same rule, both being convinced that they are playing by RAW. This usually generates some arguments that slow down play.
Magrus
02-26-08, 01:31 PM It happens. I enjoy the players who assume that I, as a DM, don't know the rules and try to pull crap over on me by getting me to agree to things that are so far out there I have to laugh at them. All in the hopes that I'll be a "cool DM" and house rule it so it's "legal". Then get all uppity when I quote the rules to them, and ask if they even read up on the subjects that they were asking about. :rolleyes:

I have made a few house rules for my games, and some of those I only implement when I have come to know, and trust that my players won't abuse these house rules. When not used to abuse the system, it makes things more even for certain characters with those house rules. I put them up front for character creation so they know ahead of time.

Then again, there will always be that strange instance where a player comes up with something or the DM does instead, and a group will create a new rule to deal with issues that spring up. I cannot predict every possible action and reaction that may take place in a campaign ahead of time. If I could, I'd be doing something else with my free time and making oodles of cash.
Radijs
02-26-08, 01:49 PM So far I've only organized 2 campaigns. The first one started over 3 years ago and I did not have the experience to think of such a list.

My second campaign started late last year. And there I did have the sense to mail everyone a group of houserules. So no, you're not the only one.
Jagyr Ebonwood
02-26-08, 02:56 PM The problem appears when 2 people(usually the DM and a player) have somewhat different interpretation of the same rule, both being convinced that they are playing by RAW. This usually generates some arguments that slow down play.

And in a perfect world, the player would concede to the DM's ruling until the session was over. ;)
Etarnon
02-27-08, 03:32 AM Yeah, i just let the guy have his three minutes to state his case. if i agree, i'll go with it, if not, i'll rule otherwise.

If he wants to keep arguing, he can leave 'cause he's delaying the game.

This is why it's so utterly important for a DM to know the rules better than any player, despite 3.x making that very difficult if you use a lot more than core.
kelvinaw273
02-27-08, 12:27 PM I think it is important to draw a distinction between an on-the-spot ruling and a house rule. A house rule stands in your game for all time. An on-the-spot rule is where either the rules are unclear, they do not cover the specific circumstances you are in, or it's going to take too long to look them up. Some players expect these off-the-cuff judgments to be binding precedents - they aren't and shouldn't be.

On the other hand, just because you think a house rule is stupid doesn't mean it is. As a player, I'll always try and work within the rules of a game - breaking somebody's game is not a nice thing to do, after all.
new_fashion_guy
02-27-08, 01:26 PM The problem appears when 2 people(usually the DM and a player) have somewhat different interpretation of the same rule, both being convinced that they are playing by RAW.

This should never be an argument. The DM's interpretation goes. Sometimes I think D20 has turned D&D into a weak democracy, where people think they should be allowed to vote on who's right or wrong. It was always intended that the DM be in control of the game, to the extent of ignoring or rewriting the rules as necessary. It's actually written into First Edition, and I think Wizards made a flaw not emphasizing this in 3.0 and up.
sblaxman
02-27-08, 02:18 PM Yes, the older editions made it clear that the rules were a starting point, and that the DM was completely free to take or change them as s/he see fit to make the game work for them. There is a reason I still play by the older rules.
I_roll_ones
02-27-08, 03:21 PM I play with a whole lot of house rules...I haven't DM'd yet, so I can't have trained anyone wrong, but I think of rules as guidelines...And meant to be broken for enjoyment purposes sometimes. Fluff is an even weaker guideline.
Count Arioch the 28th
02-27-08, 03:32 PM Yes, the older editions made it clear that the rules were a starting point, and that the DM was completely free to take or change them as s/he see fit to make the game work for them. There is a reason I still play by the older rules.

I've been rules-raped too often by crappy DMs to ever trust another DM's decision when it opposes RAW.
Zombie_Babies
02-27-08, 04:01 PM This should never be an argument. The DM's interpretation goes. Sometimes I think D20 has turned D&D into a weak democracy, where people think they should be allowed to vote on who's right or wrong. It was always intended that the DM be in control of the game, to the extent of ignoring or rewriting the rules as necessary. It's actually written into First Edition, and I think Wizards made a flaw not emphasizing this in 3.0 and up.

Actually, my group does vote on rules and other aspects of the game and we have no problems whatsoever. I think this is because we take time before the campaign starts to talk about what kind of game we all want to play and the things we want in or out of it. We are also adults and have been playing for a long time. Rules questions in game are few and usually end up with a quick lookup or consensus ruling. The DM, however, always has a veto power over these rulings (and the RAW as well, though this is rarely invoked) and the ability to make on the fly judgements that will be adhered to until after the session (and possibly permanently) as well. We also take turns DMing new campaigns so most of us know what's involved. Those that only DM or only PC are missing a large part of D&D education and are really unfit to criticise the group they have not experienced, IMO.

D&D is a group activity. All participants are playing the game- even the DM. The group must work together to make the game enjoyable. When the DM is too heavy handed and has a god complex his players will not have fun. No one shows up to get bossed around. The players can also ruin the DMs fun with constant griping and by attempting to push the DM into changing too much of his concept to suit them. The DM does too much work to be disrespected in such a manner. In short, it's not about a power struggle. The DM is not god of the game. At the same time the players cannot expect the same level of control over the world/rules as the DM. You need balance. And remember, the object of the game is to have fun- not to exert power over your friends.
eamon
02-27-08, 04:14 PM I've been rules-raped too often by crappy DMs to ever trust another DM's decision when it opposes RAW.

Well, I'm not too thrilled with RAW - it's complex in that it requires steadily more dice-rolling,
it's difficult to interprete sometimes (witness the fact that Rules of the Game and the FAQ occaisonally, if rarely, make mistakes or counterintuitive rulings on basic game issues, so how are others expected to do better),
it tries to rule even in cases where rules are inherently badly suited to do so (rather than focussing on a solid core) - it's almost as if it's a mixture between simulation and role-playing, with somtimes unfortunate table-top consequences,
it requires a lot of cross-book and chapter lookups,
it makes the DM expend extraordinary amounts of prep work to know monsters abilities (I remember a player on these boards boasting about his dragon slaying encounter, when that essentially merely reflected the dichotomy between the DM's prep and the player's), especially since spells and feats are often not pointed out when they're crucial, and further many creatures are so badly optimized that either they're way too wimpy as written, or, they're not, but then advancement makes em ridiculously overpowered.

RAW doesn't provide many guidelines as to how to apply non-mechanical modifications, such as monster advancement, and when it does, those are prescriptive rather than insightful and frequently plain wrong (again, monster advancement).

So, I like the rules, by and large, as a framework, but I think it's stretching it to consider it very reliable. And you know, I think the convoluted rules are maybe partly to blame for many "crappy DM" rulings, since those are probably not intentionally bad, but simply misguided, and that's due in good measure to the fact that it's not easy to use the rules.
new_fashion_guy
02-27-08, 04:32 PM Actually, my group does vote on rules and other aspects of the game and we have no problems whatsoever. I think this is because we take time before the campaign starts to talk about what kind of game we all want to play and the things we want in or out of it. We are also adults and have been playing for a long time. Rules questions in game are few and usually end up with a quick lookup or consensus ruling. The DM, however, always has a veto power over these rulings (and the RAW as well, though this is rarely invoked) and the ability to make on the fly judgements that will be adhered to until after the session (and possibly permanently) as well. We also take turns DMing new campaigns so most of us know what's involved. Those that only DM or only PC are missing a large part of D&D education and are really unfit to criticise the group they have not experienced, IMO.

As long as the DM have "Veto Power", I can live with it. It's when I make a judgement in game, and the PCs discuss whether or not to accept that judgement, that it becomes a problem.

I've been playing RPGs since 1983. I've played and DM'ed more games than I care to count. But not in any game before D20 have I ever seen a group of players who felt they could openly question a DM's ruling based on "RAW". We used to call these people "Rules Lawyers", and believe me, it was not a flattering term.
CryoSilver
02-27-08, 04:38 PM In my game, most of the houserules are minor or cosmetic, or just add-ons to the existing rules. Mostly they involve giving out extra skill points for leveling in a favored class.

The biggest change by far is the totally re-tooled cleric I use which has been not so much nerfed as made into something entirely different.
Lincoln Hills
02-27-08, 04:45 PM ...Now, I'm a straightforward DM. I use the rules as written, and give a short typed list of houserules I will be using for that particular campaign. Everything is transparent and in the open as to how I will rule on a given subject...

Kudos, then, Arioch XXVIII. (By the by, I think this the first time the two of us have agreed on anything. Just goes to show...)

The main reason I like to adhere to what's written, and urge players to help me "look it up!" in most cases, is to reduce this campaign-to-campaign splash... and to reinforce that although the DM's word is "law," the DM is going to be relying on precedent and reason when extrapolating new "laws".

And I think there's a second reason (besides 'bad DMs') that new players tend to show up with odd rules expectations: 3.5 has burst its seams. Every DM has a different list of approved books, unapproved books, unknown books... In addition to causing 'power creep' and incompatible/contradictory rules, the gush of additional rule sourcebooks has the unfortunate side effect of widening the gap between tables. (When I first decided not to bump from 3.0 to 3.5, it was through frustration at WotC: but since then I've discovered that using a "dead system" is relaxing - my players don't ever demand that the latest expansion be spliced on.)
Zombie_Babies
02-27-08, 05:04 PM As long as the DM have "Veto Power", I can live with it. It's when I make a judgement in game, and the PCs discuss whether or not to accept that judgement, that it becomes a problem.

I've been playing RPGs since 1983. I've played and DM'ed more games than I care to count. But not in any game before D20 have I ever seen a group of players who felt they could openly question a DM's ruling based on "RAW". We used to call these people "Rules Lawyers", and believe me, it was not a flattering term.

I do believe the players should be able to question a DM ruling they find issue with. If it's a legitimate RAW concern, that is. However, if it takes too much time from the game they need to go with what the DM says and talk about it after the game. And if the DM decides that he doesn't like the RAW in this case, he should explain it to the players and his reasons for it. If it's then put forth as no longer up for debate the question is resolved.

Sometimes DMs make mistakes with the rules that the players can catch. They need to have that option. The players can only exert control over their characters and when a DM ruling interferes with what they believe their character to be, then they should be able to question that ruling. They also need to respect the DMs final decision even if it contradicts the RAW. Dialogue over a rules dispute, when handled at the appropriate time and in the appropriate fashion, should be part of the game, IMO. As long as the players have a chance to make their case and then abide by the DMs decision, everything is fine.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Count Arioch the 28th 02-25-08, 03:40 PM	I've DM'd for a long time, and I've noticed a trend in every group I've been in. I have had to retrain the players in how to play D&D due to them previous playing with (oftentimes bizarre) house rules. Now, I'm a straightforward DM. I use the rules as written, and give a short typed list of houserules I will be using for that particular campaign. Everything is transparent and in the open as to how I will rule on a given subject. It seems that I'm the only DM in my area that does that.
Sinfire Titan 02-25-08, 03:51 PM	All DMs have to recondition new players to their style. Some DMs choose to instead alter their style to suit the players themselves. Some players can alter their styles to suit the DM's with little to no training. You are looking at the first instance of this situation.
Dog_O_War 02-25-08, 03:58 PM	I've DM'd for a long time, and I've noticed a trend in every group I've been in. I have had to retrain the players in how to play D&D due to them previous playing with (oftentimes bizarre) house rules. Now, I'm a straightforward DM. I use the rules as written, and give a short typed list of houserules I will be using for that particular campaign. Everything is transparent and in the open as to how I will rule on a given subject. It seems that I'm the only DM in my area that does that. That's because your in Yo momma. Seriously though, you are not alone. I've had to retrain DM's because they offered stupid and awful house rules. I'd use their crap rulings to break the game (quickly) then ask if we can play it as it was written. Often I find the ones with all sorts of house rules are the ones that haven't actually read the rules.
Drag0nUL 02-25-08, 04:03 PM	Although I haven't been into D&D for long, I've noticed that too, as both a player(in different groups) and occasional DM. At least where I play this comes mostly from the manner D&D has spread around(in my country it was next to unknown until quite recently), in sort of a master-apprentice relationship. Some rules are quite easy to interpret the wrong way if you are new to the game and the person who is explaining you sees them in a certain way. So we ended up with some pretty weird rules interpretations (like tumble adding +2 DC for each square, not for each opponent) which went unchallenged until somebody on the forums declared it to work otherwise.
Etarnon 02-25-08, 07:54 PM	Here in Dayton, we generally play Rules as Written, for any game. If it's going to be different, I write it up, and hand it out when I pass out the 20-50 page campaign orientation books, depending on which game I am running.
Orchomenos 02-26-08, 10:23 AM	I've played in a group where they used the rules very loosely. This was more a group of friends who happened to play D&D than a group of D&D players. One of them mostly wanted to hack&slash, but still kept on listening in the more RP parts, so that was cool. He played a 3rd level (savage progression) minotaur, that is a young, medium-size minotaur. Still, each time he charged a goblin, this one litterally bumped the wall at the other side of the room. That was just one of many house-rules to keep the hack&slash player happy. Now is that right or wrong? If you join this game with a RAW or Rule-Lawyer spirit, you will find this frustrating. But if you play your own character, you will have fun. As I said, it's mostly to have fun with friends than getting in the D&D universe.
Drag0nUL 02-26-08, 11:13 AM	I agree. I have nothing against house rules(although I prefer the game to be as close to RAW as possible) as long as they increase the enjoyment for all the people taking part in the game. The problem appears when 2 people(usually the DM and a player) have somewhat different interpretation of the same rule, both being convinced that they are playing by RAW. This usually generates some arguments that slow down play.
Magrus 02-26-08, 01:31 PM	It happens. I enjoy the players who assume that I, as a DM, don't know the rules and try to pull crap over on me by getting me to agree to things that are so far out there I have to laugh at them. All in the hopes that I'll be a "cool DM" and house rule it so it's "legal". Then get all uppity when I quote the rules to them, and ask if they even read up on the subjects that they were asking about. :rolleyes: I have made a few house rules for my games, and some of those I only implement when I have come to know, and trust that my players won't abuse these house rules. When not used to abuse the system, it makes things more even for certain characters with those house rules. I put them up front for character creation so they know ahead of time. Then again, there will always be that strange instance where a player comes up with something or the DM does instead, and a group will create a new rule to deal with issues that spring up. I cannot predict every possible action and reaction that may take place in a campaign ahead of time. If I could, I'd be doing something else with my free time and making oodles of cash.
Radijs 02-26-08, 01:49 PM	So far I've only organized 2 campaigns. The first one started over 3 years ago and I did not have the experience to think of such a list. My second campaign started late last year. And there I did have the sense to mail everyone a group of houserules. So no, you're not the only one.
Jagyr Ebonwood 02-26-08, 02:56 PM	The problem appears when 2 people(usually the DM and a player) have somewhat different interpretation of the same rule, both being convinced that they are playing by RAW. This usually generates some arguments that slow down play. And in a perfect world, the player would concede to the DM's ruling until the session was over. ;)
Etarnon 02-27-08, 03:32 AM	Yeah, i just let the guy have his three minutes to state his case. if i agree, i'll go with it, if not, i'll rule otherwise. If he wants to keep arguing, he can leave 'cause he's delaying the game. This is why it's so utterly important for a DM to know the rules better than any player, despite 3.x making that very difficult if you use a lot more than core.
kelvinaw273 02-27-08, 12:27 PM	I think it is important to draw a distinction between an on-the-spot ruling and a house rule. A house rule stands in your game for all time. An on-the-spot rule is where either the rules are unclear, they do not cover the specific circumstances you are in, or it's going to take too long to look them up. Some players expect these off-the-cuff judgments to be binding precedents - they aren't and shouldn't be. On the other hand, just because you think a house rule is stupid doesn't mean it is. As a player, I'll always try and work within the rules of a game - breaking somebody's game is not a nice thing to do, after all.
new_fashion_guy 02-27-08, 01:26 PM	The problem appears when 2 people(usually the DM and a player) have somewhat different interpretation of the same rule, both being convinced that they are playing by RAW. This should never be an argument. The DM's interpretation goes. Sometimes I think D20 has turned D&D into a weak democracy, where people think they should be allowed to vote on who's right or wrong. It was always intended that the DM be in control of the game, to the extent of ignoring or rewriting the rules as necessary. It's actually written into First Edition, and I think Wizards made a flaw not emphasizing this in 3.0 and up.
sblaxman 02-27-08, 02:18 PM	Yes, the older editions made it clear that the rules were a starting point, and that the DM was completely free to take or change them as s/he see fit to make the game work for them. There is a reason I still play by the older rules.
I_roll_ones 02-27-08, 03:21 PM	I play with a whole lot of house rules...I haven't DM'd yet, so I can't have trained anyone wrong, but I think of rules as guidelines...And meant to be broken for enjoyment purposes sometimes. Fluff is an even weaker guideline.
Count Arioch the 28th 02-27-08, 03:32 PM	Yes, the older editions made it clear that the rules were a starting point, and that the DM was completely free to take or change them as s/he see fit to make the game work for them. There is a reason I still play by the older rules. I've been rules-raped too often by crappy DMs to ever trust another DM's decision when it opposes RAW.
Zombie_Babies 02-27-08, 04:01 PM	This should never be an argument. The DM's interpretation goes. Sometimes I think D20 has turned D&D into a weak democracy, where people think they should be allowed to vote on who's right or wrong. It was always intended that the DM be in control of the game, to the extent of ignoring or rewriting the rules as necessary. It's actually written into First Edition, and I think Wizards made a flaw not emphasizing this in 3.0 and up. Actually, my group does vote on rules and other aspects of the game and we have no problems whatsoever. I think this is because we take time before the campaign starts to talk about what kind of game we all want to play and the things we want in or out of it. We are also adults and have been playing for a long time. Rules questions in game are few and usually end up with a quick lookup or consensus ruling. The DM, however, always has a veto power over these rulings (and the RAW as well, though this is rarely invoked) and the ability to make on the fly judgements that will be adhered to until after the session (and possibly permanently) as well. We also take turns DMing new campaigns so most of us know what's involved. Those that only DM or only PC are missing a large part of D&D education and are really unfit to criticise the group they have not experienced, IMO. D&D is a group activity. All participants are playing the game- even the DM. The group must work together to make the game enjoyable. When the DM is too heavy handed and has a god complex his players will not have fun. No one shows up to get bossed around. The players can also ruin the DMs fun with constant griping and by attempting to push the DM into changing too much of his concept to suit them. The DM does too much work to be disrespected in such a manner. In short, it's not about a power struggle. The DM is not god of the game. At the same time the players cannot expect the same level of control over the world/rules as the DM. You need balance. And remember, the object of the game is to have fun- not to exert power over your friends.
eamon 02-27-08, 04:14 PM	I've been rules-raped too often by crappy DMs to ever trust another DM's decision when it opposes RAW. Well, I'm not too thrilled with RAW - it's complex in that it requires steadily more dice-rolling, it's difficult to interprete sometimes (witness the fact that Rules of the Game and the FAQ occaisonally, if rarely, make mistakes or counterintuitive rulings on basic game issues, so how are others expected to do better), it tries to rule even in cases where rules are inherently badly suited to do so (rather than focussing on a solid core) - it's almost as if it's a mixture between simulation and role-playing, with somtimes unfortunate table-top consequences, it requires a lot of cross-book and chapter lookups, it makes the DM expend extraordinary amounts of prep work to know monsters abilities (I remember a player on these boards boasting about his dragon slaying encounter, when that essentially merely reflected the dichotomy between the DM's prep and the player's), especially since spells and feats are often not pointed out when they're crucial, and further many creatures are so badly optimized that either they're way too wimpy as written, or, they're not, but then advancement makes em ridiculously overpowered. RAW doesn't provide many guidelines as to how to apply non-mechanical modifications, such as monster advancement, and when it does, those are prescriptive rather than insightful and frequently plain wrong (again, monster advancement). So, I like the rules, by and large, as a framework, but I think it's stretching it to consider it very reliable. And you know, I think the convoluted rules are maybe partly to blame for many "crappy DM" rulings, since those are probably not intentionally bad, but simply misguided, and that's due in good measure to the fact that it's not easy to use the rules.
new_fashion_guy 02-27-08, 04:32 PM	Actually, my group does vote on rules and other aspects of the game and we have no problems whatsoever. I think this is because we take time before the campaign starts to talk about what kind of game we all want to play and the things we want in or out of it. We are also adults and have been playing for a long time. Rules questions in game are few and usually end up with a quick lookup or consensus ruling. The DM, however, always has a veto power over these rulings (and the RAW as well, though this is rarely invoked) and the ability to make on the fly judgements that will be adhered to until after the session (and possibly permanently) as well. We also take turns DMing new campaigns so most of us know what's involved. Those that only DM or only PC are missing a large part of D&D education and are really unfit to criticise the group they have not experienced, IMO. As long as the DM have "Veto Power", I can live with it. It's when I make a judgement in game, and the PCs discuss whether or not to accept that judgement, that it becomes a problem. I've been playing RPGs since 1983. I've played and DM'ed more games than I care to count. But not in any game before D20 have I ever seen a group of players who felt they could openly question a DM's ruling based on "RAW". We used to call these people "Rules Lawyers", and believe me, it was not a flattering term.
CryoSilver 02-27-08, 04:38 PM	In my game, most of the houserules are minor or cosmetic, or just add-ons to the existing rules. Mostly they involve giving out extra skill points for leveling in a favored class. The biggest change by far is the totally re-tooled cleric I use which has been not so much nerfed as made into something entirely different.
Lincoln Hills 02-27-08, 04:45 PM	...Now, I'm a straightforward DM. I use the rules as written, and give a short typed list of houserules I will be using for that particular campaign. Everything is transparent and in the open as to how I will rule on a given subject... Kudos, then, Arioch XXVIII. (By the by, I think this the first time the two of us have agreed on anything. Just goes to show...) The main reason I like to adhere to what's written, and urge players to help me "look it up!" in most cases, is to reduce this campaign-to-campaign splash... and to reinforce that although the DM's word is "law," the DM is going to be relying on precedent and reason when extrapolating new "laws". And I think there's a second reason (besides 'bad DMs') that new players tend to show up with odd rules expectations: 3.5 has burst its seams. Every DM has a different list of approved books, unapproved books, unknown books... In addition to causing 'power creep' and incompatible/contradictory rules, the gush of additional rule sourcebooks has the unfortunate side effect of widening the gap between tables. (When I first decided not to bump from 3.0 to 3.5, it was through frustration at WotC: but since then I've discovered that using a "dead system" is relaxing - my players don't ever demand that the latest expansion be spliced on.)
Zombie_Babies 02-27-08, 05:04 PM	As long as the DM have "Veto Power", I can live with it. It's when I make a judgement in game, and the PCs discuss whether or not to accept that judgement, that it becomes a problem. I've been playing RPGs since 1983. I've played and DM'ed more games than I care to count. But not in any game before D20 have I ever seen a group of players who felt they could openly question a DM's ruling based on "RAW". We used to call these people "Rules Lawyers", and believe me, it was not a flattering term. I do believe the players should be able to question a DM ruling they find issue with. If it's a legitimate RAW concern, that is. However, if it takes too much time from the game they need to go with what the DM says and talk about it after the game. And if the DM decides that he doesn't like the RAW in this case, he should explain it to the players and his reasons for it. If it's then put forth as no longer up for debate the question is resolved. Sometimes DMs make mistakes with the rules that the players can catch. They need to have that option. The players can only exert control over their characters and when a DM ruling interferes with what they believe their character to be, then they should be able to question that ruling. They also need to respect the DMs final decision even if it contradicts the RAW. Dialogue over a rules dispute, when handled at the appropriate time and in the appropriate fashion, should be part of the game, IMO. As long as the players have a chance to make their case and then abide by the DMs decision, everything is fine.