Is this attitude wrong, Veeky Forums?

That's the issue of the system being shit.

PF has Power Attack fixed to your BaB level, you can't choose the penalty, your BaB dictates how much penalty you have if you decide to use Power Attack. Better?

More like playing with vegetables.

>Peter decides to be imaginative and throw a keg then lit it on fire to kill the gobling
>It takes 2 turns and doesn't work as he thought it'll work
>He repeats this in several combats through the game
>Eventually he decides to just full attack
>Peter is a ruleslawyer because he is using what's better

/thread

This.

Except for Paranoia, where I think it's the only way to play. Hell, I'd love to play a Paranoia game where I give the players fake character sheets full of gibberish stats and I'm the only one who knows what the numbers really mean.

No.

There is a lot of fluidity to storytelling and DMing, the "rules as written" usually offer clauses for house rules or alternate wordings. The goal is to have fun and enjoy yourself. That is why it's a game.

You can play a dozen different ways, There are groups that are serious about meta knowledge and there are groups that treat dungeon crawls like monopoly with teamwork. There is no "right" way to enjoy your thursday nights.

There is a wrong way of playing however, and that is fighting with the DM. Players need to trust that the DM has a point to what they are doing and the DM needs to understand that he is only the game engine. He manages monsters, NPCs and environments where the ultimate goal is for players to overcome and succeed past him. This is not his story, its the players story and there needs to be clear in and out of game communication between the DM and the players on how the DM intends to run the campaign. There is a degree of player consent required for games that are overly punishing (cthulhu, etc).

So what if the DM fudges the roll? DMs have to account for a number of things. Is the DM trying to pad for time? Is he trying to impart a feeling of hard earned accomplishment to the players? If players enjoy nuking through combat and thats what fun means to them- they need to communicate that with the DM so that he can give them more opportunities for that sense of satisfaction. A DM can't be guaranteed to meet players expectations unless he knows what they want.

Absolutely not. This is the exact reason why I haven't gmed DnD and try to limit similar systems; a player cannot metagame if there is no meta to refer to. Sure, he can still refer to his own knowledge of X ennemy based on what he knows irl or from his in-game experiences, but in doing so he'll think and tend to act more in character.
I know it depends a lot on the system, but I honestly think that there shouldn't be a lot to know about them, because this allows both the DM and the players to focus on the rpg part of ttrpgs without having to manage a shitton of stuff
>But I like the tt part of ttrpgs more !
I have no problem with that as long as you and your players have fun user

Inevitably though, players come to master the system through play. It's a given.

My group and I are at that point, which is where we've discovered a new vein of fun. We deliberately create horribly un-optimized characters. Poor skill choices in the name of organic growth, poorer feat choices in the name of flavor, using non-optimal weapon combos for the same reason.

As an example; We've got a Fighter/Alchemist(Chiurgeon) with background as a combat medic. He started out as just another mercenary, but took up learning the healing arts after a village wise woman saved his life and those of his squad.

We're all rolling like that, and it's like we've rediscovered the game.

And suddenly the guidelines don't mean shit and a single player doing something out of line with everyone going full retard, even unintentionally, ruins the game. No, that's not fun, that's absolute fucking cancer.

Our group tried sometimes that approach, doesn't work for everybody, for example our GM told us to stop because he couldn't prepare a game at all because we woulnd't succeed any check or encounter halting the advancement of the plot indefinitely

>15 minutes
Are there people who really are this bad at math?

this. My group also didnt read much about the VTM setting beyond their own characters and the basics of the camerilla to make roleplaying fledglings better, because they dont have to pretend to be clueless - they really cant predict what kind of powers a, say, tzsemice is going to use.

I had more fun when I didn't know all the rules.

Now i'm a rule encyclopedia for the games I play and all the magic seems to be gone.

Well, some people enjoy knowing all rules, power gaming and shit like that. As long as everyone is on the same page, whatever float your boat is ok. I think that "rule lawyers" and "power gamers" becomes an issue when they're in the same table with people who don't like playing that way.

(yeah, its not because Bob power games that Ted has too, but from my experience with d&d, Ted will feel useless because his character is a lot weaker than Bob's - its not about everyone having the same power level, but about everyone having enough power to play a part in the game)

This is retarded.

I enjoy reading and I've DMed for my group a few times before. Due to the fact I retain what I read, my current DM sometimes defers to me on what the actual rules state if he's fuzzy and it doesn't hold anything up. It usually doesn't because I can remember the rules for most of the systems we play in a few seconds and we go along with it.

I am also pretty good at optimizing characters. My friends wanted to do an Evil PvP one-shot with the understanding that we would do our best to optimize the hell out of our PCs. I made a character that was never touched as they single-handedly destroyed the others after manipulating the party to do things to advance my own agenda. Nothing that was thrown at me was a real issue to my character, and I could have continued on this way for, quite literally, all of eternity.

In regular play, I go off of my character's knowledge and encourage organic reactions to things from my fellow players, even though on the inside I'm chewing my nails off as the party bargains with a seemingly benevolent entity I know out of character will torture us to death the moment we let our guards down.

"Knowing all the rules," being competent at "power gaming and shit like that" doesn't automatically make you a ruleslawyering autist or a faggot that always has to break the game over their knee. I don't get why this is so fucking difficult to understand.

next you'll say that optimizing has nothing to do with not roleplaying

>he thinks being literate makes you incapable of having fun without ruining the fun of others

Are you American or something?

and he'll be right

> "Knowing all the rules," being competent at "power gaming and shit like that" doesn't automatically make you a ruleslawyering autist or a faggot that always has to break the game over their knee. I don't get why this is so fucking difficult to understand.
It really depends, but I've seen more cases where it is an issue than where it isn't. But my cousin is exactly as you described (now all the rules, DM consult him because of that, know how to power game) and is a wonderful player to have in your party. Not everyone draws the bad side of these characteristics.

Like I said, if you are in a group where you fit nicely and your way of playing doesn't bother no one else, its all good. I'm not saying players like this are the bane of the game. But sometimes, they don't fit well with other player profiles...

But I also struggled personally because of this countless times. I'm a player who is very focused on constructing a story and roleplaying my character. Those are the 2 things that make me love RPG. And sometiems I feel like I have no room to do those thing because other players are more into other aspects of the game, like power gaming. What happens is that they don't understand why my character would make a not optimal decision or why I'm wasting everyone's time by describing an action that clearly won't accomplish anything. But I'm doing those things because that is what my character would do, and might not be relevant to in terms of numbers, but helps building my character.

My point is just that sometimes different players have different styles that don't go well together.

By that logic all DMs are ruleslawyers then

?
Constructing a good story and roleplaying well isn't in conflict with optimizing/minmaxing you know?

In my experience, people who goes for power gaming (optimizing/maxing their characters) often sucks at roleplaying.

Emphasis in the word "often", which makes it explicit that I'm aware that its possible for this not to happen.

I think this is confirmation bias at work. People probably just don't notice very often that Pete with his well-played characterOswald von Brandt could have made his well-played character into a whirling death machine but didn't, because Pete doesn't feel like outperforming the rest of the party (that he knows won't bother optimizing). Instead he chooses middling options, well-aware that the GM doesn't push the PCs hard enough to need to do such a thing to feel like a real hero (or whatever else you're setting out to do when you sit down at the table).

Meanwhile, it's kind of hard not to notice when Norbit makes "Granger the Human with, uh, blonde hair I guess?" the heavily ACF'd Ranger3/Fighter2/OotBI4/WhateverElseX that doesn't really interact with NPCs outside of filling them with arrows from seventeen miles away.

>talking about powergaming
>Ranger3/Fighter2
HAHAHAHAHA

Going on, here is a few reasons why I don't like to play with power gamers (all the "generalization" are implied with "in my experience most are like this"):

> 1) They are very strict about the rules
They expect all the rules and their details to be followed exactly who it is on the rulebook, while I like rules a bit more loose, more like a guideline. For power games, its unthinkable if I just come up with a new power that I made up, which I think should be quite a natural thing to do.

2) Their character construction is ruled by optimization.
Seems like the first put the numbers on the character sheet, then they try to come up with a story that makes sense (or not) with those numbers. I personally feel like this create a lot of not-really-interesting characters.

> 3) They always want to do the best move, often ignoring the whole "what my chracter would do?" thing.
In my opinion, that is not even roleplaying. Its imaginary world of warcraft.

4) Its hard for a DM to manage a party with both power gamers and non-power gamers.
When the power level of the characters is way too steep, its hard to come up with situations that will be equally challenging for everybody. Power gamers expect challenges that they can beat on dice roll + incredible bonuses, while I prefer challenges that I can beat with creativity.

5) Back on character creation... they suck at creating anything out of the mold of the classes described in the books.
Why my rogue can't wield a battleaxe? Why my barbarian can't attack with a bow? Why my druid can't wield any metal weapon but scimitars and scythes? Power gamers are very good at making the same old boring characters =(

greentext is not emphasizing 1 and 3. i just forgot to put it on the other three

Yeah, horrible example, I was honestly just pulling shit out of my ass. I haven't really bothered making anything cheesy lately and that was the chassis for something I had been kicking around just to see how long of an effective full attack range I could get my cohort. It was Mystic Ranger and Targeteer Fighter or something.

I felt like using a caster multiclass would have been redundant since a well played high level Wizard could easily shit on any martials without the need for optimization.

You're using the term powergamer waaaaay to loosely.
Powergame is a player that only plays the best classes to win, you won't ever see a powergamer playing a monk

I'm an optimizer, I have literally almost a hundred characters in 3.PF for example, all of them are optimized for stuff that I might like in that moment (the fastest, the beastest, the teleportest, the Facest, the supportest, the debuffest etc) all have tons of different personalities and backstories, character construction, feats, etc I might not be the best roleplayer (improvisation is not my forte but I try) but my GMs always said that I invest a lot in backstory, the story itself, character development and relationship with other PCs and NPCs. I never had a problem of people calling me on my lack of trying to roleplay

4. As for a "party with both kind of players", my group has always helped those who don't know the rules to make a character good at their thing, while keeping the same concept and backstory. We also make the group to cover each other's back, without stepping in other's toes.

5. You keep using the word powergamers and I still think you don't know what that means.
Best rogue builds use greatswords or other heavy weapons. Which invalidates what you say.
There're effective bow builds that are Barbarians or have levels in Barbarian (Whirling Frenzy for example, Urban in PF). Which invalidates what you say.
>why my druid can't wield any metal weapon
Ironwood? you also have 1001 special materials that are as good or even better than metal

I'm convinced that the powergamers you encountered aren't powergamers but retards who know absolutely nothing but name themselves powergamers

If the quality of your campaign relies on your players being ignorant of the system they're playing then you're a terrible GM. The players ought to be able to understand their actions and their consequences in the context of the system rather than entrust the entirety of their experience to the GM. A player without knowledge of the rules is a player who willingly robs themselves of their agency. The relationship between players and GM is that of the GM being first among equals rather than outright superior and leader of the players.

Yeah, that's reverse correlation. It's a point of view based on confusing the cause and effect. Pedantic players typically learn all the rules. They do that because they are pedantic to begin with. Learning the rules doesn't male them that way. Go play a game with a rules lawyer where they don't know the rules. They will still be annoying. And if a good player learns all the rules, they will usually get better. They don't change personalities because they know the underwater grapple modifier.

>Go play a game with a rules lawyer where they don't know the rules. They will still be annoying.
Holy fuck this. Nothing worse than a faggot holding up the game insisting that we're getting a rule wrong when we're not

That actually sounds great.
"Okay, roll discomfiture."

If no one is optimal then encounters don't have to be balanced with the combat god or dedicated diplomancer in mind, they can be similarly organic or smalltime to match the party's power curve.

This isn't that difficult user.

Sorry I couldn't reply yesterday, I barely got any sleep on the day before, so I had to go to bed earlier than usual.

> Powergame is a player that only plays the best classes to win, you won't ever see a powergamer playing a monk
That is exactly why I don't like power gaming. For me, this whole sentence makes no sense - there is no "winning" in RPG.

> I'm an optimizer, I have literally almost a hundred characters in 3.PF for example, all of them are optimized for stuff that I might like in that moment (the fastest, the beastest, the teleportest, the Facest, the supportest, the debuffest etc) all have tons of different personalities and backstories, character construction, feats, etc I might not be the best roleplayer (improvisation is not my forte but I try) but my GMs always said that I invest a lot in backstory, the story itself, character development and relationship with other PCs and NPCs. I never had a problem of people calling me on my lack of trying to roleplay
Nice you try to roleplay. You are taking this waaay to personal, I never said you suck at playing because you favor a different style of playing than I do. But this mentality of being "optimizer" doesn't make any sense to me, because I make my choices considering what would make sense for my character to choose. Here is an example:

> dnd 4, playing ranger, best armor i can wear is hide armor i think
Nah, my character is a savage primitive fucker that has lived by herself in the forest for years, she wears absolute no clothes or armor because that is they way of her people.
> DM notices my low AC and after a few sessions, i find a magical Hide armor after defeating a witch
Fuck not, this shit is full of witchcraft. If I wear this, I will be cursed with some bad voodoo. (as a player, I knew he was just trying to help me out, but my character is stubborn and just threw the armor at the lake).

>Nah, my character is a savage primitive fucker that has lived by herself in the forest for years, she wears absolute no clothes or armor because that is they way of her people.
Ok
>Fuck not, this shit is full of witchcraft. If I wear this, I will be cursed with some bad voodoo. (as a player, I knew he was just trying to help me out, but my character is stubborn and just threw the armor at the lake).
Don't wear it, I would have picked feats or class features that make me keep up with the rest of the group while being unarmored

In what way does this affect your character concept choices?

I'm currently playing an unarmed and unarmored paladin because my shield is my faith and my weapon is justice, I still have slightly similar AC as an armored one, but I don't wear armor, and my damage is slightly below one with a heavy weapon. See? if you're knowledgeable in the system a concept isn't as constrained by rules as you might think, you don't have to choose between what my character would do and a viable option, you can choose both.

continuing from >4. As for a "party with both kind of players", my group has always helped those who don't know the rules to make a character good at their thing, while keeping the same concept and backstory. We also make the group to cover each other's back, without stepping in other's toes.
Well, nice your group gets on board with your style, but the last thing I would think while creating a character is whether or not my character is filling a role in the party or something. My best group is the past years was originally 2 rangers and 1 rogue (4e, all "striker" classes), and when a new player joined our group, he made a second rogue. This whole "let's make the perfect party" is a really weird idea for me.

> 5. You keep using the word powergamers and I still think you don't know what that means.
Everything you said below this made me cringe a little bit. You think about characters as "builds", while what I think about is personality a world views. And again, I'm not saying your way of playing is wrong (because there is no such a thing), but it goes really against what I enjoy in RPG games.

> I'm convinced that the powergamers you encountered aren't powergamers but retards who know absolutely nothing but name themselves powergamers
They don't call themselves powergamers. I call them that. Like yourself, they spent their whole lives thinking they are OK-ish at roleplaying and that they do a decent enough job when creating background stories... though some could argue about those things.

It has been a while since I convinced myself D&D sucks (though I like the fourth edition). A few weeks ago I joined a group playing FATE and it is a quite interesting experience to play a system with less strict rules for a change. :)

>you're thinking about builds
Name it as you want it, a rose with a different name is still a rose. People call it builds, concepts, characters, whatever, a character is not only it's backstory neither is it's character sheet. I think of a character concept, a gimmick and a personality and backstory that feeds that gimmick/concept, then make the character sheet. If for some reason I can't play that character (both personality, story and character sheet) I scrapt it all, and start a new because I think about the PC as a whole, not only mechanics.

People hate labels, I've seen player get all flustered when I called their characters "PCs" or "toons" because according to them that's a powergaming munchkin term

> Don't wear it, I would have picked feats or class features that make me keep up with the rest of the group while being unarmored
I don't need "keep up with the rest of the group". Its not a race

> See? if you're knowledgeable in the system a concept isn't as constrained by rules as you might think, you don't have to choose between what my character would do and a viable option, you can choose both.
Because you enjoying digging for different builds, feats, rules, etc. I don't. I expect a system for RPG to let me create an at-least-
viable character the way I want without knowing every single detail in the game.

> a character is not only it's backstory neither is it's character sheet.
I don't think a character is a character sheet. I think the character sheet is merely a numeric representation of the character within that specific set of rules. For me, the mechanics are not part of the character.

Now, let me ask a question. If you are invited to play a DND campaign, and the DM sets how to roll for your attributes, the starting level, etc. Then some dude shows up with one or more of the things below.
> A character with a level higher than the level suggested by the DM
> A character with a higher overall attributes than the one suggested by the DM
> A character with one or more ability, spell, feature, whatever that he created/personalized himself.

Would any of these things bother you?

>Would any of these things bother you?
As a fellow GM, yes, to a point, because my immediate thought would be, hey, why aren't you listening to the GM.
>For me, the mechanics are not part of the character
Not something I entirely get, as a person is often defined just as much as what they can do (and sometimes it is a primary part of why they are a part of the game, such as Dark Heresy where your skills are such to be noticed and cultivated by the Secret Police) as what they are and how they act.
Mechanics are proof in practice of what your inclinations, backstory, and history culminate in, and separating them from the character means you aren't harmonizing the concept to the game for some reason.

>I don't need "keep up with the rest of the group". Its not a race
Nobody have been saying it's a race or a competition but you, So stop strawmaning. This is a team game, you seem to be mad that rest of players are performing better than you but you're shielding yourself in "what muh character would do", guess what? you can still do whatever and not feel like you're falling behind. It's in your power, but I think don't want to do it because you wouldn't be able to complain otherwise.

>Would any of these things bother you?
Yes, for starters because something called session 0 should exist in where the GM and group all gather together, talk about what's going to happen, what they're going to do, GM explains homerules, etc, if there isn't any of that that's a small red flag. Would I make a scene? no, I'll ask the GM the reason behind this, if it's story or plot wise I'll play probably without problems. If through the game I feel like I'm not bringing anything to the table because said player/character is invalidating me then I'll complain.

Btw, I've been in games where this happened, some went well, some went to shit because the reasons behind the differences weren't plot/story wise but simply catering to a single player while refusing to make it enjoyable for the rest that ruined the game for everybody

>Player completely ignores what the GM said and the rules he stated and faces no consequence
>Would you complain?
No, I'll follow his example

>What my character would fags
Have you talked to the group and the GM? you know you aren't the only one playing the game, right? maybe your refusal to do stuff or be in some way is ruining the game and setting the GM created.
In your example the GM throws an option to you and you literally refuse it, have you thought that maybe the GM doesn't like to bend backwards to make the game a safespace for you?

It's pretty much how I GM and to be sure to prevent any rulelawyering I say that I run a modified version of the game (even if I run it completely vanilla).

> As a fellow GM, yes, to a point, because my immediate thought would be, hey, why aren't you listening to the GM.
He might have talked that with the GM. You are assuming he did not.

> Not something I entirely get, as a person is often defined just as much as what they can do
Yes, for what they can do. But that is not the character sheet - the character sheet is how to put numbers that express what the character can do in that set of rules. The same character would have different character sheets for different systems, for instance.

> you seem to be mad that rest of players are performing better than you but you're shielding yourself in "what muh character would do"
Honestly, this doesn't bother me. But I know people who get really frustrated with this, so that is what I'm pointing it out. What bother me on some powergamers I know is that they leave me with no room to go deep into character interpretation and detailing.

Would any of these things bother you?
> Yes
That is because your style is way too rule-oriented. Last time I DMed I created my own set of rules (based on 4e), made it clear it was shit and it could change between sessions, and it was OK because people were more focused on the story. That would never have worked with a power gamer (ps: I'm convinced now that I will never DM in a set of rules that I did not make. I would at least create the classes, if there is any).

I don't get this.
Do you not trust your players?
Do you not trust them?
Any time my players have asked me about a rule or brought up something of the sort, they either did have a point to be considered, or had a genuine question.
>He might have talked that with the GM. You are assuming he did not.
Yes, because your post indicated that was the case. If the GM at session 0 had told the group what their intent was and how it related to the game, there would be no "Then some dude shows up" because the group would already be aware this is a part of the game. Hiding details about the game or trying to obfuscate it erodes the vital trust between GM and player, rules have nothing to do with it.
>that is not the character sheet
No, but it is part and partial to a character, a representation of how the character interacts and impresses their will upon the world.
You either carry some very eclectic ideas, or are merely playing up for yous, or both.

I do this too, I lie to them when they want to do something so they don't know if they're actually capable of that something, man, the times these retards fell to their deaths because I told them they could totally jump 10 meters when they couldnt.

I do this too, though I always modify something. When I DM, my style really don't go well for powergamers. For instance, I always create my own monsters based on how strong the group are and how much can they take, and whenever I make a boss encounter, the boss never have a fixed hit points - I just let the players hit them for a while, and when I think things are messy enough, I say to myself "ok, now he has 100 hit points left".

My whole point with that example is that, for power gamers, doing these things is completely insane, while I feel a bit upset that I can't just come up with something out of the hat if I think that will fit my character better. D&D has about an infinite amount of feats, what is the problem if I make a new one myself?

> No, but it is part and partial to a character
Its subjective to the system of rules. The character sheet should do its best to represent what the character can and can't do in that set of rules, but it does not define the character. Its merely a reflection of the character.

You know that by virtue of knowing the system you're GMing you're a ruleslawyer according to that article, right?

Dunno what games you play, but taking into account you mentioned 4e I'm going to tell you, you can create your own monsters in 4e, is nothing special

It's still part of the character, as it's personality, backstory and the choices he takes.

>D&D has about an infinite amount of feats, what is the problem if I make a new one myself?
Because most of the time, players are more concerned about getting what they want, not making sure the homebrew works within the accepted parameters of the game.
Just because you think you aren't a powergamer does not mean you can't fuck it up.

> you can create your own monsters in 4e, is nothing special
I'm not saying its special. I think its really natural, I find it weird to use monsters from a rulebook. But if there are rules for monster creation, I never saw them, I just make them up. I like creating my own monsters because I make them fit the scenario, and they are more of a surprise to the players (that have to learn or deduce what the monster can and can't do).

I feel like you are ignoring the fact that the character sheet is only part of the character while he is on that system. The character itself, is beyond that. I don't think Tolkien did Gandalf's character sheet before featuring him in the hobbit. There is probably tons of Gandalf character sheets for DND, but they don't define the character (they just reflect it)

> Just because you think you aren't a powergamer does not mean you can't fuck it up.
Of course I can fuck it up. But the fact I'm an experienced game design gives me enough confidant to at least try something new :)

ps: tried several times to make my own rpg system from the scratch, and all the attempts were fucked up (though the last one was less fucked up than the previous ones)

Book stories have no room in a rpg game, please stop using them as example. Tolkien didn't roll to see if he could beat the Balrog, he just did, books are different than games, hope you understand that.

You can have character sheet of Gandalf, but now the outcome of his choices depend now on the system, so yes, the character sheet is now part of that character in the game. You're free to write as many novels about your favorite PC, but when talking about rpgs (in Veeky Forums) character sheet is part of it.

But if you're experienced you're a powergamer/ruleslawyer, it's right in the OP's pic.

> Book stories have no room in a rpg game, please stop using them as example
For me, its very similar. I think of RPG as a way to collectively create a story, like a book or a movie. That is why I think a character I play on RPG is similar to a character on a novel, movie or series.

> Tolkien didn't roll to see if he could beat the Balrog, he just did
You also don't roll for every single thing you do on RPG. Haven't you ever said your character did something that wasn't on your character sheet, and it worked, even without rolling a dice? Power gaming mentality usually blocks creativity, and I find that frustrating.

I'm an experienced game designer, doesn't mean I'm experience on the rules of every single game. It just means that if I want to make up my own feat, I can read a few feats that are similar to what I want, understand the power level of a feat and create something new that could be a valid feat.

those things you don't roll are menial stuff, not beating a Balrog, if i'm in your game and we face the BBEG and I feel like telling you: "I cast a debilitating spell into that stalactite in a way that it will fall on the monster's head killing it, no roll, I just did, the monster is dead" you'll say no, specially if I'm pulling that out of my ass ignoring the rules of the game. Doing something that reshapes the story is not the same as climbing a ladder in an unimportant situation that you can totally obviate. That's what I mean by books aren't the same as rpgs, books are writen by writer that have all the power, rpgs are group games in where diferent players, while using the rules of the game (or the rules of the GM) give form to that story. It's different.

> those things you don't roll are menial stuff
> Doing something that reshapes the story

When you only do things described in your character sheet, the story becomes waaay too predictable. It takes part of the magic out of it, in my opinion =/

Here is an example i posted yesterday on another thread, that shows that is possible to go for something more creative once in a while:
> be a ranger, good at tracking
> need to track an enemy that was running away in the forest, he was bleeding
> despite of being good at tracking, i rolled badly or something
> time to try something new
> "I close my eyes, and try to focus on my prey. I know he is bleeding, and I want to try to chase the scent of his bleeding spirit."
> DM: "You open your eyes and you can see a red thread in the air, beginning where you injured the bandit and going into the forest."
> im surprised and amazed it actually worked
And I had no supernatural/magical powers according to my character sheet, neither I had a reason to believe that would actually work. But it did, and it was a really nice and surprising moment.

If I want to play something that only rules matter, I would be playing some board game or pc game. When I play dnd, its for the creativity

Man, you keep strawmaning, you can do more that what it's in your character sheet and still use the game rules.
In my character's sheet doesn't say if I can jump, hold my breath or talk to NPCs and tell them about my life but I can still do all of that and not deviate from the game.

>that anecdote
Scent is a game feature in most games, if you want to track by scent you need that, same way if I want to fly I need to be able to fly. Cool your GM allowed that, and which is basically a successful reroll, but don't take a one time license as a rule.

You're also ignoring the fact than when tracking you use all your senses (unless in your native language tracking means just using your eyes), if you failed the roll that means that narratively you tried everything and still failed or that the creature managed to hide his tracks well enough.

You aren't going to change his mind, if you know how a game works you're a powergamer to him, and that knowing how a game works means you can't roleplay, stormwind fallacy 101. Just ignore him.

If you ever play your own games or games you GMd you're a powergamer/ruleslawyer, baka.

> Scent is a game feature in most games, if you want to track by scent you need that
> You're also ignoring the fact than when tracking you use all your senses (unless in your native language tracking means just using your eyes), if you failed the roll that means that narratively you tried everything and still failed or that the creature managed to hide his tracks well enough.
I didn't track him by scent. I could see a red path where he was, in a supernatural sort of way.

> Cool your GM allowed that, and which is basically a successful reroll
I didn't roll for doing that. I just said I did it and he took my word for it.

> if you know how a game works you're a powergamer to him
No, for me power gaming is trying to optimize your character in being the best, rule-wise, at whatever he do.

Also, I explicitly said several times in this thread that I don't think that ALL power gamers can't roleplay. What I said is that most power gamers I know suck at it, and often also make it hard for the rest of the party to roleplay as well.

Back to my original post: power gaming can be bad if you are on a group where one or more plays feel bad about it in one or more ways. If everyone in your group gets along, great for you guys. I never said my way of playing is the correct way of playing

>Don't you trust your players?
I trust no one. But that's not the point. The point is that I don't want discussions about rules that stop the action and break the ambient. I GMd a lot during conventions and had my share of arguing, so I decided to put an end to it. Luckily, in my usual group each member is specialized in different games, and we're all ok with GM fiat.

>Knowing the rules is bad, man!
Reminds me of that one retarded medieval pope who claimed reading the Bible too much isn't good for you (in response to some guy, a priest I think, criticizing some of his policies on a Biblical basis).

The rules are the rules. If the rules aren't enforced, there's no point and you might as well just freeform. However, I'd say that there are two principles that are of higher authority than the rules:

>1. The goal of the evening is for everyone to have fun. The DM is not against the PCs or vice versa, and one does not take priority over the other. The game is a fun, cooperative storytelling activity.
>2. The DM can and should act as a referee in rules disputes that cannot be solved in a timely or acceptable manner (such as when a guy claims he knows a certain rule but can't quickly reference it, or when RAW contradicts itself). Should such a dispute arise, the DMs word is final.

To put it in legal terms (like a literal rule's lawyer), the above two principles are in my eyes the "constitution" of a game, with the DM acting as supreme judge in rules disputes. It's his duty to enforce the laws, in instances where the laws lack clarity he interprets the law (but he should do this as a Civil Law judge would: as restrictively as possible. He's not the guy writing the rules after all), and when the laws contradict the constitution, the authority of the constitution overrules the law (ie. principle 2).

>Inb4 "autism"
Yes, this is autistic. But it works, keeps the game fun and still respects the rules as much as possible. This is also why, in the ideal case, someone at the table has a tablet with PDFs of the rulebooks, so he or she can quickly CTRL+F certain rules if they come up. To continue my autismal court of law analogy, this guy could be the griffon.