Monarchy or Democracy?

[The_Hanged_Man]

/rant on FAQ, etc.

That is the single biggest frustration I have w/ 3.5, there isn't a single source of rules. YOu have the RAW, you have Andy's little web postings, you have FAQ's, and you have errata. Some guys I play w/ have a 3-ring binder filled w/ web docs cross-ref'd to the the books.

It's just lame.

Particularly since most of these things are so convoluted or counter-intuitive that most people houserule them anyway.

/end rant

[RandomCasualty]

1088489923[/unixtime]]I'd much rather just say "it's the DM's call" and then discuss anything after the game, rather than have an open-table discussion every time there's a rules dispute.

And this is the way the majority of groups do it.

I really have only seen one group that did it the democratic way, and it really didn't work. The game got halted everytime there was a dispute as everybody voiced their opinion on the current subject, and most of the time it was really trivial.

So if somebody is claiming a stackage between Shield and a shield, that's not people being stupid, and that's not easily dismissable. That's someone looking it up in the 3rd edition player's handbook and reading the actual text provided therein.

But, I know they were using the 3.5 rules because they knew it was a +4 bonus, not a +7, and they also claimed mage armor stacked with regular armor. It was just the guy not knowing how bonus stacking worked at all. And this is the kind of stupid shit that happens when you run democratic games. Uninformed people start making stupid arguments and hoping to win votes from other uninformed people, or just from their friends in general.

[Crissa]

1088561232[/unixtime]]But, I know they were using the 3.5 rules because they knew it was a +4 bonus, not a +7, and they also claimed mage armor stacked with regular armor. It was just the guy not knowing how bonus stacking worked at all. And this is the kind of stupid shit that happens when you run democratic games. Uninformed people start making stupid arguments and hoping to win votes from other uninformed people, or just from their friends in general.

I'm not sure how this supports your point at all, RC.

-Crissa

[Username17]

Indeed, if you have people in your game trying to convince people to go along with "stupid shit", how is it magically more difficult for them to convince one person (the DM) than it is for them to convince four people (the DM and three or so other players).

I am honestly confused as to how this in any way supports the rule of whim you keep aspiring to.

-Username17

[User3]

1088561232[/unixtime]]
I really have only seen one group that did it the democratic way, and it really didn't work. The game got halted everytime there was a dispute as everybody voiced their opinion on the current subject, and most of the time it was really trivial.

I don't get how "everyone must decide everything immediately" is getting labelled as "THE democratic way" here. The situation you're describing sounds more like "the anarchic way" than "the democratic way", honestly. Or maybe "the anarcho-libertarian way".

Electing someone to arbitrate among unclear rules/laws until there's a good time for everyone in the group/state to offer their opinion/vote so as to clarify things for the future is normal, if in fact not expected, behavior in a democratic society. That's what judges are for, both in the D&D sense and in the "People's Court" sense.

--d.

[RandomCasualty]

1088608883[/unixtime]]Indeed, if you have people in your game trying to convince people to go along with "stupid shit", how is it magically more difficult for them to convince one person (the DM) than it is for them to convince four people (the DM and three or so other players).

Because the DM almost always is one of the most informed people at the table. Yeah, sometimes you get groups of very experienced gamers, but with them, that kind of stupid stuff doesn't come up anyway. When that kind of stuff comes up is usually when you get someone inexperienced. The problem compounds itself if you've got a group of mostly inexperienced people.

But basically, the case where you can convince the DM of stupid shit is something you don't even have to consider. If your DM is a moron, your game is going to suck no matter what kind of rules authority you use.

[rapanui]

"If your DM is a moron, your game is going to suck no matter what kind of rules authority you use."

Ever so true.

[Crissa]

Still, a group is more likely to have the right answer among them...

...Or, as in a democracy, the ability to have voted an arbiter or method for getting at that knowledge.

In our games, the DM is elected the arbiter (usually) and we don't stop to discuss unless someone has a question about a mechanic.

We have had times where something was weird, and the DM had to pull something out of his arse - then he (last time it was Frank) took various ideas, and asked, 'does this satasfy for now?' and we voted. He would've given us the option to hash it out later, or now, and he chose now.

That's a democracy - when voices come together in a form of excepted order.

Democracy isn't stopping every ten minutes and asking for a vote. Votes and polls are tools of a democracy, not the signifying points.

-Crissa

[MrWaeseL]

In my current group, everyone turns to me for the rules, since I know 'em the best. I'm covering the "rules" part of being the DM. while the actual DM is more of a storyteller.