Or, to put it another way, it's not always important to be right. Sometimes other things take precedence. Sometimes it ultimately doesn't matter. And some other times, it's actually detrimental to the play experience.
I was playing in a game last night with what I would consider to be stellar players. Though I have respect for the other players, one in particular is the King of Niggling Details. This bonus or that had to be accounted for. This rule or that had to be properly adjudicated. The effects of this or that had to be questioned to make sure rules accuracy was achieved above all other concerns. Other people's turns were interrupted. The DM was questioned repeatedly. Everyone was annoyed and, at a certain point, it got tense when the forces of "Let's Just Move On" clashed with "The Stickler." I dare say it killed the enthusiasm for the rest of the session.
Here's the real kicker: I get that it's important to follow the rules. And the player was right in everything he was saying. But in every single (every...single) instance this player interjected or badgered, being right ultimately made no difference to theoutcome of the transaction. The monster was hit or missed either way. The movement was legal either way. The skill check was achieved or failed either way. Still, The Stickler had to be right, even at the cost of everyone else's enjoyment.
Call this a rant, a cautionary tale, or whatever you like. But if you're one of these people, know this: You're making the game annoying for no damn good reason. Stop it.
Maybe the player who was acting this way was doing so because he's really invested into the game and does not realize that other players don't like it. It's also possible that he's trying to help other players at the table. In any case, a talk with this player would probably yield better results at figuring this out and making it less annoying for you.
As an added note I want to point out that sometimes the DM or players are actually wrong. And sometimes being wrong causes negative impacts for the party. As a bit of anecdotal story I started playing with a group who believed that the fighter could only mark one creature at a time using his at-will power (the marking entry itself not an attack power). When I realized they were not following the rules I pointed it out to them and DM replied with "When you DM you can houserule it like that if you want". Instead of being insulted or whatever I explained for 5 minutes over and over how the marking of the fighter worked. The player who was using his fighter was happy that he could use the character the way it was meant to be used and the DM understood one of the rules a little better. It happened again a few times where the group was ignoring basic rules (like the rules for stealth, invisbility and being hidden for example. The DM started talking about percentile chances to hit on top of the usual penalties and such).
So should I have remained silent ? By your last statement I should have. Now before you say that at least the things I pointed out had an effect to change how things went down, I'd like to point out that your player didn't know if what he pointed out might make a difference or not. And the fact you say that nothing at all that he pointed out actually made a difference in the end makes me wonder if there was some DM fiat mixed in there to make sure that the player who was questioning him would not change what the DM had decided would happen. But who knows, I wasn't there. It also makes me wonder if your group is new to the game, if the player pointing out these things is more experienced than the rest of the group and that sort of thing. If he pointed out things during the entire session about the group not following rules properly and was right the whole time, it makes one wonder.
Instead of getting annoyed or angry if you are new to the game then maybe you should make an effort to learn from this player, because by knowing the rules he won't have to help you guys out at every turn. Heck maybe he doesn't enjoy having to do either. I personally find it annoying to all hells when a DM throws rules out the window in favor of railroading a fight into a specific direction for example, or causing a player a negative effect or penalty. I don't find that to be the mark of a good DM.
Now before you say that at least the things I pointed out had an effect to change how things went down, I'd like to point out that your player didn't know if what he pointed out might make a difference or not.
The moral of the story is that his niggling meant nothing to the outcome. Your example is different for that reason. (Though in reality does missing a few marks here and there really change the outcome? No. I've seen defenders forget to mark all the time and nothing came of it.)
Point is, rarely does a bunch of counting squares and modifiers make a MAJOR impact on the outcome of a conflict. Maybe you don't get an attack in this round. Or maybe you burn an extra surge. Or the monster should have taken 10 more damage this round but didn't. Maybe Ragnar gets the killing blow instead of Leda. Or, oh, you should have hit last round but you forgot to account for X. Big deal - let it go. You're still likely to come out okay in the end and without having annoyed anyone.
But who knows, I wasn't there. It also makes me wonder if your group is new to the game, if the player pointing out these things is more experienced than the rest of the group and that sort of thing. If he pointed out things during the entire session about the group not following rules properly and was right the whole time, it makes one wonder.
Definitely not new to the game, not D&D nor 4e. Everyone at the table DMs. We know enough about 4e to know these "rounding errors" have very little impact on the outcomes such that they're not worth discussing or stopping the game to debate. That's the point of this tale - recognize that these rounding errors are almost never a matter of life or death and there is no value in hashing them out. If your life hangs on the razor's edge and it matters, sure, let's take a closer look. But otherwise, keep it movin'.
Instead of getting annoyed or angry if you are new to the game then maybe you should make an effort to learn from this player, because by knowing the rules he won't have to help you guys out at every turn. Heck maybe he doesn't enjoy having to do either. I personally find it annoying to all hells when a DM throws rules out the window in favor of railroading a fight into a specific direction for example, or causing a player a negative effect or penalty. I don't find that to be the mark of a good DM.
You're assuming a lot here and are incorrect, but that's fine, as we don't know each other since I don't come to this particular forum often. No rules were being thrown out. No railroads were being forced. What I'm saying is that players need to understand when to raise an objection and when to just let it go because rarely does it make one iota of difference to the outcome of an encounter. It keeps you from being annoying and saves time to boot.
started talking about percentile chances to hit on top of the usual penalties and such).
So should I have remained silent ? By your last statement I should have. Now before you say that at least the things I pointed out had an effect to change how things went down, I'd like to point out that your player didn't know if what he pointed out might make a difference or not. And the fact you say that nothing at all that he pointed out actually made a difference in the end makes me wonder if there was some DM fiat mixed in there to make sure that the player who was questioning him would not change what the DM had decided would happen. But who knows, I wasn't there. It also makes me wonder if your group is new to the game, if the player pointing out these things is more experienced than the rest of the group and that sort of thing. If.
No, I know what iserith is talking about, I've even been that player once or twice. Say you have combat adavantage, and the only benefit you gain from that (No Sneak Attack, or whatever) is the +2 to attack. you roll, and get an 18 total aginst an AC of 14. That +2 dosen't make a damn bit of difference, and everyone at the table (including the king of niggling details) knows it. But he/she STILL makes sure, at length, thast everyone knows that there was really a +2.
No, I know what iserith is talking about, I've even been that player once or twice. Say you have combat adavantage, and the only benefit you gain from that (No Sneak Attack, or whatever) is the +2 to attack. you roll, and get an 18 total aginst an AC of 14. That +2 dosen't make a damn bit of difference, and everyone at the table (including the king of niggling details) knows it. But he/she STILL makes sure, at length, thast everyone knows that there was really a +2.
Right! Varying degrees of that was what was going on last night. It was pointless, distracting, and annoying.
If that's the case I'm out of my element, even as a DM myself ! haha. I still think though that a good sit down all together to have an adult talk about the issue might really help. And if it doesn't then at least you can say you tried and simply remove the problem from the table if that's an option.
Edit: Oh and as per your signature I would like to say "I disagree!" :p Is that a serious offer I wonder.
Edit: Oh and as per your signature I would like to say "I disagree!" :p Is that a serious offer I wonder.
I tried that as well, but apparently there has to be a "real" disagrement.
hmm that makes it sound more like the player in question might be a bit compulsive hehe. If it's already a hit and he feels he HAS to point out that there was a +2 bonus to it and stops everyone in their tracks to point it out. Maybe it's more than a simple wanting to help but a need instead to make sure everything goes according to plan, so to speak. It's possible that person might just really want to control everyone and everything that is happening at the table.
You may well be right.
If that's the case I'm out of my element, even as a DM myself ! haha. I still think though that a good sit down all together to have an adult talk about the issue might really help. And if it doesn't then at least you can say you tried and simply remove the problem from the table if that's an option.
Without airing all my dirty laundry, I DMed for the guy for over 10 years. Patience of a saint, I know. That's just how he is and, for the most part, I like him as a person. When I moved my games to an online format for geographical reasons and had more players to choose from, I declined to continue DMing for him simply because that's not the kind of conversation I want to have at the table. The DM last night hadn't reached the end of his rope as I had and the rest as they say is history. We'll see how it plays out...
Edit: Oh and as per your signature I would like to say "I disagree!" :p Is that a serious offer I wonder.
Haha, yes, it's a serious offer. My next adventure might be done in about a month or so though I might rerun an adventure for a new group. PM me and I'll keep in touch with updates.
yahoo !
yahoo !
And yes, you can bring the most tweaked up powerful character you can think of as long as it's legal. Just don't remind me when you missed a +2 if it doesn't actually matter.
I think you're grouping a rather large amount of people with your last remark. Sometimes a person who points out these kinds of things (like pointing out a player forgot about combat advantage which might make a difference for his attack roll) is a very good thing, it can turn a miss into a hit.
The key there is "sometimes." "Sometimes" it is a very good thing, but every time, pointing it out is jarring and disrupts the momentum of the game. At best, it takes a moment or two to switch gears, but the ensuing confusion usually leads to more time than that taken up.
Maybe the player who was acting this way was doing so because he's really invested into the game and does not realize that other players don't like it. It's also possible that he's trying to help other players at the table. In any case, a talk with this player would probably yield better results at figuring this out and making it less annoying for you.
Yes. I had an opportunity to talk to the player during a break, and I didn't take it. I don't know him well, and I figured it would be a lengthy and rather acrimonious discussion.
As an added note I want to point out that sometimes the DM or players are actually wrong. And sometimes being wrong causes negative impacts for the party.
DMs are often wrong, but how often this causes a net negative is an open question. Some DMs err in their players' favor, in part because they want to balance out calls they might have accidentally made against them (or might make against them in the future).
As a bit of anecdotal story I started playing with a group who believed that the fighter could only mark one creature at a time using his at-will power (the marking entry itself not an attack power). When I realized they were not following the rules I pointed it out to them and DM replied with "When you DM you can houserule it like that if you want". Instead of being insulted or whatever I explained for 5 minutes over and over how the marking of the fighter worked.
After the DM had told you what his ruling was? Five minutes? No book on roleplaying I've ever read would recommend this. The DM makes a ruling and the game moves on. Game time shouldn't be take up with this kind of thing.
It happened again a few times where the group was ignoring basic rules (like the rules for stealth, invisbility and being hidden for example. The DM started talking about percentile chances to hit on top of the usual penalties and such).
Those rules aren't that basic, and can be difficult to remember. If the DM was making a ruling and going with it, he or she was doing right. Any misunderstandings can be corrected outside of the game.
So should I have remained silent ? By your last statement I should have. Now before you say that at least the things I pointed out had an effect to change how things went down,
Yes, you should have. There's a good change that the things you pointed out made no overall difference to the game in that session and the corrections could have waited until the end.
I'd like to point out that your player didn't know if what he pointed out might make a difference or not.
True enough, but he should have started to see what the rest of us already knew: that catching mistakes like that usually doesn't matter, and therefore aren't usually worth slowing down the game for. Since one can't know when they'll make a difference, instead of slowing down the game every time, it's better to trust that the call that's made is good enough and move on.
And the fact you say that nothing at all that he pointed out actually made a difference in the end makes me wonder if there was some DM fiat mixed in there to make sure that the player who was questioning him would not change what the DM had decided would happen.
We could all see the dice and knew the targets. He was arguing about combat advantage and when the numbers came up the +2 didn't make any difference. The outcome was the same.
If he pointed out things during the entire session about the group not following rules properly and was right the whole time, it makes one wonder.
No, we're not new and we know the rules. But we're also not computers and we miss things. It's just that, unlike this player, we know that missing little things generally doesn't change the outcome.
Instead of getting annoyed or angry if you are new to the game then maybe you should make an effort to learn from this player, because by knowing the rules he won't have to help you guys out at every turn.
Even if we were new, he wouldn't have to help us out. If the errors were impacting our fun that might be a reason to step in, but what's impacting our fun is him interjecting and questioning and slowing things down.
Heck maybe he doesn't enjoy having to do either.
Then he doesn't have to do it.
I personally find it annoying to all hells when a DM throws rules out the window in favor of railroading a fight into a specific direction for example, or causing a player a negative effect or penalty. I don't find that to be the mark of a good DM.
That's not what is happening. DMs often forget rules. There's a lot going on for them to keep track of and it's more important to keep things moving than to get everything right. If something gets called wrong, the DM can make it up to the players later.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I'm all for having the game move along, but if the DM's decision or ruling causes a negative impact on a character / player and I know the rule I'll voice the rule as any human being has a right to. If the DM then decides to ignore the actual rule in favor of his or her own houserule then I'll let it go and invite the DM to view the rule together at a later time.
The reason why I spent 5 minutes or so on the example I mentionned is because the player who was using the fighter had joined in with me when I mentionned it. So it was important to him as well that the DM understand how it worked. The DM had also implemented houserules for other game elements that ended up causing other problems for the group instead of just learning the rules.
I've always believed that someone who DM's should always have a good knowledge of the rules of the game and that he should play with an open minded attitude when not sure about a specific situation. If I don't remember how to deal with a situation or rule I ask my players. There's nothing wrong with that and maybe, if a given DM is unable to simply speak to his players on an even ground, his / her pride over his table might be the issue. I've played with DM's who *could not* discuss how a situation is handled with his / her group. Stating things like "I am God !". Relaxing a bit and just having a casual attitude about having an adult conversation, with the players if there's a weird situation, has proved to be much better than the opposite.
And I find it funny to this day when people tell me otherwise.
2. If one person in the group is interjecting in every single move or transaction and the other players are taking exception to it,,, but it does not bother me,,, then it is up to the players to speak their mind, or tell me. If it bothers me, I'll handle it.
3. The RULES,,, are not rules,,, they are guidelines,,, and HAVE BEEN SINCE DAY 1. It's my job to tell an interatctive story, allow creativity, and most of all engage players so that they will move from the metagaming aspects of the game,,, and play their charecters.
(oh,,, for the nigglers,,, here is your source,,, "DUNGENS AND DRAGONS", Introduction, paragraph 1, page 4, Gygax & Arneson, published by Tactical Studies Rules, copyrite, 1974.)
The rules are rules or they would not be called rules. They would be called guidelines or some other word used to describe what they are for. They've been called rules since the beginning and will probably always be called as such. The rules in DnD dictate the machanical elements of the game. When I want to attack with my weapon I follow rule Y to do so. When rolling for the attack I follow rule X and Z to figure out if I have bonuses or penalties to my attack roll. I choose not to nitpick which rules I follow and which rules I don't. If it's in the book and works a certain way well chances are it's because in order for rule Y to interact with rule X and Z it has to work a specific way so that it all falls together the way it is meant to. If I start ignoring rules or houseruling them then it gets confusing when game elements no longer tie in together as they are supposed to because I changed how they work.
A DM modifying a rule to suit his purposes for the roleplay is one thing, blatantly ignoring rules in order to cause a negative effect to your players is another. Causing a monster to dissapear that the DM needs to have dissapear is one thing, making that enemy ignore the rules of invisibility and making your players have a negative effect is another. The list goes on. The point is, the rules are not guidelines. As a further example, there are no rules in 4E for roleplaying. None whatsoever and that is because none are needed. You shouldn't have a rule to tell how you can and cannot roleplay your character a certain way but if that way causes problems to other players, the table or the rules of the game then you will be told as much.
The job of a DM, imo, is to show the players a world and then let them run around and do whatever they bloody want. If they want to go kill the ogre in the cave that's been terrorizing the villagers then so be it ! If they want instead to accept the quest, roleplay an advance in payment and then ditch the town and the ogre cave (because really who wants to risk their own necks to go fight an ogre !) then as a DM it is my job to make sure that can happen. It's also my job to make the world a living breathing thing that will then have wanted posters in the area of the village for the thieves who stole the money of the poor villagers
Does this make sense ? I think that there's a difference in gaming philosophy. I don't believe, nor do I play as a DM, that I am above the players at my table. I don't act like I own the table or that I am the king of all that is DnD ! However I adhere to the rules in the books because they are just that, the rules of the game. And we can disagree on that, and it's fine, because doing so hasn't stopped me from having fun playing this game and I've been playing it for many, many years.
This was an argument way back in Chainmail,, the precurrser and partial inspiration for D&D. And it was addressed in the very first, "TYPED" and "HAND ILLUSTRATED" books created for D&D. Taking the house rules of Dave Arneson, he and Gary Gygax colaborated to develop the "rules" for Dungeons & Dragons.
Even then, the natural discussion of the rules as commandments was addressed, in the very first book.
Let me help you with that...
"""That is, they (the rules) cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity - your time and imagination are about the only limiting factors, and the fact that you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there in no lack of imagination - the fascination of the game will tend to make participants find more and more time. We advise, however, that a campaign be begun slowly, following the steps outlined herein, so as to avoid becoming too bogged down with unfamiliar details at first. That way your campaign will build naturally, at the pace best suited to the referee and players, smoothing the way for all concerned."""
E Gary Gygax - Tactical Studies Rules Editor
HERE IS THE BEGINNING OF D&D TIME,,,
"DUNGENS AND DRAGONS", Introduction, paragraph 1, page 4, Gygax & Arneson, published by Tactical Studies Rules, copyrite, 1974"
Even later additions, addressed this issue. Making a clear distinction between uniformity, rules, and the customization of campaigns.
"No individual can actually dictate the actual operations of a campaign, howerver, for that is the preogative of the Dungeon Master, first and foremost, and to the palyers in the individual campagin therafter." AD&D, Players Handbook, 1978, TSR GAMES, Preface, E. Gary Gygax.
I humbly submit, that the flex of rules,,, and the definition of rules as guidelines,,, has been at the basic core of the game to allow,, (and I quote),, "those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answers to their prayers. With this last bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!"
And my personal take, is that the RULES of 4E, (or the lack there of),,, was a choice made to move the game back to the original core intent of flexibility,,, that had been lost in the ticky tack nature of 3.5 rocket tag.
That said, if it is your "world",, and you and your players choose to fashion it as LAWFULY ALIGNED as you can make it,,, then that's OK.
that is of course, your opinion
I thought his first post was meant to be sarcastic!
On the reason for 4E,, absolutely my opinion.
As far as flexibility on rules, not opinion.
I would think that a person who has the position that rules are rules, and the hard fast nature of the printed words in a D&D book are law, would be able to read and understand such simple quotes, that clearly define "RULES",, and the intent of flexibility from the VERY FIRST D&D book,,,
which clearly shows your statement,
"The rules are rules or they would not be called rules. They would be called guidelines or some other word used to describe what they are for. They've been called rules since the beginning and will probably always be called as such."
is an error, from improperly defining the correct definition of the word RULES.
I would submit, that the correct definition in the context of D&D is - 3. Prescribed guide for conduct or action. (Webster)
Luckily, the creaters of D&D anticipated this, and clearly explained it in the RULE BOOK,,,, (ironic,, isn't it.)
And it is the flexibility of those rules, and the basic core intent that YOU create the world in which you play, that let's you customize your world to be a "rules are commandments" "lawful" place, or allows me to customize my world as rules are guidelines "chaotic" place.
And if I were to tell you (or anyone else) that your "world" of law,, is incorrect,,,, I WOULD BE WRONG.
The same as if you were to tell me (or anyone else) my "world" of chaos,, is incorrect,, WOULD BE WRONG.
However, constant nitpicking about minor bonuses/penalties even when they are irrelevant to the outcome, which seems to be what the thread was originally about, is still obnoxious behaviour.
that is of course, your opinion
I thought his first post was meant to be sarcastic!
I kinda hoped it was....
The DM the other night is a great guy. He would bend over backwards not to cheat. I trust that, and I trust that he knows the rules well enough to run a game, and to make reasonable calls when he doesn't know something. The problem is that he doesn't trust himself. If anyone questioned him, he would quickly state that he was leaving it to the players to keep him honest, and this opened a gate of comments and corrections from the others, each of which spawned comments from other people who believed they knew it better or simply felt like rephrasing what another person had said. And since the rule generally didn't matter anyway, it was a lot of wasted time and aggravation for nothing. Even if the rule had mattered, it probably wouldn't have mattered in the long run.
During play, a DM should rule and go, and the players should trust the DM, keep their peace and raise the issue after the game if it really would have made a difference. If the DM misruled on an opportunity attack twice out of 10 times but the PCs were still successful and everyone still had fun, it's not worth bringing it up. If you're at the end of the game and everyone is wondering why something felt off, that might be the time to bring it up.
In our recent game, not a single one of the rules questions that came up would have made a significant difference to how the session turned out, and probably wouldn't matter in the long run, either. The player didn't need to argue with the DM. Granted, I didn't have to argue with the player either, and that probably just made things far more tense. I should have handled that at a break or after the game. But the point remains that the DM should rule and go, and the players should follow those rulings.
I don't think it's an issue of trust with this player. I think you may have been right about the compulsiveness of his approach. I'm not sure I see any correction for it. I addressed my concern with the DM. If there's more of the same, I'm going to address it with the player directly in polite but certain terms outside of the game.
I don't think it's an issue of trust with this player. I think you may have been right about the compulsiveness of his approach. I'm not sure I see any correction for it. I addressed my concern with the DM. If there's more of the same, I'm going to address it with the player directly in polite but certain terms outside of the game.
Have you thought more about talking to the DM about his style? In my own game, when people start to raise questions or debate how something works, I find myself telling them "It's fine, don't worry about it, yep, no problem" until they calm down and we get it moving. I really think that if the niggler's compulsiveness simply wasn't engaged or was rolled with that it might be more tolerable.
Instead of:
Player: Do I have CA?
DM (unsure): Hm, I think so....
Niggler: In terms of reality, no.
Player: So, wait, do I?
DM: Guys?
Something like:
Player: Do I have CA?
DM (sure or faking it): Yep.
Niggler: In terms of reality, no.
Player: So, wait, do I?
DM: Yep. Roll.
The latter might draw objection from the Niggler (wow, that L is crucial) but that needs to be ignored. And that example is a relatively safe one, because the DM is giving something, rather than taking it away.
But this is turning into "what's a DM" to do. Players should shut up during the game, and really shouldn't even gripe a troublesome players in-game. It's hard, because time is precious and we don't want to spend it listening to aggravating behavior - but attacking aggravating behavior is just going to waste even more time.
What's a player to do? Talk to the DM, back his or her plays, exhibit the trust you want the other players to exhibit. Go overboard. Rejoice in being put in a bad position, rather than asking how the monster was able to move there.
I like that bit about "rejoicing." What's it really going to cost you, dude? An extra surge out of the 10 you have left? Worth an argument when you think about it that way? Settle down...
'Course I was 12 but still........
I like that bit about "rejoicing." What's it really going to cost you, dude? An extra surge out of the 10 you have left? Worth an argument when you think about it that way? Settle down...
Your average failure mitigator doesn't know, though, that he won't need that healing surge and you don't know either, so you're not likely ton convince him, even if he's ended every adventuring day with 3 extra surges. If he dies on this day you can bet that he'll be looking for how it happened and come up with the hadful of bad rulings or choices that weren't his fault.
Your average failure mitigator doesn't know, though, that he won't need that healing surge and you don't know either, so you're not likely ton convince him, even if he's ended every adventuring day with 3 extra surges. If he dies on this day you can bet that he'll be looking for how it happened and come up with the hadful of bad rulings or choices that weren't his fault.
This is why the failure mitigation mentality causes me to beat my head against the wall.
iserith I hate to say it but I've been this guy before. Especially lately in 4th. I don’t have a table of veteran players though. Sadly it’s me and one other friend who is an old 3.5 DM and player who have the majority of experience and our current DM. Our other 3 players very green around the ears... VERY green. Our monk especially who treats his fists more like a 4th wall breaker tool then um well fists.
Long story short I can be a big nitpick on rules sometimes because of our green players. I don’t mean to do it half the time but our DM is still new to the system, hell were all new so I'm trying to help more than anything but I've caught myself coming off more annoying some nights then others. I think I have a bit of that mother Hen aspect at times when it comes to my friends, not always a good thing >.>
My point I guess is sometimes the best intentions just come off looking like the worst. You just need to remember they are usually made with the heart in the right place even if it doesn't seem that way and avoiding the situation only makes things worse for you more than anyone else.
That all being said it’s still annoying, god knows I’m not saying you don’t have a right to be annoyed and curse at the heavens and shake your fist at Bahamut and ask for justice. Nitpicking every little rule is tiresome as I have come to find out and when I catch myself doing it, I do stop but I don’t always catch myself.
Sometimes and I hate to admit this but I will nitpick out of spite, mainly when I know my Dm is flip flopping on his choices. This is a personal failing on my part for not being able to tolerate it but one I can’t stand it at all and something I will not be doing when I sit behind the screen. If you’re going to run something one way don’t change it the next game to suit your desires or needs. Backpeddling, flip flopping different rulings for he same situation all come off as unfair and emersion breaking, to me at least. So I feel like it goes both ways. You can go to far with the rule bending and lenience in play when you forget why rules existed in the first place as a guideline.
So in the end.
Is the guy a douche? Yea a bit.
Does that make him wrong or a bad person in this sense? Not really
We can all be douche heads when we don’t mean to be.
In the end pass the cheetos and the mountain dew and call it good.