# 3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power



## Belen (Sep 6, 2005)

Rasyr kindly asked me to start a thread based on some comments on made in the thread about decline of RPGs.  Feel free to discuss!    



> *Originally Posted by Akrasia*
> My comment is somewhat tangential to the main topic of this thread, but I think that your comment here touches on one of the main reasons why I will not DM 3e anymore (having run two successful, year-long campaigns in the past).
> 
> While a plethora of options for players is a good thing for players, it places a great burden on the DM -- or at least those DMs who prefer to use all the options and rules available, as well as design their own adventures (as opposed to those DMs who wish to simply 'hand-wave' things during play, or are willing to rely exclusively on published adventures). Being a DM should not feel like a 'job', yet for myself (and many other DMs and ex-DMs that I know) prepping for 3e feels that way.
> ...





It is all about the amount of work you are willing to put into the game. I used to feel the same way that you feel. I had a very hard time running a 3e game. I found that the real difficulty with the rules set came from the way that the "players" treated the rules and the game.

A player that intends to get the most bang out of the options will place great strain on the DM. This requires a DM to understand the rules and how the rules interact to a far greater degree than is required to actually run or play the game.

The real problem with 3e is NOT the rules or the number of options released for the rules set. The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no. Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.

The fault of WOTC has been in forgetting to support the DM or combat the notion that any and all rules released for the game are core. This had led to the "feeling" that DMs have lost basic control of the game.

This is not the case. The DM can specify the defaults. A simple "You may use the core options found in the Player's Handbook. Anything out side the PHB will require permission on a case by case basis" will solve a majority of the "DM empowerment" or lack thereof issues found in 3e.

The real problem with the rules lies in the plethora of temporary or conditional modifications and the inconsistency within the advanced combat options found in the game.
__________________
Joined the NC EnWorld Yahoo group yet? It is a must join group for EnWorlders in North Carolina!


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 6, 2005)

Well, for the record, I _don't_ have a problem with saying 'no' to players. 



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> ...The real problem with the rules lies in the plethora of temporary or conditional modifications and the inconsistency within the advanced combat options found in the game.




Yeah, this is another reason why I won't DM 3e anymore (I didn't mean to suggest that the reason I cited earlier was the only reason).   

My general point was that for RPGs to be successful, more needs to be done to assist DMs/GMs. Not just premade adventures (though those certainly help), but tools that can assist the DM/GM in cutting down on prep time, make running sessions easier, etc.

Getting more people willing to GM/DM games is key to ensuring a healthy RPG community.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Rasyr kindly asked me to start a thread based on some comments on made in the thread about decline of RPGs.  Feel free to discuss!
> 
> The real problem with 3e is NOT the rules or the number of options released for the rules set. The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no. Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.




DMs wake up......this was a marketing decision of behalf of WoTC to market more to players than DMs because there are more players than dungeon masters. The idea was to promote "player power" and present literally countless options and thereby make more money.

The only power that players have is the intrinsic freedom of character creation (feats, skills, etc). All other power is granted by the DM and should be adudicated fairly based upon a balanced view of the player's wants, the setting in question and the needs of the campaign as a whole. 

The real problem with 3e in this case is that DMs forgot their testicles (metaphorical for the lady DMs) somewhere between 2e and 3.5. More options are OPTIONAL.....the rules themselves can be altered and tweaked and  themselves are optional insofar as that can be altered by the DM as it suits his or her campaign. DMs who actually believe that players have any more control than they allow have bought the party line and have fallen for propoganda.

Your players want something that doesn't fit your setting? *Say NO!*
Your players want to use some unbalanced nightmare character concepts that works on Eberron or FR but not in your homebrew? *Say NO!*
Your Players want to dictate rules to you? *Say NO!* Then tell them why they are wrong.
You get the drift.

Say no where you need to but to be fair to the players do your best to know the rules and to change the rules in a fair manner so you don't appear arbitrary and power-mad. In DMing for about 19yrs I have lost control of my game when I was about 16yrs old, because I wouldn't veto some of the real crap my players wanted to do. Ever since that out of control nightmare I have firmly held the reigns of fair, non-arbitrary power.

As a DM you are the one with your setting's best interests at heart, not the game designers who make books full of PrCs and Feats. They don't know what will fit in your game and its unfair to ask them to be psychic. YOU have the job of allowing or disallowing anything that violated the letter and spirit of your campaign and setting. Anyone who can't deal with a DM acting like a DM can go find a game elsewhere.


Chris


----------



## DragonLancer (Sep 6, 2005)

> The real problem with 3e is NOT the rules or the number of options released for the rules set. The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no. Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.




Personally I think the problem with 3rd edition has been the increasing number of options and the pushing of players in the direction of expecting to have them almost without regard to what the DM desires. Prestige classes are a good example of this - originally a DM tool once they started appearing in the old splatbooks and player source material they became an expected addition to every game.

Its always been my view with any roleplaying game that the GM/DM always has the final say, but the way that D20 is going theres far too many options to allow them all or even half. But then if you don't allow a sizeable chunk then it can feel that you wasted money on the book (been there and done that). Also, as you say, players have come to expect to use almost anything that appears in print rather than the DM laying out a list of acceptable options.

In my games I try and severly limit feats, PrC's and especially spells. My reasoning being that with the more options added to the game my job as DM becomes harder as I have to keep a track of everything that the players have at their disposal so that I can keep the game interesting and not one sided. This adds to the time needed to write/read and prepare scenarios.

I'm open to a player asking about the use of a certain option and will consider it but ultimately the continued addition of more and more options that players feel are available to them is detrimental. Sadly this is a trend that started with the release of 3rd ed and has just grown.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 6, 2005)

I will most definitely read this thread and make my own comments (likely at lunch time, since I am at work now and the boss has me busy)... hehe


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 6, 2005)

I guess it's never been a problem with us. Normally when any of us start a campaign, everyone gets a sheet saying what books are in use, and what out of those books is in use. And that's that. Everyone knows what to expect. Other things might be considered but it's unlikely. Feats are about the only thing that might be accepted and only if it's somthing near and dear to the character concept.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 6, 2005)

> The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no. Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.





Actually, I disagree. Having more options for players to keep them interested and excited is a good thing. What's not present are a) evaluation guidelines for DMs who need them when looking at new material and b) time and experience to properly evaluate everything.

The discussion here starts with an automatic assumption of an antagonistic relationship, perhaps fueled by the Gygaxian dictatorship of 1E presumptions. When viewed as a cooperative effort, with the player bringing new options to the DM (to save them time designing them) and understands that they'll be fairly evaluated, everyone benefits.


----------



## Thotas (Sep 6, 2005)

Perhaps that's where my old age is a blessing.  I'm running a game now with an old friend as a player ... along with his daughter, and her boyfriend.   The yung'uns know that it's all ultimately up to the DM 'cause that's the way we taught them.


----------



## Psion (Sep 6, 2005)

You know, I almost wish I had the problem of the players wanting to use more options.

I have one player who BRAGS about the fact that "nobody plays a straight up fighter anymore" (despite that this is the first game I have run with more than one PrC character) and another player makes suboptimal choices because she likes "teh shiny" ragardless of how well it works, so I have to tone down the combats to make up for the fact that my players and not the most efficient builders in the world.

Kick some of these option-hungry power gamers you all are claiming are such a scourge my direction, wouldya?


----------



## Henry (Sep 6, 2005)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> The discussion here starts with an automatic assumption of an antagonistic relationship, perhaps fueled by the Gygaxian dictatorship of 1E presumptions. When viewed as a cooperative effort, with the player bringing new options to the DM (to save them time designing them) and understands that they'll be fairly evaluated, everyone benefits.




When the players are willing and able to do this, great. However, over the past ten years or so, I've seen an upsurge of people who DON'T play with friends, but more with "acquaintences" or "associates." When players don't know one another, a more adversarial relationship may result, and in 3E and 3.5, the body of ALL rules favor the players more than the DM, the same way that having access to ALL Magic the Gathering sets generates more loopholes than merely access to the last two sets.

It doesn't take away that RPGs must be cooperative to be successful; but it does hinder that success if the DM has to be an expert in ALL rules interactions to avoid player abuse.

I do think that more options are a good thing; but the unstood implication that the DM is final arbiter of all rules used and final arbiter of rules disputes is something that needs to be reinforced for the sake of harmony while playing the game.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2005)

I think spells are a big problem - I remember letting a 1e/2e player persuade me his Wizard could have "Elminster's Evasion"  *ugh*  

My rule is that everything outside the PHB will be evaluated on a case by case basis, and disallowed if it conflicts with what I want in my campaign (which is gritty swords & sorcery feel).  Stuff in the PHB, mostly spells, is subject to change if I find it causes a problem.  This seems to work well.  A player can buy player's option books for suitable ideas (fluff) but the crunch is always going to be looked at & changed.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 6, 2005)

There is cooperation between the player and DM in regards to character concepts and character development. The setting and arbitration of the rules and any alterations thereof are solely the province of the DM who has far more to concern him or herself with than one character.

The DM has to maintain tight reigns on what he allows into his game and to not fall into the trap that suggests that just because something is published on paper or PDF that it belongs in your game. You decide what's right for your game and if you are fair and consistant your players will love your game.


Chris


----------



## Quasqueton (Sep 6, 2005)

DM's shouldn't have to say, "no". Telling a DM to say, "no", implies the default answer is, "yes", and the DM must stop Players from bringing things into his game.

The default answer, actually, is "no". It is a DM's perogative to say, "yes", to overrule the default. By default, the only book the Players have any business using is the PHB. Anything beyond that requires allowance by the DM.

In AD&D1, the default assumption was that every book put out by TSR was part of the core -- PHB, DMG, MM, D&DG, UA, DSG, WSG, etc. If TSR published it, it was to be added to your game; it was core by default.

In AD&D2 came the concept of maybe not *everything* was supposed to be used in every game. All those extra books beyond the core were optional and supplemental, not an extension of the core.

I think WotC kept the AD&D2 concept that they'll publish optional and supplemental stuff, but may players of the game kept the AD&D1 concept that if it's published, it is to be automatically included.


In my old AD&D1 games, Players used the PHB only, but eventually also UA.

In my short stints in AD&D2 game, Players used the PHB only.

In my current D&D3 games, Players use the PHB only.

Quasqueton


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2005)

Wow, I agree 100% with Quasqueton!  Way to go, Q!  Pity he'll not see this...

"The default answer, actually, is "no". It is a DM's perogative to say, "yes", to overrule the default. By default, the only book the Players have any business using is the PHB. Anything beyond that requires allowance by the DM."

Making this clear certainly prevents a lot of problems.


----------



## Ry (Sep 6, 2005)

I DM extremely fast and loose - instead of worrying about getting every detail perfectly accurate, I use a chart that breaks down things like hps, attacks bonuses, skills, and saves for CRs 1 to 20.  I then make sure I know the special abilities of a monster and I let my players run wild.

Then again, I like the kind of realism represented by the lower levels, so I put a level cap of 6 on the game, with certain exceptions.  The players accept that this lets the game go on... so there are certainly ways to have the control you're looking for, even if you're letting players have access to feats from every official source they can get their grubby hands on.


----------



## MonsterMash (Sep 6, 2005)

One thing I believe is missing in the 3.5 PHB, but is in the 3.0 PHB is rule 0 (as well as the you are not your character spiel) - which to me really needs to be that the DM's ruling is final. IMC I vet what is permitted to fit into the setting, mainly for feel, but also for power levels.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 6, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> DM's shouldn't have to say, "no". Telling a DM to say, "no", implies the default answer is, "yes", and the DM must stop Players from bringing things into his game.
> 
> The default answer, actually, is "no". It is a DM's perogative to say, "yes", to overrule the default. By default, the only book the Players have any business using is the PHB. Anything beyond that requires allowance by the DM.




I hear an old time gospel choir going in the background and I am listening o' preacher man. Preach on brother!   


Chris


----------



## Henry (Sep 6, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> The default answer, actually, is "no". It is a DM's perogative to say, "yes", to overrule the default. By default, the only book the Players have any business using is the PHB. Anything beyond that requires allowance by the DM.




...however, there is a strong undercurrent among many players I run into online that they must allow everything that WotC produces because it is somehow more balanced and okay than anything else out there. I see it every time someone bemoans that a certain book is released and how it has damaged their current game, and it bugs me that the default assumption seems to have changed. Some folks I've spoken with on other forums act surprised that I don't allow thus-and-such a book.




> In AD&D1, the default assumption was that every book put out by TSR was part of the core...In AD&D2 came the concept of maybe not *everything* was supposed to be used in every game.




I did see this, but one thing about the older material was that not very many players' supplements were released except in Dragon Magazine; In AD&D2, I saw more players' supplements than I had ever seen in my life to that point! The UA, Parts of the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guide, some Dragonlance and Greyhawk supplements, all this paled in comparison to the Complete Fighter's/ Thief's/ Wizard's/ Priest's/ Paladin's/ Ranger's/ Gnomes&Halfling's/ Dwarves/ Elves/ Druid's Handbooks, the Realms boxes, and the Player's Option stuff! However, still going on the assumptions laid forth from the first generation of players, most new players who joined were told that the DM had final authority on what was and was not permitted, explicitly.

Currently, there are more groups who started who've never heard a word from players of editions older than the current one; and there's no written or oral tradition with them that says, "the DM *permits*, the DM does not *deny.*" It's why there's two main ways of DM'ing now - the "DM as final authority" vs. "the rules as final authority."


----------



## Jackelope King (Sep 6, 2005)

The problem is not that there is a misunderstanding that things are optional, but a misunderstanding that players and DMs can and should work together on creating characters which fit the game and the player's tastes. I've never seen a player say that he'll take PrC X... it's always that he'll ask the DM if he can take PrC X. If a player comes up to you and says that he'd like to take levels in the dervish PrC. You've already decided that there is no real "Arabia" area of your setting for a coven of whirling dervishes to come from.

Do you just tell the player no? Or do you talk it over to adapt the flavor to your game?

Too many players and DMs refuse to even consider the second option. The player wanted the mechanics of the dervish. Couldn't the player and the DM sit down and realize that while there are no Arabic areas of the setting, the flavor of the class would fit well for the hispanic area of the setting. Instead of being a whirling dervish, it's a class for warriors who blend flaminco into their fighting style. The flavor given in the books is optional, and many DMs and players either don't realize that the mechanics can exist independent of the given flavor or they don't care enough to make the adaptations themselves. As a DM, my default answer is, "Yes, but talk to me about how it'll fit into the game. If we can't fit it in, the answer is no, but we won't give up on it easily."

This makes for the most satisfying gaming experience for myself and my group: players have the options they want for their characters and the DM retains a sense of consistency throughout the game.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 6, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> It's why there's two main ways of DM'ing now - the "DM as final authority" vs. "the rules as final authority."




I agree and its unfortunate. If I ever for a moment started to accept the latter option as reality, I would quit DMing the game. I have better things to do with my time than have someone who doesn't know the needs of my campaign and setting dictate the way things are supposed to be.


Chris


----------



## MonsterMash (Sep 6, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Wow, I agree 100% with Quasqueton!  Way to go, Q!  Pity he'll not see this...
> 
> "The default answer, actually, is "no". It is a DM's perogative to say, "yes", to overrule the default. By default, the only book the Players have any business using is the PHB. Anything beyond that requires allowance by the DM."
> 
> Making this clear certainly prevents a lot of problems.



This sums up how I feel too.


----------



## Thotas (Sep 6, 2005)

If a DM can't/doesn't limit what comes into his campaign world, how can he keep it consistent?  If the latest supplement for playing Jungle-based adventures has a "Swing Through the Trees Like Tarzan" Feat that I don't want to allow because this campaign is supposed to feel like Newhon, it's not my world if my players can force this on me.  And it is my world; that's the prize I get for sitting out on the glory and tragedy I get when I have a PC.  I'm all for Jackalope King's co-operative approach; I'd love to create a campaign based on piecing together a bunch of my ideas with ones thrown at me by players; it tells me what kind of world they want to play in so I don't make the wrong one.  But if we've established a world where something doesn't fit, no matter how cool it looks in the latest splat book, it doesn't come in.  I can't comprehend doing it any differently.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2005)

Let the players use what they want, I allow most things.  I give extra feats.  I'm still waiting for it to be a problem.  But I trust the players to handle themselves and they seem to trust me, we have fun and that's what matters to me.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> It is all about the amount of work you are willing to put into the game. I used to feel the same way that you feel. I had a very hard time running a 3e game. I found that the real difficulty with the rules set came from the way that the "players" treated the rules and the game.




I think the Core rules (DMG, PHB, MM) are solid and very well balanced. Most additional monster books don't provide any new options for PCs, so they can be added to the game by the DM without any concerns about balance.

Optional add-ons, however, are more questionable. In those cases, the DM has to make a judgement on a case-by-case basis, and that's where it falls apart. I used to have a "no extensions" rule, but now I've relaxed somewhat since Complete Warrior impressed me enough to allow most Complete X extensions.

But in any case, DM support for me comes from several areas:

1. Pre-made NPCs (those pages in the DMG with pre-made NPCs are extremely frequently referenced whenever I DM on the fly)
2. Pre-published adventures. A subscription to Dungeon and occasional purchases of pre-made adventures have enabled me to run an entire game of D&D from 1st to 20th. I'm now running my second campaign entirely around the Banewarrens. I long for an pre-made campaign as tightly integrated and well-written as the Banewarrens. $200 would not be out of the question for such an adventure. If well-made enough and provided enough publicity, groups of players will pool together the money to buy that book. (Apparently that happened with WLD)
3. Electronic tools for the DM. This has been extremely spotty so far. I suspect that this will likely be the biggest source of improvement over the next 3-5 years.
4. Visual aids. Pre-painted minis are great. In addition, I'd love to see more adventures come with pull out illustration booklets, pre-made player handouts, etc.

There may be further game mechanical support tools for DMs that haven't been explored fully, but off the top of my head these are the tools that I am likely to find likely. Note that they are more prevalant for D&D than for any other game out there.


----------



## Belen (Sep 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Let the players use what they want, I allow most things.  I give extra feats.  I'm still waiting for it to be a problem.  But I trust the players to handle themselves and they seem to trust me, we have fun and that's what matters to me.




That's fine and dandy if you have the type of player who will not abuse it.  However, my first 3e group, which had members from my old 2e group, really used the system.  I had a monk in my 3e game that was virtually immune to every spell except Forgecage and Imprisonment.  That was nuts!  They made the game about winning rather than having fun.

I tend to be far more strict now and the results have made my gaming experience better.


----------



## Belen (Sep 6, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> My general point was that for RPGs to be successful, more needs to be done to assist DMs/GMs. Not just premade adventures (though those certainly help), but tools that can assist the DM/GM in cutting down on prep time, make running sessions easier, etc.
> 
> Getting more people willing to GM/DM games is key to ensuring a healthy RPG community.




Well, the tools do exist.  Heroforge, e-tools, and the battlebox have made my life much easier. I no longer have to worry about extended prep time.

High level can still be a pain in the arse because of the conditional mods though.  High level play breaks down around 12th level or so.  I no longer even consider running campaigns past 12th.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The fault of WOTC has been in forgetting to support the DM or combat the notion that any and all rules released for the game are core. This had led to the "feeling" that DMs have lost basic control of the game.




I haven't looked at the Complete books closely, but the original splatbooks all said, quite clearly, words to the effect that "This stuff is optional."  The DMG prestige classes are likewise stated as optional, and much of the DMG is devoted to how the DM should build and tinker.

How many times does WotC have to say it before it counts as "support"?


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 6, 2005)

Okay, am at home and on lunch, so her I go... 


			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I found that the real difficulty with the rules set came from the way that the "players" treated the rules and the game.



That is because the rules took a more "player-oriented" approach and that is laced throughout everything.


			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The real problem with 3e is NOT the rules or the number of options released for the rules set. The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no. Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.



Yes, there may be an implied connotation of a GM not being able to say no, but I think that there are problems in other areas as well. Such as the implicit reliance on magical items, and that characters of certain levels SHOULD have xx amount of gold or xx number of magic items. That you only need this many combats against monsters of xx CR to reach the next level. 

Over in the thread where this post originated, Mike Mearls made a side comment that very few game designers (i.e. authors) do not understand the CR system or use it properly (or something to that effect). This system (the CR system) is another of the examples of power being removed from the GM. The CR system says what the GH "should" be throwing against the party at a given level. 

Overall, the rules have been reducing options for GMs while expanding them for players.


			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The fault of WOTC has been in forgetting to support the DM or combat the notion that any and all rules released for the game are core. This had led to the "feeling" that DMs have lost basic control of the game.



Actually, the rules have take a lot of control out of the hands of the GM by impliciting supporting and promoting a certain style of play. This control has not been permanently removed, but it has made it more difficult to play using other styles than the one explicitly supported by the rules themselves.


			
				DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Personally I think the problem with 3rd edition has been the increasing number of options



So? D&D is the new Rolemaster?  Seriously, RM got a bad reputation, in part, because of all the options available, and because many players treated them as requirements, not options, and becuase those options were not very well balanced (against one another, to say the very least). From the posts in this thread, it is apparent that some of the same mentality is present amongst some D&D players (and no, apparently not your players, Psion - you have the exceptions, all in one basket from the sounds of it).

It is also apparent that many GMs (at least those who responded here) have taken steps to counter, or reduce that perception. Good for them!


			
				DragonLancer said:
			
		

> and the pushing of players in the direction of expecting to have them almost without regard to what the DM desires.



Yup! The ability for players to have choices and options is a good thing. However, those choices should be determined by the GM as to what is right for HIS game. I have seen plenty of posts where players want to take a certain PrC and are complaining because such a PrC is not allowed by the GM. This type of post comes about because of the GM trying to set the limits for what is allowable in his game, and yet players (and no, I am not saying ALL players, just some) have the perception that because it is there, they ought to be allowed it.


			
				DragonLancer said:
			
		

> Prestige classes are a good example of this - originally a DM tool once they started appearing in the old splatbooks and player source material they became an expected addition to every game.



Exactly! Prestige Classes were originally meant as a method for GMs to customize their game settings, but instead, they have essentially turned into power-ups for players. I have other problems with PrCs, but those are not relevant to this discussion.

Additionally, there is a current expectation that new books SHOULD contain new Prestige Classes. That they are almost required to...


			
				Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> Actually, I disagree. Having more options for players to keep them interested and excited is a good thing. What's not present are a) evaluation guidelines for DMs who need them when looking at new material and b) time and experience to properly evaluate everything.



Options are good, yes. However, having players expect that all options are equally allowable is part of the problem.


			
				Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> The discussion here starts with an automatic assumption of an antagonistic relationship, perhaps fueled by the Gygaxian dictatorship of 1E presumptions. When viewed as a cooperative effort, with the player bringing new options to the DM (to save them time designing them) and understands that they'll be fairly evaluated, everyone benefits.



And what about those options that are not balanced well, or have game breakers in them? If the GM misses the potential problems, then it is of no benefit to everybody, it becomes a problem and then that will re-inforce the GM to wanting to curtail future options.

In short, the options themselves are not the problem. It is the expectation that the player should automatically be allowed any option he wants to use that is the problem. 


			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> DM's shouldn't have to say, "no". Telling a DM to say, "no", implies the default answer is, "yes", and the DM must stop Players from bringing things into his game.
> 
> The default answer, actually, is "no". It is a DM's perogative to say, "yes", to overrule the default. By default, the only book the Players have any business using is the PHB. Anything beyond that requires allowance by the DM.



Exactly! The current ruleset does not do this latter though, it implies that the former is the norm.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> That's fine and dandy if you have the type of player who will not abuse it.  However, my first 3e group, which had members from my old 2e group, really used the system.  I had a monk in my 3e game that was virtually immune to every spell except Forgecage and Imprisonment.  That was nuts!  They made the game about winning rather than having fun.
> 
> I tend to be far more strict now and the results have made my gaming experience better.




Then don't play with those kinds of players.  When the players restirct whatr you as a DM does, then you need new players.  I'd perfer to not play, then play with a group that limits my fun as a DM.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 6, 2005)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> Actually, I disagree. Having more options for players to keep them interested and excited is a good thing.



Yep. Our experience has been more options = mo better.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Then don't play with those kinds of players.  When the players restirct whatr you as a DM does, then you need new players.  I'd perfer to not play, then play with a group that limits my fun as a DM.



Indeed. Life is too short to play with jackasses


----------



## Belen (Sep 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Then don't play with those kinds of players.  When the players restirct whatr you as a DM does, then you need new players.  I'd perfer to not play, then play with a group that limits my fun as a DM.




Well, that was my old group.  I stopped gaming with them about a year ago and things have been better, although I am still never going to be that permissive again.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Sep 6, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> While a plethora of options for players is a good thing for players, it places a great burden on the DM -- or at least those DMs who prefer to use all the options and rules available, as well as design their own adventures (as opposed to those DMs who wish to simply 'hand-wave' things during play, or are willing to rely exclusively on published adventures). Being a DM should not feel like a 'job', yet for myself (and many other DMs and ex-DMs that I know) prepping for 3e feels that way.
> 
> Designing a way to both: (a.) provide an adequate variety of options and variants for players; and (b.) accomplish (a.), while providing the DM with tools to minimize prep time (plus stat blocks, etc.) is important (IMO). WotC has focused on (a.), and done very little about (b.). Since DMs are essential to the success of table-top RPGs (no DMs = no games), more attention to (b.) would make sense.



I'm sort of surprised that no one has mentioned computer DM aids yet.  When 3.0 came out waaaay back in 2000 they had the release paired with E-tools.  This seemed to make sense.  If there really was a highly customizable and rules literate DM tool by WotC, then a lot of DM prep time would be minimized.  I haven't really tried any of the software currently out there, but I imagine the publishers are doing their very best to fill this need.  

My policy is learned from one of the best DM's on this board: To always try and say yes to the player.  I don't believe it is the DM's job to limit the players' imaginations.  Quite the contrary actually.  I know the amount of published rules is vast, but even with a zillion options PC builds always have a finite limit in play.  And the ones you choose for your NPCs are up to you.  This means you really only have to track the current PCs' powers.

That said, I do believe the current climate of the game is limiting imagination.  Like Henry said, players brought up only under the new system tend to see the rules as more credible than DM arbitration.  If a DM makes an antithetical call or chooses not to use a newly published option/rule, it may appear as if they know "better" than the professional designers at Wizards.  Someone else mentioned needing real balancing guidelines.  I'm sure Wizards has these developed even though much of it is an art, as they say.  But there are definite reasons why they do not release these spreadsheets and rules of thumb.  Having the best balanced rules is a big selling points in an OGL market.  Unfortunately, the idea "only Wizards has extensively balanced rules" contributes to the mindset of DM's not being the preferred arbiter of what is allowed.

However, everything here mentioned so far has focused on rules.  This is the real limitation in my mind.  The DM must memorize all the rules possible for their game.  The players must buy rules to use in their games.  The rules must be followed while playing the game.  Even with 1000's of books and options, I think this is extremely limiting.  The game is about imagination.  57 channels and nothing's on...  Pull out a blank piece of paper and write the character you want to play without any rules.  The DM can fill these in.  He/she could even balance it so it's not a "poor build".  Yes, this means they are going to have to build a whole new race for you, a whole new class and prestige class, develop new weapons, spells, magic items, and more.  They will even need to create a whole slew of new monsters for the crazy world you developed for your character.  Impossible!?  Hours and hours of work you say?  Well yes, if you believe only professionals can make balanced rules.  This is the limitation on imagination: believing both player and DM are no longer adequate for designing the game.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 6, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Over in the thread where this post originated, Mike Mearls made a side comment that very few game designers (i.e. authors) do not understand the CR system or use it properly (or something to that effect). This system (the CR system) is another of the examples of power being removed from the GM. The CR system says what the GH "should" be throwing against the party at a given level.




This demonstrates the lack of understanding of the D&D 3e rules by most RPG designers. The CR system doesn't say anything about what the DM should be throwing against the party at a given level. The EL of an encounter is the gauge of how hard an encounter should be. An encounter at the same EL of a party should eat up about 20% of a party's resources. Nowhere in the DMG does it say: "All encounters should be at the same EL as a party." It does, however say that at EL +3 or +4, you should start to see PC fatalities.

The CR/EL system is a tool for the DM (and while not perfect, is much better than nothing, which was what previous versions of D&D had). It certainly doesn't prevent the DM from throwing anything he wants at the party, it just helps him guess what the likely outcome will be (whether it's a pushover or likely to be a climatic encounter that leaves the PCs exhausted).

If you as a DM think that the CR/EL system restricts you in what you can toss at the players, you haven't read the relevant portions of the DMG or failed to understand them.

Here's one of my favorite quotes from Mearl's blog that illustrates my point:


			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> "How can D&D now be the best game in the RPG world, if no statistically significant portion of its users really grok it, even after 5 years of play? If essentially no one in the subset of players/GMs who became d20 writers really understand the game, how many of those who didn't become writers do? Or is just that they only can grok it well enough to utilize published materials written by the select handful that truly understand how the machinery works underneath the hood?"
> 
> I've long held the opinion that there's a tremendous gap between the customer base for RPGs and the population of designers. I've met very, very few designers outside of WotC who majored in the sciences, yet the staggering majority of the people I've gamed with have been programmers, engineers, lawyers, and so forth. I think that, in general, the typical high end D&D player with a deep understanding of the game is too busy with a career more lucrative than writing RPG material for 3 or 4 cents a word. I've had conversations with friends who graduated 1st in their class at law school, or are studying for PhDs at places like MIT and CMU, that have basically been these people saying, "I read d20 books and see that I know the D&D system better than these designers, but I'd much rather work for the UN/pursue a tenure track position/prosecute hate crimes/etc than write D&D stuff."




Mearl's experience parallels my own. My group has only 1 player out of 5 that doesn't have a college degree. Not unsurprisingly, that one player is the one who has the most trouble with the rules and has to have his character sheet checked by me. Of the other players, 1 has a PhD in astronomy, and the other 2 are software engineers in Silicon Valley. It doesn't surprise me that most of my players have a better grasp (and understanding) of D&D rules than most RPG designers.


----------



## Belen (Sep 6, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> Mearl's experience parallels my own. My group has only 1 player out of 5 that doesn't have a college degree. Not unsurprisingly, that one player is the one who has the most trouble with the rules and has to have his character sheet checked by me. Of the other players, 1 has a PhD in astronomy, and the other 2 are software engineers in Silicon Valley. It doesn't surprise me that most of my players have a better grasp (and understanding) of D&D rules than most RPG designers.




You should not need a college degree to play D&D.


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You should not need a college degree to play D&D.




You don't. You might need one if you wanted to write an RPG to compete with D&D, for instance. And you'll almost certainly need a good system design background to understand the whys and hows of CR/EL, magic items/XP rules, etc. You don't need a degree in mechanical engineering to drive a car, but you do need one if you want to design one that's any good.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You should not need a college degree to play D&D.




You don't, but you do need to have some smarts to understand what the game does and perhaps some education to make the game do what you want it to do.  But Mearls is talking about the writers of the game, not the people playing.


----------



## mmu1 (Sep 6, 2005)

I'm currently playing in two D&D games I'm quite happy with, but getting there had been a long and painful road...

One of my worst experiences was playing in a game in which the GM would allow virtually anything from any supplement, because that was the path of least resistance... He then dealt with the absurd power level by giving enemies hundreds of hit points, huge spell resistance and extremely high saves, which turned all encounters into boring slugfests. (spells didn't work, sneak attack didn't work, trip/disarm didn't work, touch attacks missed, stun attempts failed...)

Another was a game I tried to GM in which every time I tried to say no to what I felt was unreasonable twinkage, I was made to feel as if I was telling a bunch of kids that there was no Santa - that they couldn't possibly be expected to have fun unless they could have _all_ the toys.

For me, those examples sum up the biggest problems I have with the game: Inadequate understanding of the basic rules too often leads to the inability to play the game well, which makes it easy for a lot of people to believe they'll have more fun if only they get supplements to make their enemies thougher/their characters more interesting, which leads to rampant power creep and gameplay that's far more generic than with just the PHB and some imaginative characters.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 6, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> This demonstrates the lack of understanding of the D&D 3e rules by most RPG designers.



Oh, please..... In my opinion, the CR was an afterthought, tacked on to the rules (it shows (to me, at least) because of how clunkily it works compared to the rest of the system) could be why it is not well understood.

Have I personally tried to understand it? Nope, not even once. I looked at it, and then promptly ignored it from then on. I have GM'd D&D (3E, not 3.5) before, but it is not something I would ever do again. If I am going to GM, it will be for systems that I do understand such as Rolemaster, HARP, and Hero. There are too many "special situations" or rules by exception for me to be comfortable with GMing D&D. Play it? Sure, no problems there, as I think D&D is a pretty good system (and for reference, I also think HARP is a pretty good system, and I wrote HARP).


			
				Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> The CR system doesn't say anything about what the DM should be throwing against the party at a given level.



Explicitly? No. But the entire CR/EL system implies it. There is a lot in D&D that implies certain styles and mehtods of play. The inclusion of the CR/EL system in the core rules implies that you are supposed to use it. 


			
				Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> The EL of an encounter is the gauge of how hard an encounter should be. An encounter at the same EL of a party should eat up about 20% of a party's resources.



Oh! A gauge of how hard an encounter should be. And who decided it should eat up 20% of the resources? Why does it need to eat up any resources? Why can't it eat up all of the resources? Another example, of the game making decisions for the GM, removing control from him. 


			
				Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> Nowhere in the DMG does it say: "All encounters should be at the same EL as a party." It does, however say that at EL +3 or +4, you should start to see PC fatalities.



No, it doesn't specifically say that all encounters should be at the same EL as the party. However, doesn't the DMG say something to the effect that an average party should advance a level after x number of encounters (or something along those lines). I am pretty sure that the 3e DMG said something to that effect.

Thorin, there are several ways of saying something. You are looking for "explicit" statements spelling it out. I doubt that you will find any. However, the overall implications are there - play using this style, players can expect such and such by this level, average encounters for players should be 'so' tough, it should take between x & y encounters to gain a level, and so forth....


			
				Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> The CR/EL system is a tool for the DM (and while not perfect, is much better than nothing, which was what previous versions of D&D had).



Well, actually "nothing" would be preferable, at least to me, as opposed to saying that I should play using a certain style, especially if I don't want my campaign to be done using that style.


			
				Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> It certainly doesn't prevent the DM from throwing anything he wants at the party, it just helps him guess what the likely outcome will be (whether it's a pushover or likely to be a climatic encounter that leaves the PCs exhausted).



BAB, number of foes, any powerful special abilities, etc can tell you that just as well. Then again, if player dice rolls go south for a combat, something a lower CR/EL can result in a TPK, unless there is a major difference in levels (in which case, the monster will always miss).


			
				Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> Mearl's experience parallels my own. My group has only 1 player out of 5 that doesn't have a college degree. Not unsurprisingly, that one player is the one who has the most trouble with the rules and has to have his character sheet checked by me. Of the other players, 1 has a PhD in astronomy, and the other 2 are software engineers in Silicon Valley. It doesn't surprise me that most of my players have a better grasp (and understanding) of D&D rules than most RPG designers.



 The only player to have problems is the one without a college degree? And you don't see something wrong with that picture? As BU says, one should not be required to have a college degree to be able to understand and/or play a game.


----------



## Campbell (Sep 6, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> The only player to have problems is the one without a college degree? And you don't see something wrong with that picture? As BU says, one should not be required to have a college degree to be able to understand and/or play a game.




It is not necesarrily a problem that deviations from the standard mode of play require a technical background if you are going to attempt to maintain the same level of play balance that D&D 3.x maintains within its core rules. While 3.x might be strongly tied to a standard mode of play and require strong technical skills to modify the game to fit those who want to alter the d20 system as the basis for games with differing modes of play I do not believe that there is anything inherrently wrong with that. After all 3.x is one game that is available in a sea of games with differing default play standards which are not always as strongly represented as D&D 3.5's.


----------



## Quasqueton (Sep 6, 2005)

> You should not need a college degree to play D&D.



But with Thac0 gone, we need _something_ to keep the riff-raff out. ;-)

Quasqueton


----------



## Joshua Randall (Sep 6, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Oh, please..... In my opinion, the CR was an afterthought, tacked on to the rules (it shows (to me, at least) because of how clunkily it works compared to the rest of the system) could be why it is not well understood.



Your opinion is wrong ...



> Have I personally tried to understand it? Nope, not even once. I looked at it, and then promptly ignored it from then on.



... and your dismissive attitude is extremely ignorant.

CR may be a flawed system, but it perfectly fits the bill of something that was designed into 3.x in order to help the DM. Specifically, to help the DM balance choose reasonably balanced foes for the PCs to fight.


----------



## swrushing (Sep 6, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> DM's shouldn't have to say, "no". Telling a DM to say, "no", implies the default answer is, "yes", and the DM must stop Players from bringing things into his game.




Well from the opposite side of the spectrum, i Gm under the say yes rule... which is "say yes, unless you have a **compelling** reason to say no". 

Now, if i have a compelling reason to say no, i don't have any qualms about it and at campaign start i set the products (and parts of products) i will allow for the campaign, as that helps define "the world" and it doesn't significantly change until campaign ends ion spite of what new whizbangs get published. 

but if my plauer wants to alter a class to suit his idea or have a customized spell or whatever, i wont say NO to the request unless i have a darn good reason to do so. My default is yes.

I find it works well enough.


----------



## Ace (Sep 6, 2005)

Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> Mearl's experience parallels my own. My group has only 1 player out of 5 that doesn't have a college degree. Not unsurprisingly, that one player is the one who has the most trouble with the rules and has to have his character sheet checked by me. Of the other players, 1 has a PhD in astronomy, and the other 2 are software engineers in Silicon Valley. It doesn't surprise me that most of my players have a better grasp (and understanding) of D&D rules than most RPG designers.








			
				Rasyr said:
			
		

> The only player to have problems is the one without a college degree? And you don't see something wrong with that picture? As BU says, one should not be required to have a college degree to be able to understand and/or play a game.




I'd like to jump in on this Rasyr.

 Most of the problems peeople are having understanding 3x is caused by players and GM's who haven't sat down and actually tried to understand the rules not that they don't have a college degree. 

They are no more complex than say Panzerblitz -- or even some collectable card games. 

the lack of interest in learning the rules is understandable though. Not only are there time constraints in peoples lives  but most of the games relased in the last 10 or so years have been rules light or at least "non rigorous" -- stuff like Unknown Armies, Over The Edge, Storyteller and the like are meant to be played fast and loose. It is what people are used to 

Even D&D'rs fall prey to this as most of the original D&D games were basically Ad Hoc mobs of rules that let the DM basically wing it. 

D&D3 and its cousins  OTOH are  a lot more like those old 80's games, Aftermath, Space Opera, Rolemaster  and the like

Its a rigid, structured game with built in guidelines and balances. It can be very rewarding in play if and only if the players understand the rules and take the time to make them work. 

Now there are 4 problems (IMO) with 3x 

First  the fact that it is exception driven like a collectable card game -In actual play the tactical managemnt can be a pain for players or GM's used to "get em!" as the limits of tactics

Stuff like "ok so I can move after an attack if I have x feat or am x race -- this spell does x under y condition" is a royal pain to maanage in play if you come from -- he can attack and has 5 HP left he is down -- thats it. Look at a stat block for C&C or OD&D vs 3x for an example 

 for a fun short hand version of the troubles see the the half ogre with a spiked chain bit on Order Of the Stick 

second:  prep time for the GM increases exponentially at high levels. Low level d20 is easy -- OTOH Epic -- no so good. It can 30 minutes to make 1 Epic NPC. I don't have the time and interest in that and neither do a lot of DM's. Electronic tools can help but they aren't the be-all end of gaming. I know I don't want to spend an hour prepping per hour playing

third: D&D is too balance driven at times. The game can break down and be less fun if you give out to little magic without hacking the rules just right. This can be vexing for DM's who want lower magic settings.
 Worse if players don't use or understand the appropriate resources they have  what was supposed to be a balanced encounter can quickly turn into a TPK. No fun 

Fourth: Parsing material for inclusion is a challenge. Once you step beyond the 3 core books (or worse go into 3rd party stuff) the difficulty of "what to allow" increases very quickly. Too much No and you lose players (I personally have quit games for this reason) to little No and your DMing job gets much harder.  

I have always felt that once you get much beyond "Core Rules,  Critters, an Expansion  or Two and 1 Notebook peril ensuses for the GM--  

Certainly adding 4 class books, 3 race books, 3 enviroment books, combat books and more can make being DM go from fun to a burden.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> But with Thac0 gone, we need _something_ to keep the riff-raff out. ;-)
> 
> Quasqueton




That never kept the riff raff out.  I think the only thing that can is the price continually rising.


----------



## haakon1 (Sep 6, 2005)

DragonLancer said:
			
		

> In my games I try and severly limit feats, PrC's and especially spells. My reasoning being that with the more options added to the game my job as DM becomes harder as I have to keep a track of everything that the players have at their disposal so that I can keep the game interesting and not one sided. This adds to the time needed to write/read and prepare scenarios.
> 
> I'm open to a player asking about the use of a certain option and will consider it but ultimately the continued addition of more and more options that players feel are available to them is detrimental. Sadly this is a trend that started with the release of 3rd ed and has just grown.




I've gone to 2nd Edition rules -- default rule is no additional rules outside the core rule set (PHB, DMG, DMGII, MM-MM3 + Fiend Folio, Deities & Demigods).  The only additions I allow are:
- occasional feats that make sense to me
- one or two rules from Unearthed Arcana (like Arcana or Divine spellcasting classes stack)
- gods from Living Greyhawk and from 1st Edition Deities & Demigods
- homebrew variant ranger
- Stargate D20 & D20 Modern Weapons Locker, for a very few special "magic" items that add flavor to my campaign

I recently bought the icy polar splatbook and the war splatbook from WOTC, and decided both were essentially -- 10 pages of killer, no filler would be worth the $39, but 116 pages (or whatever) of useless minutia and campaign wrecker rules means I should have kept the cash, and should just dump the book.


----------



## Henry (Sep 6, 2005)

There is one thing that Mike Mearls said that bothers me -- not that I'm bothered with him, but that I'm bothered with the truth of the statements:



> MMORPGs generally stick quite close to the D&D mode of RPGs: fight monsters, grab treasure, power up, go on quests. An entire generation of games has learned that that is what you do in an RPG, whether it be Final Fantasy, WoW, KOTOR, or whatever.




and



> I think the number of gamers who leave D&D for other games is falling, both because D&D does a good job of meeting its goals and because the play style of D&D is so player-friendly. As a game player, why swap D&D for something that gives the DM more power over you?




The problem with this model is that it's forgetting the one thing that separates D&D from traditional games: The DM. This model, taken to its extreme, destroys the position of Game Master. If MMORPG's are an example, it also hinders the idea of roleplaying itself, because it gets lost in power-play. If it degenerates into players running around requesting "buffs," looking for quests to "level", and how to start the best "monster trains" then it's transformed into something I haven't taken part in since I was 14 years old. It's fine if this is one form of play facilitated, but when this is the ONLY form facilitated, it's something I no longer want to take part in.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 6, 2005)

My problem is that the more options that are out there....the less options players have and here's why:

It used to be you had only a few core options. The rest was then imagination. The players and dm started brainstorming how to make the character cool, add a little here, take a little there.

Now its about picking from a big list. Players aren't using their  imaginations anymore, they are just flipping through books picking what looks good. In that sense, its no different from a video game.

The main benefit of paper rpg is that in the end there are no rules except what the dm and players agree upon. But I feel that we have lost that over the last several years.


----------



## rogueattorney (Sep 6, 2005)

This is something I learned way back with 2e, when the Complete Books of X came out.

And it's not so simple saying "no", when your best buddy just plopped $20+ down on a book to use in your game.  In most of my experience, the player was actually trying to be helpful and creative, but it was the supplementary rules themselves that were the problem.

This is why "If it's not core, it's out the door" will always be my motto as DM, and it will be broadly and generally announced to the players before the campaign begins.  I seldom stick to the motto.  However, if something is added, I add it.

R.A.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 6, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> and
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"why swap D&D for something that gives the DM more power over you" ?!?!

Wow! That line is spinning so hard that I am surprised that we don't see smoke coming off it. It is so loaded, that it couldn't pass a breathalyzer test at 10 paces. Has Mearls been taking lessons from Dancey? 

First off, it tries to make other games sound as if they are "Player vs GM". It also makes it sound like other games do not give players choices. Not to mention the fact that it implies, through the mis-statements about other systems, that DMs in D&D do not (or should not) have any power (or only a limited amount of power) over players, or even the games that they run. It also implies that a GM having "any" sort of power over the players of a game (apparently in regard with player choices) is to be considered a bad thing. Or is he attempting to imply that D&D is for power-gamers cause D&D allows them all the choices they want (as opposed choices available due to setting/game).







			
				Henry said:
			
		

> The problem with this model is that it's forgetting the one thing that separates D&D from traditional games: The DM. This model, taken to its extreme, destroys the position of Game Master. If MMORPG's are an example, it also hinders the idea of roleplaying itself, because it gets lost in power-play. If it degenerates into players running around requesting "buffs," looking for quests to "level", and how to start the best "monster trains" then it's transformed into something I haven't taken part in since I was 14 years old. It's fine if this is one form of play facilitated, but when this is the ONLY form facilitated, it's something I no longer want to take part in.



You are very right here, and it was not something that I had noticed previously. Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 6, 2005)

I've been using the model that nearly everything in every WOTC book is allowed unless I see a REALLY big balance problem with it just by looking at it or it has proven to be abusive in actual play for more than 1 session.

I know how fun it is as a player to look through options, to come up with interesting characters.  I also know, I, and all my friends have a large desire to do so after playing 2nd Ed for so many years and playing "Generic longsword using fighter number 286" in nearly every session.  So, if a prestige class comes out that has a flavour I enjoy, I really would appreciate my DM allowing it.  It might make the difference betwen me enjoying my character and simply showing up out of dedication to the game.

I think the major problem seems to be that people keep trying to shoehorn plots and fantasy worlds into the D&D system, then complain that the D&D system is to blame for not allowing it.  It isn't a generic fantasy RPG, it really has its own flavour and set of assumptions built into it.

It allows you to run games set in a fantasy world where characters from various cutures, countries, and backgrouns, who are quite a bit more powerful than normal people, who have powerful larger than life abilities kill enemies fairly close to their power level in order to amass gold, magic, and more powerful abilities so that they may defeat more powerful enemies.

It does this really well, and if you run your game in this style, you'll find you'll have almost no problems whatsoever with the system at all.  It starts to have problems when you try to run it as a world without magic items or a world where anyone no matter how powerful can be killed by a single sword or the only ones who can jump over a 30 foot wide pit are magical creatures, or a world where all magic is restricted to an elite group of people that the PCs will never meet and rogues are all sought out by the law and humans are the only race...well, you get the point.

Each change you make from some of the D&D default assumptions requires more and more work to keep it as balanced as the original.  Yes, it does require a good grasp of math in order to make "flavour" changes and still have a balanced game.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 6, 2005)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> My problem is that the more options that are out there....the less options players have and here's why:
> 
> It used to be you had only a few core options. The rest was then imagination. The players and dm started brainstorming how to make the character cool, add a little here, take a little there.
> 
> ...




Then you need to do it differently.  Don't give the books to the players and tell them to pick from a list.  Ask the players what they want and then give them the book that fits what they want.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 7, 2005)

Good grief, people are talking about the loss of DM power like it's a bad thing . Like I said in der_kluge's epiphany thread:



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> I agree with der_kluge and ThirdWizard. There has been a subtle shift of power from DMs to players in 3rd edition. In my opinion, it is due to the following factors:
> 
> 1. More consistent, better streamlined and unified rules. This leads to:
> 2. Players being able to know more rules and have a better grasp of them. Combine these two with:
> ...



And if the quote from Mike Mearls is correct, fewer players are leaving the game. You might not like the implication that giving the players more power means that more people want to be play the game, but I think almost everyone will agree that having more players around is a good thing.

The question, "Why swap D&D for something that gives the DM more power over you?" goes right to the heart of the issue. Authoritarian regimes can work well, and some may even work better than some democracies, but I think most people would rather live in a democracy anyway. The same goes for D&D. Authoritarian DMs can run fun games, but I think most players would rather stay away from them anyway.

So yes, the DM has the right to say no, but it is a right to be used responsibly, for the good of the gaming group as a whole. A DM who says no for his own selfish enjoyment or his own artistic vision of what the game should be will likely find himself out of players soon. A DM who lets his players bully him will likely burn out soon. As in all human relationships, there has to be some give and take between a DM and his players.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 7, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I know how fun it is as a player to look through options, to come up with interesting characters.



As a player I prefer to come up with a character before I look for options in a book, and I prefer to play with folks who do the same.

That's not meant as a criticism of your approach, *Majoru Oakheart* - it's just my personal preference. I have done it the other way 'round, to try out certain classes and feats, but I never get the same same satisfaction as a I do from a character that starts as with ambitions and personality and history, and then gets translated into game stats.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I think the major problem seems to be that people keep trying to shoehorn plots and fantasy worlds into the D&D system, then complain that the D&D system is to blame for not allowing it.  It isn't a generic fantasy RPG, it really has its own flavour and set of assumptions built into it.



This is one of the reasons, along with many of the ideas shared in this thread, that I'm no longer a D&D player - I don't care for the default genre assumptions of the game anymore.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It allows you to run games set in a fantasy world where characters from various cutures, countries, and backgrouns, who are quite a bit more powerful than normal people, who have powerful larger than life abilities kill enemies fairly close to their power level in order to amass gold, magic, and more powerful abilities so that they may defeat more powerful enemies.



This sounds kinda like the game I enjoy, and yet at the same time so wildly, thoroughly not.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 7, 2005)

I never saw the DM as merely the guy who knows more rules, that's just a really pathetic definition of what the DM is. Since D&D 2e my players have had access to the DMs Guide and whatnot and never once has it caused some popular revolt to be DM.

I am dungeon master because I am the architect of the setting and the storyteller in the group who comes up with interesting cultures, good house rules, compelling atmosphere, etc. My players, at least one or two know the core rules as well as I if not better. Who cares about that nonsense? The trick of being a DM is much more than the rules and much more than some secretive coveting of power, it is the ability to keep the setting together, create great adventures with interesting plots and to arbitrate fairly amongst a group of foks who are their to play a part in a story of heroic fantasy and daring exploits.

Good DMs have always worked with their players and their players appreciated having input. However, they also knew the amount of work and time goes into being not only a DM but a good DM and honestly I have met very few who want the job and very few who would screw with a nice, clear hierarchical structure that allows for fairness and order within the structure of the game. 

As to the assumptions regarding DnD and the implied millieu....whatever....as DM I choose which assumptions fit my game and that is going to be how it is going to be. WoTC or whomever can choose to alter the assumptions now being accepted in the next version of the game or the version after that. It will be the DMs who stand for the integrity of their games who will hold to what has worked well for them for 10, 20, 30yrs and not sway in the breeze of the arbitrary decisions of corporate types or even designers who do not even play the game but make their choices based on profit and marketability.

OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 5e+.....it doesn't matter, because as long as the game exists there will be DMs who understand that no ruling from the cosmic foo foo overrides the manner in which they run their game.



Chris


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 7, 2005)

When I'm the DM, I'm interested in:

a. having the players play the characters they want (which means options), and

b. having fun (which means everyone having fun, generally).


When I'm a Player, I want:

a. to create the character I want to play (ie. more options).


I think 3.x helps me out here, both as a Player and DM.


----------



## yipwyg (Sep 7, 2005)

*CR/EL System*

The only real thing that I have seen a problem with this system is, players seem to not have any fear at all when it comes to combat.

What do I mean? There seems to be a mentality among my D&D group that whenever an encounter is going to take place that it will be "balanced" to their level.  Basically, most of the  encounters would be at an EL equal to or lower to them, so the default reaction (if combat is going to happen) is the we can take it attitude. 

Just recently I was playing in a game of D&D, we were 3rd level.  Our characters stumbled upon a wrecked caravan train, dead bodies lying in  the road.  One of the caravan wagons looked like it was dragged off by 2 creatures.  We did some exploring, and discovered a troll den, with a male, female, and two kids.  In front of the cave, tied to a pole where two survivors.  Our group decided that we should save the survivors, however our methods were different.  I thought that we should get some reinforcements, the rest thought we should do it ourselves.  So the fighter tried to sneak to a better position, got discovered and combat ensued.  The only reason that we did not get totally spanked by the trolls is that the DM fudged the entire combat to the point that we could not lose.

Now the DM knew that this battle would be way to tough, and probably planned it that way.  I haven't talked to him since then (labor day weekend camping trip).  I do not think that he expected the party to go in with "guns" blazing.  When the party did, he basically in his mind went oh crap, and altered the combat to favor the players.  This is a DM's perogative and I do not mind it, it kinda lowers the excitement though knowing that it is virtually impossible to die though.

In my opinion, if the players do something totally insanely stupid, they should potentially die.  I do not believe that everyting should be conformed to the players levels. I mean yes at low levels they will tend to be fighting less powerful creatures. However, the players should realize when they are over their head and know when they should cut and run.  They should not automatically assume that the enounters should be equal to them.

For example take the movie Dragonslayer.  Everyone in town knows there is an ancient dragon in a cave on the mountain.  Every so often a person is sacraficed to it to keep it happy.  If someone, or for that matter a party, enters the cave, and they are not prepared for it, they should expect to be possibly killed.

I use the CR/EL system as a guideline, however I also expect my players to determine how they handle the encounter.  To me it is just as much their responsability as it is mine to determine if an encounter is to tough for them. If they think the encounter is too tough, avoid it, or find some other way to handle it besides full on attack.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 7, 2005)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I'm sort of surprised that no one has mentioned computer DM aids yet.



For my part, it's because all such programs have been a lot more trouble than they're worth.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 7, 2005)

yipwyg said:
			
		

> The only real thing that I have seen a problem with this system is, players seem to not have any fear at all when it comes to combat.




That's been a problem in all the RPGs I've ever played.  It's not too much fun to run from everything and call in the SWAT team to clean up. 



			
				yipwyg said:
			
		

> This is a DM's perogative and I do not mind it, it kinda lowers the excitement though knowing that it is virtually impossible to die though.




You gotta talk to him about it.  If you don't let him know that he choked there, he'll do it again.  Then again, it will mean your PC is going to die down the road some time...




			
				yipwyg said:
			
		

> I use the CR/EL system as a guideline, however I also expect my players to determine how they handle the encounter.  To me it is just as much their responsability as it is mine to determine if an encounter is to tough for them.




I think that the CR/EL system works well the way you describe it.  The only problem is when the DM doesn't give the players enough clues about the difficulty level of an encounter.  If your 2nd level PCs go on a merry walk, guarding a caravan (like all 2nd level PCs seem to do at some point during their career), and run into a pissed-off Adult Green Dragon just out-of-the-blue... that's messed up.

But I see what you are saying and I totally agree.  The world should be real and the PCs should be able to get in over their heads.


----------



## mearls (Sep 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> The problem with this model is that it's forgetting the one thing that separates D&D from traditional games: The DM. This model, taken to its extreme, destroys the position of Game Master. If MMORPG's are an example, it also hinders the idea of roleplaying itself, because it gets lost in power-play. If it degenerates into players running around requesting "buffs," looking for quests to "level", and how to start the best "monster trains" then it's transformed into something I haven't taken part in since I was 14 years old. It's fine if this is one form of play facilitated, but when this is the ONLY form facilitated, it's something I no longer want to take part in.




I actually agree completely. I think that it's easy to swing too far in one direction. 1e and 2e put all the power in the DM's hands. 3e veers in the opposite direction. Ideally, D&D should service both ends perfectly. I think that there are ways in which the current rules set can be improved. Ideally, the D&D rules should allow DMs to build the worlds and stories that they want to create.

It's definitely an issue I grapple with.


----------



## Elf Witch (Sep 7, 2005)

I don't DM but as a player I believe that there has to be a certain level of trust between DMs and players.

I do not like playing with a DM who says core only no exceptions or a DM who allows everything in without looking at it.

Dms need to have the power to say what fits into their world. I have no problem playing in a game where a DM says there are no wizards just sorcerers or there are no monks, elves, whatever. 

I have been lucky with some of my DMs they are good at working with the players to make a character that fits. For example in a 3.0 game the DM allowed me to swap out the sorcerer skill list with the empath spell list it fit what my character was about much better.

I am not sure where this DM Vs Player mentality has come from. But it is bad and I think it kills creativity you don't have to use all the options to make the game fun. Nor do you need to not allow any to keep control.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 7, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Oh, please..... In my opinion, the CR was an afterthought, tacked on to the rules (it shows (to me, at least) because of how clunkily it works compared to the rest of the system) could be why it is not well understood.
> 
> Have I personally tried to understand it? Nope, not even once. I looked at it, and then promptly ignored it from then on.




Sorry.. I just could not pass this up without comment....

 Rasyr, I am glad you have such insight in how badly the CR/EL system works as _you have not even tried to understand it!_

CR/EL is a decent benchmark to look at when creating an encounter. Its not perfect and there are many variable, but for the most part you can use a CR 5 monster against a group of 4 PCs of 5th level and expect them to expend 20% of thier resources on it. Do this 14 times and expect them to be able to level.
 Is it spot on every time? Of course not. Fickle Fate and other problems can intervene. But it is a guide for GM's who may not have the time to estimate the power balance of ceatures with strange abilities. And that is *all* it is. A guide.

 As to the OP.. player options are always a good thing. Having players learn the rules is always a good thing. How you approach new rules/PrCs/etc.. can ruin or increase the entertainment value of the game.
 I know the rules better than anyone in my group, so when a player wants to design a character I have them approach me with the 'I want to do this..' pitch and help them find the rules that best fit thier concept. To the point of customized classes as need be. Having prebuilt options that are outside of the box are easier than customizing a class from whole cloth.  However, the group knows that all rules are optional..even those in the PHB 

Even with that, I tend to average 4 hours of prep time for a 6 hour session. This is mainly because I dont want to be looking up obscure rules in the middle of play and so that I can be ready for when the players throw a monkey wrench into the plot-line.
 I would like to see more GM aide type things, like in the most excellent module 'Of Sound Mind' {thank you PirateCat!} there were cardboard cutouts of the NPCs. No searching around for the right mini, or using the banner carrying warrior as a goblin.
 3e has done great things for the DM. Having modules address scaling for different levels is one. Yes, the default assumptions of magic = power and 'everyone speaks common' get annoying.. but I have yet to find an similarly wide spread RPG that does as well.

E-Tools has done wonders for the time spent verifying player sheets. I dont worry about their math or spend time recreating the characters that got forgotten at home.

 I do have to echo a comment upthread. 3e crunch can be seperated from fluff relatively easily, with the exception of spells. This makes it easier than any previous edition ever ahd for using the rules to create alternate settings.

*yipwyg*, your comment "The only real thing that I have seen a problem with this system is, players seem to not have any fear at all when it comes to combat." is erroneous. Its not the system that engenders this.. its the DM. Drop by for a session sometime and I will gladly demonstrate   
  And I can do that with "EL Appropriate" encounters.. its all them years of CP2020 and Paranoia experience   



Anyway...


----------



## BryonD (Sep 7, 2005)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Yep. Our experience has been more options = mo better.



Mine as well.
I actually find myself at something of a loss to contribute to a thread like this.


I find that I have trouble with the same thing I always had trouble with: Keeping a compelling series of encounters and developments laid out in my mind.  

But once I know the basic plot arc, the rest is cake.  More options is more flavor I can use in my cake.

I sure as hell don't have any grand amount of free time.  When I have my story I stat out stuff that most appeals to me and wing the rest.  

I use one electronic aid.  Its called Microsoft Excel.  Two if you count note keeping in Word.


In specific regard to DM power, I haven't felt any real loss.  The players have more ability to expect consistency than in the past.  And I think have have better tools to reliably provide it, at least from a mechanical point of view.  Sometimes my homebrew adventures are better than other times....


----------



## Breakdaddy (Sep 7, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Kick some of these option-hungry power gamers you all are claiming are such a scourge my direction, wouldya?




Sure, Chief! But do me a favor, willya? When you are done with 'em plz kill them instead of sending them back. kkthx!


----------



## BryonD (Sep 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You should not need a college degree to play D&D.



Isn't there a big difference between designer's (Mike's comment) and players?


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> There is one thing that Mike Mearls said that bothers me  ... The problem with this model is that it's forgetting the one thing that separates D&D from traditional games: The DM. This model, taken to its extreme, destroys the position of Game Master. ...




Indeed.  I agree with you 100 percent here, Henry.  

The DM/GM is the creative input that makes a table-top game far more satisfying than Everquest or World of Warcraft.

'Limiting' his/her power seems counter-productive.  If you want to 'limit' the GM, why not just use a bloody computer?
 :\


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 7, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Sure, Chief! But do me a favor, willya? When you are done with 'em plz kill them instead of sending them back. kkthx!


----------



## DragonLancer (Sep 7, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I am not sure where this DM Vs Player mentality has come from. But it is bad and I think it kills creativity you don't have to use all the options to make the game fun. Nor do you need to not allow any to keep control.




In my experience it has come about because of the modular nature of D20, and the influx of new options either official WotC or through third party material. With so many options and additions to draw upon, I've found that in my experience players have had to take that mentality because they need to if they want their characters to survive past the first couple levels.

Obviously some gaming groups are different, but thats what I've found through my experience with a few differing groups or conversations with other DM's in my area.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Indeed.  I agree with you 100 percent here, Henry.
> 
> The DM/GM is the creative input that makes a table-top game far more satisfying than Everquest or World of Warcraft.
> 
> ...




I agree.

This empower players thing, it seems to be one thing to designers and another to players.

For designers it is making a tight rules set that gives players greater options and frees DMs from having to adjudicate on the fly. I'm all for the former but have some issue with the latter. The latter seems to be a controversial issue but that isn't the topic of this thread.

Some players seem to think that empowering the players means empowering them to overpower or demand something of the DM. Silly, silly players who think like this. Any DM who is cowed into this childish DM vs. Player mindset needs to have his DM priviledges revoked and taken to a re-education camp. I am just joking of course, but the only type of DM I see being railroaded by his players is a new DM. It can be hard to say no....but trust me it is an art form unto itself.   

Unless you are new at DMing, it is your fault as DM if your players believe that can override your decisions with either their own opinions or the written words of the core, or any other, books.

I saw the comment that if the DM doesn't tow the line he can be replaced and though in my time I have seen one or two DMs who needed to stop DMing, I say "go for it!" If you really think that though you have never DMed before you can do a better job than me feel free to try.

When I was a teenager my brother was pissed off and bought the FR grey boxed set intending to DM....meaning intending to realize any fantasy that my annoying consistancy prevented. He ran 2 sessions then handed the reigns back over to me. I knew it wouldn't take long and my other players played along for laughs.


Chris


----------



## scourger (Sep 7, 2005)

I'll chime in to agree with the basic tenor of the original post.  I find the problem* with d20 D&D is its complexity.  *I use the word "problem" to denote my difficulty with the system and that of my fellow gamers.  The game just gets too complicated to run after a few levels.  It's great at low levels.  We think the sweet spot is about 1st through 5th level.  By 10th, things are just out of hand.  I think the game overall is an improvement over previous editions (which I have played since 1980) and many other game engines that I have played and/or run.  The combat rules, in particular, are great.  But, the rules quantify _everything_--and in a complicated way.  Lately, I just don't have the inclination or the time to figure out all the complexities of a module's worth of foes to present a game to my friends even though I use preprinted adventures almost exclusively (thanks _Dungeon_!).  

And this experience is just with core D&D & d20 games.  I learned the lesson to keep the game to the core with the 2e brown (splat?) books.  For D&D, I stick to the PHB, DMG & MM.  I don't even use the prestige classes in the DMG.  Ironically, I find a d20 derivative game like _Omega World_, _Judge Dredd_ or _Star Wars_ more appealing because the magic is emilinated.  Check the PHB & DMG to see how much material is devoted to magic.  It's a lot.  Sure, you may have to worry about some psionics or Force powers, but they're nowhere nearly as complicated as spells and magic items.  It's almost worth it to me to track all those bad guys' feats, gear & hit points in every combat in order to run _Omega World_ or _Judge Dredd_ just because the absence of magic makes it so much simpler.     

The design of d20 seems to me to be that it is a table-top RPG emulating a computer/online RPG.  My brain can compute all the variables at low levels, but I just don't want to work that hard at having fun right now to continue any of the D&D games I have "on hold".  I have thought about reducing magic and eliminating hit points as ways to streamline the game, but I think it would lose too much in the process.  I'm afraid it wouldn't be fun for the players.  I even recently bought _Unearthed Arcana_ to try to save the game for me.  So far, no dice (pun intended).

By contrast, I find _Savage Worlds_ very easy to run and seemingly enjoyable for the players.  The design goals of that game are to make it easy on the GM as possible while keeping it fun for the players to start and keep playing.  Even the publishing goal of producing one book per setting with an integral plot-point campaign exemplifies the design goals.  PDFs are available for players & GMs who want more information, but the game can be run out of the core book with a great setting book added if desired.  I think Shane Lacy Hensley has really hit upon the right design and marketing strategy with _Savage Worlds_.  Although I'm not sure how it would work for swords & sorcery fantasy gaming, I'm anxious to try it.  So far, it's really given the me ease to prepare it quickly and run it smoothly while allowing the players plenty of choices for cool abilities to make them unique and powerful.


----------



## Henry (Sep 7, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> First off, it tries to make other games sound as if they are "Player vs GM". It also makes it sound like other games do not give players choices. Not to mention the fact that it implies, through the mis-statements about other systems, that DMs in D&D do not (or should not) have any power (or only a limited amount of power) over players, or even the games that they run. It also implies that a GM having "any" sort of power over the players of a game (apparently in regard with player choices) is to be considered a bad thing. Or is he attempting to imply that D&D is for power-gamers cause D&D allows them all the choices they want (as opposed choices available due to setting/game).




Rasyr, it would be a mistake to assume that Mearls agrees with the above point of view, as he notes in his reply, but rather it's what he thinks why more MMORPG players are getting attracted to D&D. And I can totally agree with the statement. From the POV of a solely computer RPG player, it WOULD seem undesirable to have a DM as arbitrary arbiter, rather than a clearly defined massive ruleset, and therefore, giving the players more power through hard rules is why they might find D&D more attractive than other systems. 




			
				Firelance said:
			
		

> Good grief, people are talking about the loss of DM power like it's a bad thing . Like I said in der_kluge's epiphany thread:
> [snip]
> And if the quote from Mike Mearls is correct, fewer players are leaving the game. You might not like the implication that giving the players more power means that more people want to be play the game, but I think almost everyone will agree that having more players around is a good thing.




The problem with the six points you made is that it's fine _as long as #4 and #5 actually come true._ But what I see happening is that if the DM is not vested with SOME power of arbitration, rather than just being a "glorified computer that sets up the world and lets the players run", then roleplay is de-emphasized, and all you've got is a CRPG on paper, and the type of gaming that I used to do, and have no interest in going back to. I offer Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, and Ultima Online as the ultimate examples of what happens when the DM and the social aspects are removed from the equation; in every one of them, play other than power-accumulation is non-existent, and why I quit half of them, and refuse to play in the other half.

Finally, having more players around IS a good thing, but it's a double edged sword, when they have little to no experience with play styles other than the ones mentioned above. It changes the hobby in very significant ways, and while D&D will continue, at that point it's no longer an RPG, it's just a way to play the computer game when your ISP is having problems.


----------



## William Ronald (Sep 7, 2005)

Possibly one way to encourage roleplaying, among people who are only famiiar with computer games, is to have someone important to a character interact with the party.  The more experienced players can model ways of interacting with NPCs, and a DM can suggest that the new player consider how he would interact with this NPC in the real world.  The new player may intially roleplay a version of himself, but may begin to expand his range.

I do agree that a good DM uses judgement in addition to any rules set.  I think there has to be some balance between rules and sound judgement, as well as a need for some spontaniety in play.

A few good movies might also help provide some inspiration as well.  This might work out quite well, as the movies can be a touchstone for the new players.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 7, 2005)

> That said, I do believe the current climate of the game is limiting imagination. Like Henry said, players brought up only under the new system tend to see the rules as more credible than DM arbitration. If a DM makes an antithetical call or chooses not to use a newly published option/rule, it may appear as if they know "better" than the professional designers at Wizards. Someone else mentioned needing real balancing guidelines. I'm sure Wizards has these developed even though much of it is an art, as they say. But there are definite reasons why they do not release these spreadsheets and rules of thumb. Having the best balanced rules is a big selling points in an OGL market. Unfortunately, the idea "only Wizards has extensively balanced rules" contributes to the mindset of DM's not being the preferred arbiter of what is allowed.




Actually, I would disagree with this slightly.  It's not that Wizards has the only balanced rules, but, rather, there are so many DM's out there who couldn't find their bottom with both hands and a flashlight.  Arbitrary, ad hoc DM's fiat decisions cause far more angst around gaming tables over the years than any number of arguments over attacks of opportunity.  

When the DM simply says, "This is the way it is, because I say so." and the rules back him up on this, I have a serious problem.  No, I'm sorry.  Just because it's your campaign does not give you the right to be the ultimate arbiter when perfectly acceptable rules exist.  I had one DM who, after my wizard character in 2e had been created and played for a couple of levels, decide that the rules for magic spell creation weren't good enough, so, he cut the chances of success in half.  Now, he didn't inform me of this decision until after I had played the character for a while and amassed the necessary materials to research new spells.  In his mind, creating new spells was something for legendary mages, and to heck with the rules.

It's DM's like that that has fueled the Player Revolt.  Many, many players are simply fed up with completely arbitrary decisions by idiot DM's.  The role of DM does not carry any sort of requirement for being intelligent.  The role of being a GOOD DM does.  Unfortunately, there are lots of stupid people out there and, sometimes, they get to sit in the Daddy chair and run DND games.  3e and particularly 3.5 has created a ruleset that governs as much of the game as possible.  Elements that used to be completely arbitrary are now routinely covered by the rules.  

An average DM can run a pretty good DnD 3e game.  A poor DM can run an ok one.  In earlier editions, it required a good DM to have a good game.  Well, if you've got a good DM, it doesn't really matter what game you play, it's fun.  Unfortunately, the number of good DM's out there has never been all that high and has been far outnumbered by the piss poor DM's out there.  3.5 has enabled DM's to play decent games with a minimum of fuss regardless of a lack of ability.  The rules work pretty well as training wheels to keep DM's on an even track.  Earlier editions lacked the safety of balanced and encompassing rules, which meant that derailments were common and quite often spectacularly bad.

On another note - CR.

CR is simply a codification of what we did as DM's in previous editions.  Before CR, you used your experience as a DM, your knowledge of the group and a fair bit of Kentucky windage to create encounters that you thought were a challenge for your group.  It no more takes away from the power of DM's than saying using a hammer takes away from the ability of a carpenter.  It's a tool, nothing more or less.  It's use as a tool varies from game to game, because the assumptions inherent in CR may or may not apply to your particular group.  IME, CR tends to be fairly underestimated.  I routinely pummel my party with encounters that should be cakewalks.  I'm not sure if I'm simply playing the creatures too tactically or my players aren't tactical enough.  Perhaps a little of both.  But, in any case, I can take a look at CR and make an educated guess as to how tough the encounter should be for my group.  

It's a shorthand method for adventure design.  I'm not really sure where the problem is.  If you have a fairly typical 5th level party, then a CR 5 creature such as a troll should be a reasonable challenge for them.  In earlier editions, you'd have a 5th level party and toss a couple of trolls at them with the expectation of a stiff fight but certainly no fatalities.   

All CR and Encounter Level did was give DM's a shorthand method for designing adventures.  If you were writing a rough draft of an adventure, you could simply make a decision tree with applicable CR encounters plunked here and there.  Heck, I recently designed a random encounter table based entirely on CR.  2d10, similar to the older edition random encounter tables, with a CR= Character level -1 at the common numbers, CR=Character Level at the less common numbers and CR=Character Level +1 or +2 at the top and bottom.  I then went over to the World Of Sulerin Encounter maker, plugged in the CR's, got lists of creatures based on the books I own, and picked the creatures that worked best in my adventure.  Poof, instant random encounter table that makes sense, and I know won't obliterate my party with insane challenges.  All done in about 5 minutes.  If I had to go through my 2 Monster Manuals, 3 Creature Collections and my Sandstorm book to sift through creatures I thought would work, it would take me an hour.  I'd much rather spend 5 minutes of prep time to get the same result.

That's how you use CR.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Indeed.  I agree with you 100 percent here, Henry.
> 
> The DM/GM is the creative input that makes a table-top game far more satisfying than Everquest or World of Warcraft.
> 
> ...




Why do people always take things to the extreme?    

It's not about stripping all power away from the DM.  It IS about making sure that DM's arbitration is kept to a minimum when it's not needed.   Why is having a DM ad hoc rules inherently better than having explicit rules that work?  So long as we play PnP games, a DM will be required.  There will always be things that require DM arbitration.  However, there's no reason that common events which occur in many campaigns should not have solid rules.  Combat is likely going to occur in every campaign.  Why should every campaign have different rules governing combat?  Again, that's an extreme example, but you get my point I think.  

Personally, I think of a GM as a referee, rather than a game designer.  Referees in every game will make different calls based on their own styles.  But, they don't get to change the rules in the middle of the game.  That sort of arbitrary action by DM's grates on me and on many players I'm sure.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Indeed.  I agree with you 100 percent here, Henry.
> 
> The DM/GM is the creative input that makes a table-top game far more satisfying than Everquest or World of Warcraft.
> 
> ...



Because a game where everyone has an equal contribution can be just as fun.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 7, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why do people always take things to the extreme?



It's built into the alignment table. We can't help it.


----------



## mearls (Sep 7, 2005)

Sometimes, I wonder if the problems that people have with running D&D 3e are due to the rough transition from DMing 2e to 3e. Back in 2000, I was really disappointed that the DMG didn't come with an appendix that basically went, "So you've been running 2e/1e for 10 or more years? OK, here's what you need to re-learn to adjust to 3e..."

IME, a lot of DMs (myself included) went through a year or so of trial and error experimentation with the game before they finally got a good handle on how things worked. I was using ELs, XP awards, and the treasure by level system incorrectly or simply not using them for quite a long time.

I think that the art of running 3e is different than that artistry of running a 1e or 2e campaign. Running 1e was an exercise in thinking on your feet. Running 3e is an exercise in good planning. The skills overlap to a significant degree (1e required prep work, there's still plenty of room for improv in 3e), but the roots are different.

Personally, I think RPGs are at their best when the DM and players all have an equal stake in the fun and an equal voice at the table. I like it when my players take charge of the story and make stuff happen. I also like sharing the rules load. If one of my players knows the grapple rules inside and out, I don't mind at all deferring to him. But I can see how that runs counter to how 1e worked, and when I've run 1e or OD&D in the past 5 years I've noticed that my DMing style is much different. When you have to make a ruling to cover a situation, you can't just ask the players what the rule is or should be.


----------



## tetsujin28 (Sep 7, 2005)

Good points. All of which are why I prefer IH to regular D&D. Less prep time for me = more fun


----------



## Hussar (Sep 7, 2005)

> But I can see how that runs counter to how 1e worked, and when I've run 1e or OD&D in the past 5 years I've noticed that my DMing style is much different. When you have to make a ruling to cover a situation, you can't just ask the players what the rule is or should be.




That's an excellent point.  I find myself asking my players once in a while what a particular rule is.  And, knowing my players, I know that the answer I get is going to be pretty accurate.  I just got so frustrated with arguing around the table about whether or not a particular action could be done and how it should be handled.  IME, every DND game I either ran or played came to a grinding halt whenever something happened that was outside of the rules.  Maybe I just played with too many rules lawyers.  That could be true.  But, I know that in my 3e games, arguing around the table is at most a 5 minute sidetrek.  Point comes up, flip to page X, find a rule that fits, apply it, carry on.  No fuss no foul.

I think DM as referee is a fairly new experience for DnD and its a transition that has been difficult for many to make.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 7, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> The only player to have problems is the one without a college degree? And you don't see something wrong with that picture?




I don't see anything wrong with a game that requires an IQ of 112+ (roughly, average college IQ), or IQ 130+ for that matter.  Plenty of traditional wargames are incredibly complex.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 7, 2005)

swrushing said:
			
		

> but if my plauer wants to alter a class to suit his idea or have a customized spell or whatever, i wont say NO to the request unless i have a darn good reason to do so. My default is yes.
> 
> I find it works well enough.




My default is to say yes to concepts, but to arbitrate mechanics - some players are munchkins and will always want the most OTT spell or to twist the rules to make their PC invincible, eg creating an OTT PrC.  Other players won't think about mechanics eg of a PrC and will suggest something woefully underpowered compared to a Core Class.  Other players like me who GM a lot will tend to be over-cautious in their suggestions, not wanting to munchkinise, and should be worked with to create something good but not OTT.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> I actually agree completely. I think that it's easy to swing too far in one direction. 1e and 2e put all the power in the DM's hands. 3e veers in the opposite direction. Ideally, D&D should service both ends perfectly.




Hm, I guess I'll always be of the 1e DMG "Final Power Vests in the DM" school.  I think Gygax was right then & he's still right now.  I cooperate with my players to create the game we want,  but I'm not interested in an adversarial court-room approach where player & GM argue their cases and then submit to the Book of Law/PHB as the Authority.


----------



## Berandor (Sep 7, 2005)

I think D&D has the tendency to push power too far towards the player side of the equation, even though it's understandable considering WotC wants to sell their products, not warn of them.

But generally, I don't think a greater balance of power is bad. Yes, there are many unbalanced choices in official and d20 supplements. _But a good DM will take care of that_.

However, there are just as many bad DMs. And there are some really bad DMs out there. Without rules guidelines and comprehensive mechanics, these DMs stand alone. As it is, they can rely on the rules and, even if an option is unbalanced, that's not something that wouldn't have happened without the rules as they are. So in a sense, _good rules can take care of bad DMs, too_.

So I don't see the problem here. A good DM will chuck what he doesn't like, and no prblems will arise, and a bad DM can follow the rules and the players benefit, too.

The tendency to grow into a MMTabletopRPG is dangerous, but that is more a problem of players growing up with Online RPG and not with fantasy literature as groundworks.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> The problem with the six points you made is that it's fine _as long as #4 and #5 actually come true._ But what I see happening is that if the DM is not vested with SOME power of arbitration, rather than just being a "glorified computer that sets up the world and lets the players run", then roleplay is de-emphasized, and all you've got is a CRPG on paper, and the type of gaming that I used to do, and have no interest in going back to. I offer Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, and Ultima Online as the ultimate examples of what happens when the DM and the social aspects are removed from the equation; in every one of them, play other than power-accumulation is non-existent, and why I quit half of them, and refuse to play in the other half.
> 
> Finally, having more players around IS a good thing, but it's a double edged sword, when they have little to no experience with play styles other than the ones mentioned above. It changes the hobby in very significant ways, and while D&D will continue, at that point it's no longer an RPG, it's just a way to play the computer game when your ISP is having problems.



I refer to Hussar's excellent replies in post #73 and #74. Quite frankly, I doubt that any set of rules can ever be comprehensive enough that the DM never has to make any kind of judgement. As the ENWorld Rules Forum shows, the same set of rules can be interpreted very differently by different people.

I do sympathize if you are unable to find people with similar tastes for roleplaying to game with, but I think that the human interaction that is inherent in any pen and paper game makes it significantly different from a CRPG. My gaming group breaks almost all the rules of a roleplaying game. We take turns to DM so there isn't a coherent storyline. There is no character identification or ownership because we collectively advance a set of stock characters with uninspiring names like Human Favored Soul, Human Hexblade/Warlock and Human Warmage/Fighter/Eldritch Knight, and each player basically decides which one he wants to play at every game session. We don't keep track of XP and gear - the characters just advance one level after every session and we equip them based on the standard gear value for their new level in the DMG. A standard gaming session is basically one combat encounter after another with a little bit of plot to make them coherent. Do we roleplay? We don't do a lot of it, but we still do. Do we have fun? You bet . And that's the whole point, isn't it?


----------



## MonsterMash (Sep 7, 2005)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I refer to Hussar's excellent replies in post #73 and #74. Quite frankly, I doubt that any set of rules can ever be comprehensive enough that the DM never has to make any kind of judgement. As the ENWorld Rules Forum shows, the same set of rules can be interpreted very differently by different people.
> 
> I do sympathize if you are unable to find people with similar tastes for roleplaying to game with, but I think that the human interaction that is inherent in any pen and paper game makes it significantly different from a CRPG. My gaming group breaks almost all the rules of a roleplaying game. We take turns to DM so there isn't a coherent storyline. There is no character identification or ownership because we collectively advance a set of stock characters with uninspiring names like Human Favored Soul, Human Hexblade/Warlock and Human Warmage/Fighter/Eldritch Knight, and each player basically decides which one he wants to play at every game session. We don't keep track of XP and gear - the characters just advance one level after every session and we equip them based on the standard gear value for their new level in the DMG. A standard gaming session is basically one combat encounter after another with a little bit of plot to make them coherent. Do we roleplay? We don't do a lot of it, but we still do. Do we have fun? You bet . And that's the whole point, isn't it?



Definitely a case of horses for courses, I don't think I'd enjoy this for any lenght of time - could be fun for a one shot, but otherwise I'd rather play Paranoia where due to the life expectancy of characters its reasonable to run new ones each session.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> Sometimes, I wonder if the problems that people have with running D&D 3e are due to the rough transition from DMing 2e to 3e. Back in 2000, I was really disappointed that the DMG didn't come with an appendix that basically went, "So you've been running 2e/1e for 10 or more years? OK, here's what you need to re-learn to adjust to 3e..."




All I had to relearn were rules. No core assumptions changed save in the assumptions of the folks who designed the new system. The assumptions of a given DM's table are unique to the DM and unique to the group. While certain similarities will exist because we all all playing the same game, the manner in which arbitration is carried out and the way adventures are crafted, paced and run is individual based on the DM and players involved. 

The core assumptions of the core rules are for vanilla campaigns. Running Dragonlance, FR, Eberron, my Homebrew or IH are very different things and require a DM to know the setting and atmosphere conveyed. The setting determines the assumptions. Once a set of core assumptions determine the way settings work, then you have all settings being the same.

I was a 2e skills and powers DM so I was quite familiar with empowering players with greater options. I very much remember character kits and allowed them when they suited the setting



> IME, a lot of DMs (myself included) went through a year or so of trial and error experimentation with the game before they finally got a good handle on how things worked. I was using ELs, XP awards, and the treasure by level system incorrectly or simply not using them for quite a long time.




I use a XP system like that present in the UA while cutting the rapidity of advancement by about 1/3 to 1/2. There is no such thing in my world as treasure by level as IMO this is just too computer gamey. For 25yrs D&D adventures had treasure based on the adventure and the type of game the DM was running. Some DMs had beholders with jewels in their gullets while others had treasure based not on encounter levels but on whether or not a creature would actually have treasure and the amount of loot in his or her setting. Things worked fine for years. 

CRs are a decent guideline but because this isn't a computer game, if you wander into the liches tomb at 5th level because you lack good sense, the tomb determines what is encountered and not the level of the players. In my estimation, there is something a bit cheesy about things being so formulaic. Sometimes the PCs will bump into critters far weaker than themselves if the surrounding area is dominated by less powerful creatures ie. the goblin hills are still occupied largely by goblin tribed whether the PCs are 1st or 20th level. In other regions the PCs may be hard pressed t survive if below a certain level because the threats living in that area are determined by the setting and not the level of the guys who are wandering through it. Its an art form really.



> Personally, I think RPGs are at their best when the DM and players all have an equal stake in the fun and an equal voice at the table. I like it when my players take charge of the story and make stuff happen. I also like sharing the rules load. If one of my players knows the grapple rules inside and out, I don't mind at all deferring to him. But I can see how that runs counter to how 1e worked, and when I've run 1e or OD&D in the past 5 years I've noticed that my DMing style is much different. When you have to make a ruling to cover a situation, you can't just ask the players what the rule is or should be.




I agree. I think that all have equal stake in the fun but to my experience no matter who is in charge everyone wants to have a good time. Having said that, having an equal stake in the fun in no way translates into equal dominion over the events, backdrop, and nature of the setting and equal arbitration of the rules. No, the DM has that power. There is no reason to believe that most groups work better when there is a commitee of co-equal DMs. It has never worked this way amongst 99% of the groups I have encountered. The players deal with their one character and attempt to have a good time with a very, very limited workload and focus. The DM has a much more labor intensive job and 20X more things to concern himself with. It is the DM who maintains the setting's integrity. It is the DMs job to arbitrate and to adjudicate above and beyond what the books say when necessary.

I enjoy players who know the rules as well as I, but I make the final call. The joy of dealing with rules lawyers died within me about 20yrs ago and never returned.

Think of it this way....an example of good DMing are the many OGL created products on the market which are, for all intents and purposes, DMs being DMs and hammering away at the game to make it their own and then selling their home brew ideas and systems on RPGnow.com and other outlets.

The DM is still the power in the game and though all have equal stake in the fun, all have different focuses. Players focus on their characters and hopefully the unfolding story and the DM focuses and controls everything else.  The players have control over the game only insofar as their characters impact events in the game through their actions. In a metagame sense they have little to no control over the game or setting as a whole.


Chris


----------



## Belen (Sep 7, 2005)

tetsujin28 said:
			
		

> Because a game where everyone has an equal contribution can be just as fun.




Please tell me how players' contribute equally to a D&D game.


----------



## Belen (Sep 7, 2005)

mearls said:
			
		

> Personally, I think RPGs are at their best when the DM and players all have an equal stake in the fun and an equal voice at the table. I like it when my players take charge of the story and make stuff happen. I also like sharing the rules load. If one of my players knows the grapple rules inside and out, I don't mind at all deferring to him. But I can see how that runs counter to how 1e worked, and when I've run 1e or OD&D in the past 5 years I've noticed that my DMing style is much different. When you have to make a ruling to cover a situation, you can't just ask the players what the rule is or should be.




The flaw here is that I have yet to see players' contribute equally to a game.  They show up maybe one day a week and sometimes you're lucly if they have updated their character or had taken notes from the previous session.

There can be no equality at the table as long as the DM spends so much more time to provide that fun experience than the players'.  

Now, I love to DM, and that is a part of why I do it, but if the "rules" strip me of any ability to make a decision, or shoehorn my games into a certain style, then why play?  People have said for the last few years that everyone wants to play 3e and no one wants to DM it.  If the game bleeds DMs, then it will not survive.  There is only so far that the rules can "eliminate" the DM before the game devolves into a minis game where people play set "scenarios" from a book.

Giving players options is fine and dandy, but you cannot ask someone to put in the majority of work and then tell them that they are equal to everyone else.


----------



## Belen (Sep 7, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Hm, I guess I'll always be of the 1e DMG "Final Power Vests in the DM" school.  I think Gygax was right then & he's still right now.  I cooperate with my players to create the game we want,  but I'm not interested in an adversarial court-room approach where player & GM argue their cases and then submit to the Book of Law/PHB as the Authority.



\

This statement is true.


----------



## jasper (Sep 7, 2005)

I not even going to finish the first post.
CORE OR THE DOOR!
Why? In other editions with so many splat books I start the rule that I had have my own purchased (no photocopies or loans) copy of book. And the player who wanted something out the splat book had to gift me a copy. Because I got tired of splatbooks having badly written rules which turn my game sideways. 
If I can say no then and can now say NO! today. Grow a backbone and learn the power word No. Also learn to give up the dm chair and just be a player.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The flaw here is that I have yet to see players' contribute equally to a game.  They show up maybe one day a week and sometimes you're lucly if they have updated their character or had taken notes from the previous session.
> 
> There can be no equality at the table as long as the DM spends so much more time to provide that fun experience than the players'.
> 
> ...




You are of course correct.

The very term equality is ludicrious in regards to this game.

If I spent 12hrs in a given week tweaking my setting and impriving it and coming up with adventures and hooks for my campaign (I use a lap top and work overnight shift) I'll be damned if someone is going to overrule me by referring to the Sacred Core Books when the changed I make are for the integrity of my game. How much time does the average player have to put in between sessions to really enjoy his character? Besides a little character optimization if necessary, no time at all.

There will be equality when the players put as much time and care into putting a world together, making it as consistant as possible and do so not because it benefits their characters but for love of the game. Only player who have DMed realize how involved this side of the hobby is. 

There is no equality in 95% of real world gaming groups. In some tiny insignifigant percent of groups there may be shared DM duties but even then then they are rotating DM, they are rotating who is in control. Never once have I seen players in charge of anything other than their PCs and whatever power their characters have in the setting. Giving players the power to veto the DM or override his decisions is a recipe for chaos in any group not because of an adversarial relationship between player and DM but because the players and DMs have different roles within the game.


Chris


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 7, 2005)

Also, as a note...

If a player doesn't like my tough but very fair and consistant style, they can always leave the table. I guarantee that finding a replacement player will be far easier for me than it will be for them to find a good DM. I have helped mediocre players become good to excellent players. However, DMs rarely allow themselves to be coached by a new player at their table. With DMs you are often stuck with what you've got. 

DMs change and grow but not because of players pushing them, they grow because they mature. The DM you have right now is often the DM you will have for a good long while should you choose to sit at his table.

Players need to keep that in mind. 


Chris


----------



## Henry (Sep 7, 2005)

jasper said:
			
		

> I not even going to finish the first post.
> CORE OR THE DOOR!
> Why? In other editions with so many splat books I start the rule that I had have my own purchased (no photocopies or loans) copy of book. And the player who wanted something out the splat book had to gift me a copy. Because I got tired of splatbooks having badly written rules which turn my game sideways.
> If I can say no then and can now say NO! today. Grow a backbone and learn the power word No. Also learn to give up the dm chair and just be a player.




Jasper, while I still get a kick out of talking this way now and again , to me it's not going to net a lot of players, and it's going to net even fewer as time goes on. You have to work with your players to be sure they're happy with their characters that they play, or they're not going to be playing for long. Gone are the days when the game was so new and invigorating that character death meant you jumped back in and played again. The predominant form of play for the pool of potential RPG players out there is to know and master the existing rules, and create a character that is competent in those rules. Rules which cannot be mastered (i.e. those in the DM's head) are not desireable in this light. Not all potential players have these values, but I'm willing to bet that the majority do.

I also believe that every player should try DM'ing at least once (something you touched on). There's NOTHING that builds respect for the role of DM quite like walking in those shoes for a while. If the player likes it, then GREAT, ANOTHER DM! If not, then they at least have a goodunderstanding of what "cooperation" does bring.

Firelance, you say you don't see a rules system that will ever remove GM arbitration? I don't either, but I see that 3E and 3.5 REALLY tries to do so. There are rules for everything from the effects of a windstorm to how many halflings will fit in a behir's belly (8, to be precise). And future editions will probably try to remove even more power of adjudication, and as a DM this concerns me. I can say I'm the final arbiter of rules disputes, but in the end, if the rules don't support me in this, then in the end all a DM is, is a human computer. The 3.5 still say the DM is final authority, but only in the most roundabout fashion. I wonder if the 4th edition rules won't imply it at all.

Ultimately, where is the "equality" when it comes to the point where DM's aren't given rules authority to deny any supplement, and basically throw out monsters like figures in a mechanical clock and watch the gears run? Players having options I can sympathize with, but the power creep that inevitably happens from more and more options I can't sympathize with, and if there's no fun in DM'ing, then there's no point to DM. As BelenUmeria said, a game that bleeds GM's is just as functionless as a game that bleeds players.

I'm not having problems now, but as years go on and player rosters change, I have a feeling that I will.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 7, 2005)

> I refer to Hussar's excellent replies in post #73 and #74. Quite frankly, I doubt that any set of rules can ever be comprehensive enough that the DM never has to make any kind of judgement. As the ENWorld Rules Forum shows, the same set of rules can be interpreted very differently by different people.




Woot, my first ever props on EnWorld.  

Again, I think it's a fundamental difference of opinion over what the role of a DM is.  I gave up the idea of "DM as storyteller" a long time ago when I realized that the stories in my head never lived up to what happened at the table.  I stepped back and let the players tell the story.  I set the stage, create the starting point, but, after that, it's up to the players to develop things.  

Then again, I have very, very little interest in creating entire campaign world's anymore.  Again, I find that the fantastic ideas in my head, well, to put it bluntly, suck.  While the concepts may seem brilliant to me, when it comes time to game, I find that it just isn't as great as I hoped.

Add to that a VERY long string of piss poor DM's that I've had over the years, I would FAR prefer that the DM's STOP MESSING WITH THE RULES.  Now this is entirely my personal experience, but, I find that a rather large percentage of house rules stem not from an actual need for change, but because the DM is too lazy or stupid to actually read the book and learn the rules.  Again, this is only my experience, but, time after time, I've seen DM's house rule this or that only to open the book, look for the rule and find that the bloody rule makes far more sense than the DM.  And this was hardly limited to 3e.  Time after time, my 2e and 1e experiences were identical.  Sorry, but screwing over the character the DM knew (because I had told him at the outset) was going to start creating new spells, not because the spells I was creating were bad or overpowered but because he thought that it should be more difficult to create new spells is stupid.  At the very least, that little gem of a rule should have been mentioned BEFORE I made the character.  

I started DMing, not really because I wanted to overly much, but because I got sick and tired of being screwed over by powerhungry DM's who figured that they could use their every whim to punish their players for having the temerity for trying something new.  I've been fortunate to have had a couple of good DM's that I could learn from, but, those experiences have forever soured me on the idea of constantly reworking the rules.  

I have house rules in my game.  That's true.  I had to come up with naval combat rules because the naval combat rules out there blow chunks.  They simply didn't work for me.  So, I took the d20 modern vehicle rules, tweaked and changed and came up with a decent set of naval combat rules.  But, the only reason I did that was because I had actually tried to make the other rules work first and found that they didn't.  I would much rather work with existing rules that everyone has access to than try to come up with rules on my own.  

Like I said, DM as referee, not as storyteller.  When you referee, you don't need to change the rules very much, since the "setting" and the "story" don't matter to you.  The only thing that matters during game play is the game.  Setting and story is what I do outside of gameplay, behind the curtain so to speak.  

The recent discussion in the Leiber and Howard thread shows the fundamental difference of opinion quite nicely.


----------



## DragonLancer (Sep 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> I also believe that every player should try DM'ing at least once (something you touched on). There's NOTHING that builds respect for the role of DM quite like walking in those shoes for a while.




While it might build some respect for the responsibilities and amount of time put in by the DM, I believe that players should really remain players for as long as possible. Once a player has the opportunity to be a DM it becomes almost detrimental to their gaming IMO. 

As a player, especially newer players who have only been playing for a short time, the game can be imaginative and wonderous, but once they get a glimpse into the inner workings of the game and have the chance to look through the Monster Manual that magic goes out the window. No longer are trolls or ghosts terrifying adversaries, they are a set of stats easily understandable and that player then knows how they work.

In my experience, and assuming they don't have to start their own group, players should remain players for at least a couple of years before even considering being a DM/GM for the system in which they play.


----------



## Belen (Sep 7, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Like I said, DM as referee, not as storyteller.  When you referee, you don't need to change the rules very much, since the "setting" and the "story" don't matter to you.  The only thing that matters during game play is the game.  Setting and story is what I do outside of gameplay, behind the curtain so to speak.




Ok, now that I have gotten through your negative history with some DMs, we can get to the core of your argument, which makes little sense.  In one sentence, you let the players tell the story, while in another, you work on the setting and story behind the curtain.  The statements seem to contradict one another.

Setting and story is the entire purpose for having the role of DM.  There can be no game without those aspects.  The DM provides the direction for the game.  Even if you provide a bare minimum of direction, you are still creating NPCs and developing encounters.  Even the bare esssentials makes a DM more than a referee.

Referee: n 1: (sports) the chief official (as in boxing or American football) who is expected to ensure fair play [syn: ref] 2: someone who reads manuscripts and judges their suitability for publication [syn: reviewer, reader] 3: an attorney appointed by a court to investigate and report on a case v 1: be a referee or umpire in a sports competition [syn: umpire] 2: evaluate professionally a colleague's work [syn: peer review]

Please explain how you are a referee?

You cannot separate the behind-the-scenes work with the in game combat.  A referee would only manage combat.  A DM directs the combat, places the monsters, provides a reason for the monsters to be there, acts as the barmaid in the tavern who needs help against a gang of local thugs etc.

The DM directs the cooperative story and provides every element of that story except the main cast.  The players are characters in the environment that the DM creates and breathes life into.  If players want a referee, then they should play Living Greyhawk and play random standardized adventures where the entire purpose of the DM is to read box text and run pre-statted and placed combats.

That works fine in an environment where you get to DM and play equally, but that has no bearing on how most D&D games are run.


----------



## Jackelope King (Sep 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The flaw here is that I have yet to see players' contribute equally to a game.  They show up maybe one day a week and sometimes you're lucly if they have updated their character or had taken notes from the previous session.



I've known players like this. I've also known players in the first 3E campaign I ever read who actually pulled out my handouts while hanging playing Madden and would spend quite awhile pouring over them, trying to figure out how everything fit together. One of my players once called me on my cell phone while I was driving back from my aunt's house and he tells me that he and another player had been looking it over and they thought that another player was someone mentioned in a prophecy, and they didn't think she deserved it. But you know what? They liked the game enough to devote time to it away from the table, telling me that I was doing my job as a DM right. They might not be the norm, but players tend to reciprocate when they see the DM working for the game.


> There can be no equality at the table as long as the DM spends so much more time to provide that fun experience than the players'.



Sure there can. The DM can be something other than a bubbling pot of ego and try to make things _fun for the group_ as opposed to _fun exclusively for him/herself_.


> Now, I love to DM, and that is a part of why I do it, but if the "rules" strip me of any ability to make a decision, or shoehorn my games into a certain style, then why play?



3E rules don't take any of that away, they just don't make it _necessary_. I can play a game where my only arbitration is deciding on how difficult skill checks should be, and I've got a handy difficulty chart for a bunch of skills lying right next to my campaign notes. I don't have to reinvent the wheel every time a player wants to try to climb a tree. 


> People have said for the last few years that everyone wants to play 3e and no one wants to DM it.  If the game bleeds DMs, then it will not survive.  There is only so far that the rules can "eliminate" the DM before the game devolves into a minis game where people play set "scenarios" from a book.



And yet in my experience the only ones I've met who complain about 3E taking power from DMs are the tyrant DMs in my area, the ones who loved nothing better than to drop pianos on unruly PCs for no good reason and who wore hats which said "DM = GOD". Now the rules insulate players from bad DMing like this, and the only people who I've heard whine about this are the ones who only like the DM's chair because it gives them the opportunity to stroke their ego by "screwing with players" (to quote one such DM I know). I will not assume that everyone who feels that less power to the DM is a bad thing is like this, but it is tempting at times.


> Giving players options is fine and dandy, but you cannot ask someone to put in the majority of work and then tell them that they are equal to everyone else.



But when you get down to it, they are all equal. In spite of all the work the DM does, he is no more important than the players there, since if the player leave, all the DM can do is toss some dice at the cat. Believe it or not, players matter, and if you treat them like they're unimportant, then you'll have a hard time running a good game.


----------



## Belen (Sep 7, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Sure there can. The DM can be something other than a bubbling pot of ego and try to make things _fun for the group_ as opposed to _fun exclusively for him/herself_.




Ah...so if you have nothing to say, then insult.  That is not the best form of argument.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And yet in my experience the only ones I've met who complain about 3E taking power from DMs are the tyrant DMs in my area, the ones who loved nothing better than to drop pianos on unruly PCs for no good reason and who wore hats which said "DM = GOD". Now the rules insulate players from bad DMing like this, and the only people who I've heard whine about this are the ones who only like the DM's chair because it gives them the opportunity to stroke their ego by "screwing with players" (to quote one such DM I know). I will not assume that everyone who feels that less power to the DM is a bad thing is like this, but it is tempting at times.




That is exactly what you are assuming.  I am sure it is easier to fling personal insults rather than have a counter argument.  As you have no experience with me as a DM, you should do a bit of research before making statements with regards to my person.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> But when you get down to it, they are all equal. In spite of all the work the DM does, he is no more important than the players there, since if the player leave, all the DM can do is toss some dice at the cat. Believe it or not, players matter, and if you treat them like they're unimportant, then you'll have a hard time running a good game.




We'll have to disagree here.  My experience has shown that a lot more players exist than DMs.

Whether you want to believe it or not, players and DMs are not equal because they do not share equal responsibility for the game.  It is that simple.  

(Note:  I have not once said that I was a "God" or demanded obedience from my players.  I have commented on the lack of DM support within the 3e rules and the inference that players (not my current players, but I have seen this quite often during my stint as a Wizards delegate) seek to dictate aspects of the game that are within the bounds of DM responsibility and how this was not a benefit of the game.)


----------



## Henry (Sep 7, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I don't have to reinvent the wheel every time a player wants to try to climb a tree.




The problem is that rules arguments often get FAR more complicated than that. I've seen some real stinkers in my time come through our rules forums here, and every one of them legal by the book. (The "bucket-of-snails-and great cleave" strategies still give me a chuckle.) Would a player try something that manipulative? Not all of them, but enough that I as DM would like the option to say, "get serious, please" and continue with the game.

Some of us are gifted with great players who want to share equally in making the game fun, and some of us have been through more than one group trying to find players who look to exploit rules to their fullest benefit. By the same token, some of us have experienced games with "DM as benevolent dictator" and had a great time, whereas some have nothing but horror stories of railroading DMs who want nothing but their vision played out, and damn all who get in the way. Neither is good for having a successful RPG, but I don't like the direction I see -- that if it caters even further to the MMORPG market in the goal of gaining more players, D&D is destined to become the D&D minis game, with all character assumption minimized in favor of options, and the GM/referee becomes eliminated from the game. I am concerned with it losing what made RPGs a different game in the first place.

The more I talk about it, the more I begin to see Diaglo's real point.  (Not the "D&D is the one true game" business, but what's really behind it).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> No, I'm sorry.  Just because it's your campaign does not give you the right to be the ultimate arbiter when perfectly acceptable rules exist.






*Yes, it does.*  It just doesn't give you the right to have *players* who want to be in your games.    


RC


----------



## Jackelope King (Sep 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Ah...so if you have nothing to say, then insult.  That is not the best form of argument.



Well, I'll point out that the absolute first thing I posted was a counterpoint to your idea that players don't do anything for a game with an example from my own experience. That said, I do appologize for suggesting that you were only running the game for your own enjoyment. I was projecting my experience with bad DMs onto you based on what you wrote, and not on your qualities as a DM.



> As you have no experience with me as a DM, you should do a bit of research before making statements with regards to my person.



Did you read the first response I made to you where I specifically gave an example of the group I ran in 3E? You might want to ammend this response in light of what I wrote there.



> We'll have to disagree here.  My experience has shown that a lot more players exist than DMs.



And I never disagreed with that. I did disagree with your assumption that the game must put the DM above the players. That is all.



> Whether you want to believe it or not, players and DMs are not equal because they do not share equal responsibility for the game.  It is that simple.



Saying "it is just that simple" doesn't make it true.



> (Note:  I have not once said that I was a "God" or demanded obedience from my players.  I have commented on the lack of DM support within the 3e rules and the inference that players (not my current players, but I have seen this quite often during my stint as a Wizards delegate) seek to dictate aspects of the game that are within the bounds of DM responsibility and how this was not a benefit of the game.)



I never implied that you did such things, and I appologize if my comments came off as such. However, I think that the "lack of DM support within the 3e rules" is a myth at best, and I have never seen a player try to "dictate aspects of the game that are within the bounds of DM responsibility", unless you imply that DM responsbility includes the PC's actions. I don't believe that you mean that, however.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> The problem is that rules arguments often get FAR more complicated than that. I've seen some real stinkers in my time come through our rules forums here, and every one of them legal by the book. (The "bucket-of-snails-and great cleave" strategies still give me a chuckle.) Would a player try something that manipulative? Not all of them, but enough that I as DM would like the option to say, "get serious, please" and continue with the game.



And the problem isn't that this sort of adjudication is possible: the problem is when the game swings back to an exercise in creating rules on the spot or when the rules encourage the DM to assert authority over players as a method to run the game. I have no problem with someone saying, "No, you can't trip a snake" or "No cleaving a bag of rats", and as you said, most players don't. Many of those rules loop holes exist as nothing more than a curiosity in the system and have never actually impacted gameplay. I do not think that a DM should be done away with, but I also do not think that a good DM should be someone who routinely changes the rules for little or a poorly-reasoned purpose.



> Some of us are gifted with great players who want to share equally in making the game fun, and some of us have been through more than one group trying to find players who look to exploit rules to their fullest benefit. By the same token, some of us have experienced games with "DM as benevolent dictator" and had a great time, whereas some have nothing but horror stories of railroading DMs who want nothing but their vision played out, and damn all who get in the way. Neither is good for having a successful RPG, but I don't like the direction I see -- that if it caters even further to the MMORPG market in the goal of gaining more players, D&D is destined to become the D&D minis game, with all character assumption minimized in favor of options, and the GM/referee becomes eliminated from the game. I am concerned with it losing what made RPGs a different game in the first place.



That's why finding a good middle ground is important, and not sucumbing to either side of the slippery slope. 3E and d20 as a whole are pretty good in regards to finding a happy middle, but they could also be better. However, as someone pointed out above, 3E does a pretty good job of letting even a so-so DM run a good game. I don't think that's a bad thing either.



> The more I talk about it, the more I begin to see Diaglo's real point.  (Not the "D&D is the one true game" business, but what's really behind it).



What, his hat of d02?


----------



## Thorin Stoutfoot (Sep 7, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The flaw here is that I have yet to see players' contribute equally to a game.  They show up maybe one day a week and sometimes you're lucly if they have updated their character or had taken notes from the previous session.




Wow, you have pretty crummy players. In the past, I've had players:
  * design a mage's guild for a part of the city they were based in
  * come up with such interesting story hooks for their characters that I based entire
     plots around them
  * wrote up summaries and experiences of their characters between sessions
  * explained key parts of the rules that pertained to their characters (not always in their
     favor!)

In the future, I plan to:
  * have one of the players design the home base for a manor house they intend to buy
  * possibly layout an entire section of town
  * design a prestige class for an order of knights they plan to join

D&D is a cooperative game. The shared milleu is a lot of it, and I think you're missing out by not letting the players help out. It does become more real when players help make it real. Sure, you may have to look out for abuse, but good players who know the rules and care about the game won't push it past a limit.

I too, am happy that the rules for creating magic items are part of the game system, rather than being subject to DM fiat. (Anybody remember the 1e item creation rules? There weren't any) Same goes for spell research, etc. And I DM exclusively for the group I'm in right now but I've played as a player as well.  Having the rules there to serve as a baseline helps. Otherwise, you're stuck making up everything as you go along. I defintely don't see it as taking away power from the DM, but it definitely raises the level of DMing the players DEMAND from the DM. In other words, if you're going to deviate from the baseline 3.5e rules, you are now required to make it clear up front what you're going to change and how they change. If you want to change monk abilities fine, but you have to specify how they change up front. I definitely don't see that as being a disadvantage or taking something away from the DM.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 7, 2005)

I have stated this in a couple of thread before, but the basic idea is that there is so much power in the game total.  Basically, the list of powers you could have in a game is this:

1. The ability to control the history, tone, and idea of the campaign world
2. The ability to control what NPCs do and say
3. The ability to control what each PC does and says
4. The ability to control how "physics" work in the world (How easy it is to hit, how spells work, etc)

You could also probably split up the physics section into more sections if you want, but it isn't needed.

Previously, the DM was in charge of numbers 1, 2, and 4.  The players were each in charge of 3.

Now, the rules are in charge of 4, and the DM is only in charge of 1 and 2.  Basically, it removes one responsibility from the DM and puts it out of everyone's hands as more of a third party that stays neutral.  It is no longer the sole responsibility of the DM to remember all of the rules, if the DM doesn't remember, there is a book to look it up in or players can remember it from the DM.

The fact that there is a solid set of rules doesn't prevent the DM from coming up with a background and flavour for his world.  It doesn't turn him into a computer program.  It just gives him some guidelines on which to rest his flavour.

Can't find a place for the Bear Warrior PrC in your game?  No problem, simply don't allow it.  Want them to be a remote tribe of nature worshipping Barbarians?  No problem, that's what they are.  Want the wizard in your game to take Skill Focus(Perform(dance))?  No problem, he's a dancing fool.

But the rules are there to make sure everyone has a consistant frame of reference on how the world works.  People know approximately how far they can jump, about what skill level is required to be able to hit someone (consistantly) who is wearing full plate and has a large steel shield, etc.

Unlike previous editions, however, it isn't considered standard to just change the way the works on a whim because you don't like what the players are trying to do.  In previous editions, I've seen DMs say "This wall is magically protected against your spells" or "You can't just DISPEL the magic trap, that's stupid, you have to figure out the puzzle to pass it."

IMHO, 3e DOES support the DM.  It tells them how the world works so they don't have to make it up.  It tells them how much damage things do so they don't have to guess wildly.  It has much clearer rules so that everyone at the table has a good sense of what happens when you cast dispel magic on someone with the fly spell on or fireball a wall.  It gives me rules for consistantly increasing the power of enemies that don't make them so powerful that I accidently wipe out the party like I've done in the past.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The flaw here is that I have yet to see players' contribute equally to a game. They show up maybe one day a week and sometimes you're lucly if they have updated their character or had taken notes from the previous session.



I think this is a difference in perspective.  I plan for MY session by reading the next couple of pages in the adventure I'm running in Dungeon magazine.  I might spend a couple of hours preparing for a session at most, and I LIKE reading D&D books, so I would have read it even if I wasn't running it.  Most of the players, on the other hand, tend to have new characters every 2 or 3 sessions as they are continually thinking up new ideas they want to try out.  They come up to me at the beginning of each session and bring up magic items they'd like to get made for their characters and ask if they can change a feat on their characters.  They seem to do more thinking about the game than I do.  I don't even remember their characters names half of the times.  That's the beauty of it though, I don't have to.  They do it for me.

I offload as much of the responsibilty of running the game to them as possible so I don't have to spend so much time preparing each week.  They know the rules, so I can tell them "you are in town, you can buy anything in the DMG under 50,000gp" and then give them an hour to buy stuff.  I don't have to have them ask me questions on what and item does or if it is allowed for each item in the game, because I haven't changed any of them.


----------



## Henry (Sep 7, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> ...the list of powers you could have in a game is this:
> 
> 1. The ability to control the history, tone, and idea of the campaign world
> 2. The ability to control what NPCs do and say
> ...




Based on the arguments over Diplomacy in the rules forum, the DM really isn't in control of #2 anymore,
either.  I don't use the book's interpretaion of the effectiveness of diplomacy, but I still ensure that a high roll does modify what the NPC is willing to sacrifice.


----------



## Akrasia (Sep 7, 2005)

There are two different accounts of the relation between DM and players underlying much of this discussion:

(1.) _Hobbesian Account_.  The game posits a limited amount of 'power' that must be divided in some way amongst the players and DMs.  Some people think that it is great that 3e 'distributes' more power into the hands of the players, whereas others decry this development.  On this view, there is a built-in assumption of 'confrontation' between the DMs and players -- i.e. the DM has interests that conflict with the players, and each group seeks to use the rules in order to 'advance' their respective interests.  

(2.) _Rousseauian Account_.  The game is a collective effort to 'have fun'.  Everyone understands that the DM should generally be cut some slack and have the right to make key decisions, given that she has done most of the work in developing the world and the adventures.  At the same time, though, the DM wants the players to have fun, and thus tries to accommodate their desires and interests (as much as is reasonable).  There is an implicit social contract here that everyone is working towards the same goal, and agreements about how the game should run are premised on this common goal.

I would never want to play in a group that operated according to the first interpretation of DM-player relations (high-school is long over).


----------



## howandwhy99 (Sep 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> The more I talk about it, the more I begin to see Diaglo's real point.  (Not the "D&D is the one true game" business, but what's really behind it).




Ohh.. there's truckloads behind it.  I am not sure why he does not explain it online.  Perhaps it's too much and too far away from what gaming is currently considered.  Perhaps it easier to condense things down?  Or maybe he's just waiting for the publishing rights?


----------



## Belen (Sep 7, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Well, I'll point out that the absolute first thing I posted was a counterpoint to your idea that players don't do anything for a game with an example from my own experience. That said, I do appologize for suggesting that you were only running the game for your own enjoyment. I was projecting my experience with bad DMs onto you based on what you wrote, and not on your qualities as a DM.




No worries.


----------



## Belen (Sep 7, 2005)

There are a lot of people who seem to think that DMs who decry current balance are those DMs who want the change the rules.  That is not the case nor was it the real point behind my initial comments.  I was never the type of DM that changed the rules no matter what edition I ran.

The issue with 3e lies in the promotion of rules and how those rules interact with the DM.  There is a large number of people who have only played 3e.  Among that contingent there is the idea that rules trump this DM and that each "option" is a core rule to the game.  Wizards has gone to a lot of effort to make the DM appear as a referee.  A referee can say no to how a rules is used, not whether the rule is used.

There is a difference.  I know a lot of young DMs who believe that they are required to allow any option released for D&D by Wizards.  And these DMs are unhappy.  You'd be surprised at how many people I meet as a WOTC Delegate.  

You just cannot support DMs by not giving DMs their own set of options.  It's fine to give players a wide variety of options.  I think that is great.  However, they have not done the same with DMs.  Other than making sure that DMs know that they can say no, why have we not seen books that tell DMs how to craft their own feats, spells, or prestige classes?  Or more advice on their website for DMs(other than the occasional adventure of rules clarification.)

Maybe Mearls said it best when he described WOTC on one side and DMs on the other.  Instead of seeing DMs as customers, they see them as a threat.  A group of people who can compete with them for creating material and thus they see a need to minimize the DM in favor of the rules in order to not have to worry about them ending the need to pay for books.

Personally, I no longer play with anyone who uses the rules to "win" the game, but I have had those people in my group in the past.  It is not fun to have 3 hours and 50 minutes of arguments over rules interpretation and 10 minutes of gaming. I have gone through that and it was a horrid experience and that seems to come when the rules are elevated to the point where people do not matter.


----------



## Cutter XXIII (Sep 7, 2005)

> The problem lies with the implied connotation that the DM cannot say no. Players have taken the increased options and inferred that they have the right to dictate certain aspects of the game that tread upon the territory of the DM.




I'm not sure how I come down on this issue, as it's pretty complex, but I will say that it's not _implied_ or _inferred_. It's explicit now.

WotC is undeniably marketing books that have traditionally been the territory of the DM to players. Under the guise of increased options, they seem to be saying that players should, for example, buy the monster books so they have a "resource" for fighting certain types of monsters. Now, I understand that they're trying to sell books...but it still rubs me the wrong way. How many DMs in this thread want their players whipping out _Libris Mortis_ and looking up the stats of your BBEG?

Check 'em out:



> Libris Mortis is all about undead. At first glance, you might think it's for DMs only, but a lot of the material in this book is handy for players too, whether their characters are good or evil. Below are ten reasons why Libris Mortis is a great resource for players.



http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20041005news



> The desert sands hide the remains of many an ancient empire, as well as the countless riches that made such past civilizations great. But before a party can seek out these lost treasures, its members must be prepared for the perils of the search. Sandstorm provides players with new options and rules for adventuring in deserts and arid wastelands. Below are ten reasons why Sandstorm is a great resource for players.



http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20050307news

Even the *DMG II*! With a headline, "Who's the Master Now?"



> Dungeon Master's Guide II isn't just for DMs. Even those not behind the screen can gain plenty of valuable information from it to improve their play experience! Below are ten specific reasons why players may find Dungeon Master's Guide II appealing.



http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20050622a

Related issues...

It seems to me that WotC cares more about selling books NOW than they do about the long-term health of the hobby.

But then again, I quit playing D&D for good a few years back. It is an extremely big and complex system (note that "big" and "complex" are *not* pejorative terms here), and some people like the degree of customization that's inherent to such a system. For me, it's a total headache.

These days I run _d20 Modern_ (streamlined!) or _Savage Worlds_ (fast! furious! fun!).

I bought a 3.5 PHB so I could play it if I want, but I can't see myself buying anything else for D&D at this point or in the foreseeable future (and I'm a 20+ year vet!).


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 7, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I plan for MY session by reading the next couple of pages in the adventure I'm running in Dungeon magazine.  I might spend a couple of hours preparing for a session at most, and I LIKE reading D&D books, so I would have read it even if I wasn't running it.  Most of the players, on the other hand, tend to have new characters every 2 or 3 sessions as they are continually thinking up new ideas they want to try out.  They come up to me at the beginning of each session and bring up magic items they'd like to get made for their characters and ask if they can change a feat on their characters.  They seem to do more thinking about the game than I do.  I don't even remember their characters names half of the times.  That's the beauty of it though, I don't have to.  They do it for me.
> 
> I offload as much of the responsibilty of running the game to them as possible so I don't have to spend so much time preparing each week.  They know the rules, so I can tell them "you are in town, you can buy anything in the DMG under 50,000gp" and then give them an hour to buy stuff.  I don't have to have them ask me questions on what and item does or if it is allowed for each item in the game, because I haven't changed any of them.



Reading the posts by some of the WotC staff, it sounds like this is exactly the kind of Dungeon Master that 3e is intended to produce.

To be 100% clear, I don't mean that in a snarky way at all - it sounds like what the game is evolving to become, and it's consistent with some of the dialog here on ENWorld describing how the current version of D&D was developed.

Speaking for myself, I think as long as there are innovative players, the role of the GM cannot be reduced to handling just the background, or reading shaded boxes from a published adventure - to do so stifles player options by making only that which is in the rules possible. This is the strength of systems that don't attempt to cover everything that comprises the "physics" of the world - it allows common sense and rule synergy to expand to cover the circumstances that arise as a result of player ingenuity.

I have found plenty of instances where the rules are simply not up to the task of adjudicating actions that I as a player, or players in the games I GM, want to attempt. It's unfortunate that there are gamers who perceive this to be some sort of control issue or power struggle.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 7, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> (1.) _Hobbesian Account_.  The game posits a limited amount of 'power' that must be divided in some way amongst the players and DMs.  Some people think that it is great that 3e 'distributes' more power into the hands of the players, whereas others decry this development.  On this view, there is a build-in assumption of 'confrontation' between the DMs and players -- i.e. the DM has interests that conflict with the players, and each group seeks to use the rules in order to 'advance' their respective interests.



Actually the assumption that this requires a 'confrontation' is false.  My players and I work together to have fun playing a game.  My "job" in this game is to make decisions for the enemies the same way the players make decisions for their characters.

I don't do it because I want to make the players pay or because I'm in confrontation with them.  I do it because monsters exist and THEY want to kill the PCs...so I role play them effectively and have fun doing so.  It doesn't matter to me whether or not they kill the PCs, but it matters to me that I role play them well.

I don't have any vested interests in the game.  I've seen other DMs who are REALLY story focused change rules to prevent the enemies from dying, using DMs fiat to invent new spells on the fly to kill PCs they didn't like, change the entire magic system on a moments notice because he felt that story reasons meant it didn't apply at this time.  Honestly, I've seen DMs whose plots or ideas for making the game fun were SO important, the rules were thrown out the window.  Really, there should be no reason to change the rules unless you are discriminating against a specific player or plot device.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 7, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I've seen other DMs who are REALLY story focused change rules to prevent the enemies from dying, using DMs fiat to invent new spells on the fly to kill PCs they didn't like, change the entire magic system on a moments notice because he felt that story reasons meant it didn't apply at this time.  Honestly, I've seen DMs whose plots or ideas for making the game fun were SO important, the rules were thrown out the window.  Really, there should be no reason to change the rules unless you are discriminating against a specific player or plot device.



Bad GMing transcends rules systems.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 7, 2005)

*Don't allow marketing to determine how you run your games*

Cutter XXIII hit it right on the head in his post.

DMs do you realize that this player empowerment thing is not innocently about providing options for character development it is about  (drumroll please)...

Making money on books?

The books are marketed to players because they outnumber DMs and the WoTC bottom line benefits via increased sales. Now its great that D&D is doing well, but DMs need to remember why the "empowering players" buisness model was adopted. Considering that reality it is a sorry excuse for a DM that allows his game to be dictated to him....not even by designers (which is bad enough) but by bean counters who just want to sell more and more books.

As long as DMs keep theirs heads together and remember that no one can force them to run the game in any way other than they always have they'll be fine. Its the new DMs who can use some advise and help to empower them to say no to whatever violates the integrity of their setting and the atmosphere of the game. Old salts need to help newer DMs and show them that if they choose to keep DMing they will outlast WoTCs current buisness model just like we outlasted OD&D, 1e, 3e and 3e and that they need to have strong, healthy campaigns that transcend the current fads of RPing.


Chris


----------



## Belen (Sep 7, 2005)

Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how I come down on this issue, as it's pretty complex, but I will say that it's not _implied_ or _inferred_. It's explicit now.
> 
> WotC is undeniably marketing books that have traditionally been the territory of the DM to players. Under the guise of increased options, they seem to be saying that players should, for example, buy the monster books so they have a "resource" for fighting certain types of monsters. Now, I understand that they're trying to sell books...but it still rubs me the wrong way. How many DMs in this thread want their players whipping out _Libris Mortis_ and looking up the stats of your BBEG?
> 
> ...




Tom, you rock!


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 7, 2005)

Far too few people are speaking to, or even noting ,the reason the game has taken the direction it has. The fact is that if more DMs wrapped their head conceptually around the idea of a group of marketing gurus sitting around decided how YOU will DM your game based on how much money can be made, you would care a hell of a lot less about rulings from on high and put your foot down and say no when necessary. In other words you would be a DM.

Let it sink deep in there folks.


Chris


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 7, 2005)

Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> WotC is undeniably marketing books that have traditionally been the territory of the DM to players. Under the guise of increased options, they seem to be saying that players should, for example, buy the monster books so they have a "resource" for fighting certain types of monsters. Now, I understand that they're trying to sell books...but it still rubs me the wrong way. How many DMs in this thread want their players whipping out _Libris Mortis_ and looking up the stats of your BBEG?




Actually...me. 

For two reasons. First, my PCs often remind me of abilities that exist for the BBEG even if they get hosed. Their good players. Second, I so rarely use anything straight up from a book that my players are used to being surprised. 

This, by the way, is an excellent thread. I particularly like Majoru Oakheart's post and just want to give it two thumbs up!


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 7, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Speaking for myself, I think as long as there are innovative players, the role of the GM cannot be reduced to handling just the background, or reading shaded boxes from a published adventure - to do so stifles player options by making only that which is in the rules possible. This is the strength of systems that don't attempt to cover everything that comprises the "physics" of the world - it allows common sense and rule synergy to expand to cover the circumstances that arise as a result of player ingenuity.



I disagree, the DM and players should be able to use the rules as a solid basis for role playing as it covers most common things that people will do.  For anything beyond the scope of the rules, the actual RAW can be used as a springboard to come up with new rules a lot like the originals that fit rarer situations.  Plus, I've rarely, if ever, come up with situations the rules didn't cover.  I allow my players to do anything they want, but if they are looking for combat bonuses for doing strange things, they find they don't get them in my game.

Any good DM should use common sense to interpret the rules anyways.  A couple of the game designers have stated this directly.  The rules ARE there to make the game easier on you so you don't have to make rulings for every action PCs do, not to provide a straight jacket that can't be changed.  Even my players know that in very specific situations, the rules may be SLIGHTLY modified, but compared to other people's house rules, people probably think my rules ARE the ones in the book.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> I have found plenty of instances where the rules are simply not up to the task of adjudicating actions that I as a player, or players in the games I GM, want to attempt. It's unfortunate that there are gamers who perceive this to be some sort of control issue or power struggle.



As I said before, this should be rare..the grapple rules can be used for a lot of things that "don't fit", tripping, disarming, charging all can be interpretted loosely to allow almost all situations.

I don't see it as a control issue, per se.  I am just tired of games I was playing being ruined because a perfectly valid idea on my part was ruined by a DM that thought it was stupid(either because of a lack of imagination to see something as possible or because of a perceived balance issue without ever having tested it to see if there was a problem) and changed to rules so it was nearly impossible to succeed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 7, 2005)

Some thoughts:


1)  It takes no more than a cursory examination of the threads on this board to demonstrate that there is a large and vocal group of players who do interpret the WotC material to mean that a DM should allow _*any*_ option unless there is an _*extremely*_ compelling reason to say no.  I.e., the DM whose world was long ago established as having no orcs should allow a PC to be a half-orc if that is what the player wants because there must be *some way* to explain the presence of this anomaly.  

Then, as the anomalies mount in the campaign world (i.e., each player gets to be what he or she wants, or one player keeps making setting-bending characters) and the integrety of the world is destroyed, these same players blame the DM.

2)  If you're a DM, and your players are doing as much work as you are, then by all means let them make the decisions.  Apparently, they're making them anyway.  For most groups, however, the concept of the players doing as much as the DM is ludicrous.




			
				Thorin Stoutfoot said:
			
		

> Wow, you have pretty crummy players. In the past, I've had players:
> * design a mage's guild for a part of the city they were based in
> * come up with such interesting story hooks for their characters that I based entire
> plots around them
> ...





Thorin, but from where I sit you have excellent players.  However, if that is work equal to the work you are doing, then you are not doing a sizeable fraction of what I do before a game.  I, too, have had players come up with story hooks that I based plots around -- but a one-page character background that I use to develop 100+ pages of material does not make the player's contribution equal in my eyes.

Nor do I expect the players' contributions to be equal.  That is not their job.

3)  Telling me that I cannot say "No" prevents me from doing my job as DM...or it would prevent me if I listened.  The DM has an absolute right to intrepret, change, allow, and/or disallow rules as he/she sees fit.  If the DM is a good one, it will enhance the experience for the players.  If the DM is a bad one, it'll mean that game day is a lonely day for that DM.  If the DM is a mediocre to poor one, people will play anyway then come onto EnWorld to complain about what a bad DM that person is.

4)  The current "default style" makes mediocre DMs.  If your DM is worse than that, then having a mediocre DM probably seems pretty good.  If your DM is better than that, he/she is probably not using the "default style".  

5)  The Shaman said it, and it bears repeating:  "Bad GMing transcends rules systems."  Of course, good GMing transcends rules systems, too...but often because it rewrites them.

6)  Not only do I reserve the right to say No, but I reserve the right to completely rewrite the rules from the ground up.  Modify the classes.  Change the races.  Redefine feats and spells.  Finally, I reserve the right to not tell you all the rules ahead of time.  Sure, you may have the character generation rules, but there are feats and spells the PCs must learn of in-game, and monsters can be quite different.....


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 7, 2005)

> The very term equality is ludicrious in regards to this game.




This sentiment (and the similar ones about DM's putting so much time and effort into the game that they deserve a better say) is incorrect.

Or, rather, it is so completely alien to any concept I have of gaming that it makes my head boggle.

Yes, DM's put more work into their campaigns than players. Yes, they have a bigger job. But to assume that this gives a DM some sort of entitlement to carte blanch run roughshod over everyone else at the table on some sort of die-infused power trip in the interest of what one person views as "a better game" seems really crazy to me.

The DM does the bigger job because the *want to*. If you don't want to do it, don't. If you do want to do it, well, you aren't entitled to some sort of unlimited authority because of it. The game is not YOUR creation. You need players, too. The game is a group experience. Yes, the DM does more work. But that's because they want to -- and if they like that side of the game, why should it be considered "more work" for them?

If you're not DMing because you want to and it is actually more work for you that you don't enjoy, stop doing it and let someone who enjoys spending a few hours a night crafting maps, NPC's, and worlds do it. Or, alternately, work with you group (not over the top of it like some maniacal overlord) to change the game so you do enjoy that aspect of it.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. People DM because DMing is FUN for them, more fun for them than playing. You aren't _owed_ anything just because you generated NPC's. 

That said, DM's have, AFAIK, all the power in the world should they exercise it. But players are being understandably more cautious now than they ever were in old editions. The simple reason is that the rules are *better* now than they were in older editions, and so they don't *need* as much tinkering and tweaking. Thus, tinkering and tweaking the rules is seen as a vanity, not a nessecity, and players may be reluctant to sign up for something that they may hate just because some guy really likes his own little ruleset. This nervousness grows in the new edition because the core ruleset is so good, that deviation should be more tempting than vain. If you have someone who thinks hit points are unrealistic and you show them a game using the Grim & Gritty HP system, they might be intrigued. But for the majority of players who are perfectly happy with the HP system, a change like the G&G rules is too much of a gamble. If it ain't broke...


----------



## Umbran (Sep 7, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> *Yes, it does.*  It just doesn't give you the right to have *players* who want to be in your games.




It seems a common misconception that "the DM is the ultimate arbiter" equates to "the DM is frequently arbitrary (or worse)".  Only the latter is likley to prevent you from having players who want to be in your games.  I've seen many a DM take the ultimate arbiter role, and have plenty of people who want to play, because they are fair and consistent.

Someone made the argument that the DM would (or should) always have more power because the DM puts more time and effort into building the campaign.  This is correct, but not in the "effort yields power as a reward" sense.

The DM knows what's in the game world, the PCs, the monsters, the plot hooks, the whole enchilada.  If the DM knows what's going on better than everyone else, the DM is in the best position to guide the game to the most fun for everyone.  Thus, the DM probably ought to have the most power to guide at hand.  In essense - the DM is the one who is in the best position to solve problems, and so should have the ability to do so.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 7, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I disagree, the DM and players should be able to use the rules as a solid basis for role playing as it covers most common things that people will do.  For anything beyond the scope of the rules, the actual RAW can be used as a springboard to come up with new rules a lot like the originals that fit rarer situations.



This is just as true with OD&D as it is with 3e - that's not a strength of the current iteration, just a recapitulation of the status quo.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Plus, I've rarely, if ever, come up with situations the rules didn't cover.



My character is standing on a table and wants to tumble past an opponent standing on the floor to assume a flanking position and attack. Is this a Tumble check, two Tumble checks, or a Jump check and a Tumble check? Can my character attack in the same round that he tumbles past the opponent?

Later in the same encounter my character is running and wants to hop over a four-foot wall, placing his hands on top of the wall for extra leverage as he boosts himself over. Is this a Climb check, a Jump check, or another Tumble check? What's the DC?







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Any good DM should use common sense to interpret the rules anyways.  A couple of the game designers have stated this directly.  The rules ARE there to make the game easier on you so you don't have to make rulings for every action PCs do, not to provide a straight jacket that can't be changed.  Even my players know that in very specific situations, the rules may be SLIGHTLY modified, but compared to other people's house rules, people probably think my rules ARE the ones in the book....As I said before, this should be rare..the grapple rules can be used for a lot of things that "don't fit", tripping, disarming, charging all can be interpretted loosely to allow almost all situations.



Now you seem to be backing away for your earlier position that the rules are an "independent third-party" to the game by suggesting that in fact interpretation is necessary, that the rules need to be stretched to cover actions either not covered or inadequately covered, and the ultimately the rules more like guidelines, actually, regardless of edition.

The current iteration certainly details a wider range of options then earlier editions, but the idea that the rules can handle a huge chunk of managing the game without adjudication by the GM simply isn't true, IMHO, unless you limit options to those covered explicitly by the rules.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I don't see it as a control issue, per se.  I am just tired of games I was playing being ruined because a perfectly valid idea on my part was ruined by a DM that thought it was stupid(either because of a lack of imagination to see something as possible or because of a perceived balance issue without ever having tested it to see if there was a problem) and changed to rules so it was nearly impossible to succeed.



How is this not a control issue? As a player you wanted to control what does and doesn't work and the GM disagreed, so you favor a system that minimizes the GM's input into making these calls. That seems like a control issue to me.

(BTW, any chance that the GM didn't lack imagination, but rather that your ideas were truly unworkable and the GM made a common sense call?)

There's also the issue of things in the game-world that don't conform to how the rules dictate they should, such as magic. Is it possible, for example, that the way magic functions in the game-world at the time of the game is different from the way magic operated at a different time in the continuity of the game-world, such that _dispel magic_ may not work against certain kinds of spells as effectively (if at all)? Is there no room in a fantasy roleplaying game for the fantastic and the mysterious, that which works by forces unknown to the mages and sages of the present?

For me, the key to this questions is, is the GM using this as a feature of the game-world that reflects the history and cosmology and metaphysics of the universe, or just trying to hose the characters? If it's the latter, that's just poor GMing, and no set of rules or differing editions will change that. If the former, then being frustrated by it is just petulance that the world doesn't work the way the player thinks it should, in which case my suggestion to that player is to GM and not play, to avoid being disappointed.

It seems to me that a focus on teaching GMs how to be better arbiters, rather than loading down the system with more and more rules, would handle many of the problems that players cite with respect to RPGs. However, as noted, a book on GMing has a smaller audience than a book of "player options," so the fact that shelves are weighted down by the latter is no great surprise.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 7, 2005)

> It seems to me that a focus on teaching GMs how to be better arbiters, rather than loading down the system with more and more rules, would handle many of the problems that players cite with respect to RPGs.




This is often WAY too subjective to be effectively taught, and often involves too much investement. You're effectively asking the DMG to educate people to be amateur game designers. That's going to take a *comittment* from a lot of poeple. DMing when you can just pick up the book, look up the rule (or something similar) and say "this is how it works, and that makes sense, so this is how it's going to work" makes the DM's job *infinately* easier, and also makes the game more standardized, so you don't have eighteen different awkward ways of handling grappling (for instance), all of which must be taken into account when developing new material for the game.



> My character is standing on a table and wants to tumble past an opponent standing on the floor to assume a flanking position and attack. Is this a Tumble check, two Tumble checks, or a Jump check and a Tumble check? Can my character attack in the same round that he tumbles past the opponent?




It's tumbling through another character's space. "assuming a flanking position" happens automatically on the other side of the creature.



> Later in the same encounter my character is running and wants to hop over a four-foot wall, placing his hands on top of the wall for extra leverage as he boosts himself over. Is this a Climb check, a Jump check, or another Tumble check? What's the DC?




It's up to the player. If they want to hop it, it's a Jump check. DC 16 with a running start, DC 32 from a standing position. That'll put you over the wall. Putting the hand on the wall is covered in the normal course of a jump check. In the possibility that they describe an ingenious tactic, a circumstance bonus is applied. If they want to climb it, they can (assuming 4 ft. is <= 1/4 their speed) with a DC 10 climb check.


----------



## Belen (Sep 7, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> It seems a common misconception that "the DM is the ultimate arbiter" equates to "the DM is frequently arbitrary (or worse)".  Only the latter is likley to prevent you from having players who want to be in your games.  I've seen many a DM take the ultimate arbiter role, and have plenty of people who want to play, because they are fair and consistent.
> 
> Someone made the argument that the DM would (or should) always have more power because the DM puts more time and effort into building the campaign.  This is correct, but not in the "effort yields power as a reward" sense.
> 
> The DM knows what's in the game world, the PCs, the monsters, the plot hooks, the whole enchilada.  If the DM knows what's going on better than everyone else, the DM is in the best position to guide the game to the most fun for everyone.  Thus, the DM probably ought to have the most power to guide at hand.  In essense - the DM is the one who is in the best position to solve problems, and so should have the ability to do so.




Well said.  You made it far clearer and in fewer words.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 7, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> there is a large and vocal group of players who do interpret the WotC material to mean that a DM should allow _*any*_ option unless there is an _*extremely*_ compelling reason to say no.  I.e., the DM whose world was long ago established as having no orcs should allow a PC to be a half-orc if that is what the player wants because there must be *some way* to explain the presence of this anomaly.



Never once said allow everything.  What I said is you need a compelling reason not to allow it.  "There are no orcs in my world" is certainly a compelling reason.  However, you might restrict your game from all those players who like half-orcs.  If you are fine with this, no problem.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 2)  If you're a DM, and your players are doing as much work as you are, then by all means let them make the decisions.  Apparently, they're making them anyway.  For most groups, however, the concept of the players doing as much as the DM is ludicrous.



As I said, I do nearly no prep work.  Most of the prep work I actually do is just thinking about things and not writing anything down.  I once ran 2 sessions with just the notes: "Orcs paid off by local Baron to attack villiages as first step towards declaring martial law and conscripting an army to conqure country.  He hires adventures to send them into an orc trap and get rid of possible opposition."  I had some ideas about him having a wizard to assist him with his plans.  I didn't know what country he was in, what else was in the world.  I figured I'd build the rest as I went.  Now, if someone wanted to be from a certain type of culture, I could write it into the world.  With their input, my world could be more interesting than if I had designed it alone.  Plus, the rest didn't matter to the game session at hand.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> a one-page character background that I use to develop 100+ pages of material does not make the player's contribution equal in my eyes.



Seems you do a lot of work preparing for your game.  Is all that extra effort worth the payoff you get if the adventure involves combat against orcs?



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 6)  Not only do I reserve the right to say No, but I reserve the right to completely rewrite the rules from the ground up.  Modify the classes.  Change the races.  Redefine feats and spells.  Finally, I reserve the right to not tell you all the rules ahead of time.  Sure, you may have the character generation rules, but there are feats and spells the PCs must learn of in-game, and monsters can be quite different.....



You do...and people like me have the right to get annoyed at your game and leave part way through when we realize that no matter what we do, you'll change the rule and make it different next time, so we can't count on anything working twice.  Then, we'll wait until you make up a rule that you came up with off the top of your head that has a glaring hole in it that you don't see, and use it against you.  I've seen it happen.  One DM was SO positive his rules were better than the ones in the book because the ones in the book were all stupid.  Then, he made a rule that players figured out how to abuse and suddenly they were overpowered.


----------



## Henry (Sep 7, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> DMing when you can just pick up the book, look up the rule (or something similar) and say "this is how it works, and that makes sense, so this is how it's going to work" makes the DM's job *infinately* easier, and also makes the game more standardized...




However, it's not that simple, because the more rules the DM and players have to know, the more bogged down a human being gets. I'm all for standardization, but there has to be a happy medium. As of right now, the core rules do an admirable job. However, anything beyond that and things just get too messy to keep up with. There has to be a point where the DMG says, "the final authority is invested in THIS person", so that rules debates do not slow or confuse the game play, and that's happening less in this edition. No one  in this thread seems to deny that there's a NEED for a clean path for arbitration, but many seem to think the rules will do it 99 times out of 100. However, as the rules forum frequently attests, they DON'T. (I've seen Hypersmurf blanch more than once at a SKip Williams or Andy Collins ruling. )

The part I'm interested in is that 1 in 100; I'm interested in when there needs to be a final word within 30 seconds of a discrepancy, and people are more interested in debating rules than taking the DM's word for it and moving on. The game thrived for 35 years on there being one arbiter who the buck stopped with, and now it's supposedly inferior to some people, and without that final arbiter (being replaced or marginalized) I don't forsee the game continuing as anything more than a different version of Mage Knight or Heroclix (or those "fighting flip-books" I played as a kid).


----------



## Cutter XXIII (Sep 7, 2005)

(I also want to note that this is great thread.)

Could so-called "Troupe Style" play be where D&D is headed? If so, is that a good or bad thing?


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 7, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> This is often WAY too subjective to be effectively taught, and often involves too much investement. You're effectively asking the DMG to educate people to be amateur game designers. That's going to take a *comittment* from a lot of poeple. DMing when you can just pick up the book, look up the rule (or something similar) and say "this is how it works, and that makes sense, so this is how it's going to work" makes the DM's job *infinately* easier, and also makes the game more standardized, so you don't have eighteen different awkward ways of handling grappling (for instance), all of which must be taken into account when developing new material for the game.



I don't consider stopping the action to thumb through one of a dozen or more books (for the truly option-heavy) to look up a rule to be infinitely easier than teaching a GM how to break down a complex action into a couple of checks on the fly. Of course, that's where my comfort zone lies, and I'm sure it's quite different for other GMs.

As far as being too subjective to teach, I believe it's a skill that can be learned - Rich Redman's excellent Modern articles, "Notes from the Bunker," come to mind.







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's tumbling through another character's space. "assuming a flanking position" happens automatically on the other side of the creature.



The character is moving from a table to the floor during the tumble (read the description closely) - only one Tumble check, same as on flat ground? Also, moving through the opponent's square would mean he's now opposite his old position, in which case he's not flanking anything - he must be moving to a square adjacent to the opponent but opposite another character in order to be flanking.







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's up to the player. If they want to hop it, it's a Jump check. DC 16 with a running start, DC 32 from a standing position. That'll put you over the wall. Putting the hand on the wall is covered in the normal course of a jump check. In the possibility that they describe an ingenious tactic, a circumstance bonus is applied. If they want to climb it, they can (assuming 4 ft. is <= 1/4 their speed) with a DC 10 climb check.



What you described is a long jump in the rules - but what if the character doesn't want to end up eight feet beyond the wall, but rather wants to simply hop over it and use if for cover from the other side? The Modern and 3.5 SRDs both offer long jump, high jump, hop on, and jump down as options - nowhere is "jump over" described in the manner in which my character wants to get across the wall. Would you then say that what my character wants to accomplish can't be done, since it's not covered in the rules.

Also, why not use Tumble instead? The description of what the character wants to do sounds oftly close to tumbling through an opponent's square to end up on the other side, and the description of Tumble (in the Modern SRD, at least) specifically includes "jump" as a descriptor of the action: "...the character can roll, jump, or dive through squares occupied by opponents, moving over, under, or around them as if they weren't there..." (emphasis added).

Before we get any further bogged down by this, my point is simple: the rules don't cover every action, even relatively simple ones like those I described. That's what a GM is there to do.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 7, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> This is just as true with OD&D as it is with 3e - that's not a strength of the current iteration, just a recapitulation of the status quo.




Except, in earlier editions, players had much less access to which rules would be covering a particular point (including, perhaps, the module's own particular ruleset for this particular situation).



> My character is standing on a table and wants to tumble past an opponent standing on the floor to assume a flanking position and attack. Is this a Tumble check, two Tumble checks, or a Jump check and a Tumble check? Can my character attack in the same round that he tumbles past the opponent?




Tumble check, DC 15, to not draw an AoO as you move past the guy on the floor, and move at half speed.  Take a -10 penalty if you want to move at full speed.  If you need to move through the guy, the base DC increases to 25.

The table is likely not high enough to cause falling damage, so no jump check is required.  If it was, the DC is 15, and a failure would indicate that you fall prone.

You can make an attack in the same round if it only took you a single move action to get into flanking position, the same as with any other movement.



> Later in the same encounter my character is running and wants to hop over a four-foot wall, placing his hands on top of the wall for extra leverage as he boosts himself over. Is this a Climb check, a Jump check, or another Tumble check? What's the DC?




Jump check.  DC 10 to "Hop up" an land on your feet on anything up to waist high.  Doing so costs 10' of movement.  Since you're not trying to end up on top of the wall, we'll just leave this one alone and say that, even though 4' is [likely] higher than waist height, the fact that you're just attempting to clear it balances out.

Note that Jump and Tumble, when you have 5 ranks, provide synergy bonuses to each other.  Thus, someone with 5 ranks in Tumble gets a +2 bonus to Jump checks, and vice versa.  This covers exactly this situation: your training in gymnastics helps you properly place your hands for your vault over the wall.

These are, all told, pretty basic questions that are covered nigh-explicitly in the RAW.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 7, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> These are, all told, pretty basic questions that are covered nigh-explicitly in the RAW.



Perhaps, but so far we have three possible interpretations for these "nigh-explicit" rules, as well as differing circumstance bonuses and DCs.

That's my point.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 7, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but so far we have three possible interpretations for these "nigh-explicit" rules, as well as differing circumstance bonuses and DCs.
> 
> That's my point.




I see two.

There's no difference on the Tumble checks to move off the table, on to the floor, and around your opponent.  I just provided additional options.  It's otherwise stock Tumble skill.

As for jumping, Kamikaze gave you the correct rule for a character making a leap starting from a point 8' in front of the wall, clearing 4' at the midpoint of your jump, and landing 8' beyond the wall.  This is a DC 16 jump when you've got a running start, or a DC 32 jump when you don't.  In other words, his interpretation is wrong based on your description (where you run up to the wall before jumping).

Accordingly, my interpretation gives you an easier chance to jump the wall - DC 10 vs. 16+ - but takes into account the way you wanted your character to move.

Note that, in the end, they both result in nearly identical results.  I let you run 10' up to the wall, and then I charge you 10' of movement to clear the wall at DC 10, and you end up immediately on the other side of it.  Total movement cost? 20'.

KM has you jump from 10' away, spend 10' of movement in the air up to the wall, spend 10' of movement past the wall, and then an additional 10' of movement getting back to the wall.  Total movement cost? 30'.

*However*, we come to the important point.  If your objective is to end up directly on the other side of the wall, using it for cover, you should use my way of doing it.  It's more efficient (20' of movement vs. 30').  If your objective is to clear the wall while escaping, then you should use KM's way.  It's more efficient for that purpose (30' of movement vs. 20').

It's good to see the rules support something that makes cinematic sense.

EDIT:  Moreover, you did not provide enough information in your initial setups to determine where, exactly, everything was placed.  For instance, there could be an ally directly in line with your character, the edge of the table, and your opponent, meaning that a tumble directly through the opponent would land you in flanking position.

Additionally, "Flanking position" is a meaningless term unless you've got an ally to flank with.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 7, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> There's no difference on the Tumble checks to move off the table, on to the floor, and around your opponent.  I just provided additional options.  It's otherwise stock Tumble skill.



Tumble is silent on moving from a higher position to a lower position in making the move - one can interpret that to mean that there is no difference since it's not explicitly spelled out but one could make a credible case for a Jump check or increasing the DC of the Tumble check, given that there is a "degree of difficulty" represented by the change in elevation from table to floor.







			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Accordingly, my interpretation gives you an easier chance to jump the wall - DC 10 vs. 16+ - but takes into account the way you wanted your character to move.



Your DC 10 assumes that waist-high can be expanded to 4' - in fact when I ran this particular obstacle I made it DC 12 to reflect the height (and I specifically made the wall a bit higher to offer a slightly greater challenge).


			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> EDIT:  Moreover, you did not provide enough information in your initial setups to determine where, exactly, everything was placed.  For instance, there could be an ally directly in line with your character, the edge of the table, and your opponent, meaning that a tumble directly through the opponent would land you in flanking position.
> 
> Additionally, "Flanking position" is a meaningless term unless you've got an ally to flank with.



Since I said that his goal was to flank the opponent, an ally was assumed. The move was off the table to flank - no mention of moving through an ally's position was mentioned in describing the difficulty.

Now you're picking the flyshit out of the pepper, *Patryn of Elvenshae*


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 7, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but so far we have three possible interpretations for these "nigh-explicit" rules, as well as differing circumstance bonuses and DCs.



I don't see it either, in the first case it matters where the enemy is standing as to what my answer is.  You only make one tumble check per enemy, however.  It would be a tumble check, however, the table changes nothing (except possibly applying a +2 modifier to the DC due to "uneven terrain").  If your movement rate gets you to where you want to be with only a move action, yes you can attack.

The second one gives you a choice of how to get over.  No big deal, the DCs should still be the same at each persons table.  Plus, no reason whatsoever for it to be a tumble check.

So far, I find myself agreeing with 2 other people's interpretations of this situation.  That's 3 people already who can agree based on some vague wording.  Seems pretty consistant to me.  Even if the DCs come within 2 of each other, we are all still using the same skill and are very close to each other.  Not EXACTLY the same, but close.  No one has yet tried to claim that it would be a spellcraft check to tumble past people, because we are all using the same rules.

It's a matter of being able to predict, at least fairly closely what will happen when you take an action.  Some DMs will change small things for their game, but changing entire sections of the rules means you aren't playing D&D anymore.  You will confuse your players and leave them wondering what will happen the next time they try something they thought they understood.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 7, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Plus, no reason whatsoever for it to be a tumble check.



Other than the rule explicity describing the situation, you mean?







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Even if the DCs come within 2 of each other, we are all still using the same skill and are very close to each other.  Not EXACTLY the same, but close....It's a matter of being able to predict, at least fairly closely what will happen when you take an action.



Again, my point is, that at three different tables a "nigh-explicit" rule has three different answers - your. mine, and *Patryn of Elvenshae*'s. Not wildly different, certainly, but also not covered explicitly in the rules and one subject to different interpretations by different GMs.

Thank you for making my point for me.


----------



## MonsterMash (Sep 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> The more I talk about it, the more I begin to see Diaglo's real point.  (Not the "D&D is the one true game" business, but what's really behind it).



ODD claims another victim 

Actually I've always suspected that there was a lot more behind Diaglo's famous quote than many people see.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 7, 2005)

Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> It seems to me that WotC cares more about selling books NOW than they do about the long-term health of the hobby.




That is kinda what happens when a profit driven company[T$R] has a hold of a hot property like D&D, drives itself out of business, gets bought by a upcoming game company {WotC], which in turn gets bought by a publicly held profit driven company[Ha$bro]. The employees gotta make profit margins to keep thier jobs. I understand that just as much i will understand any olde school D&D nut who kills them one day for doing that  .


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> The part I'm interested in is that 1 in 100; I'm interested in when there needs to be a final word within 30 seconds of a discrepancy, and people are more interested in debating rules than taking the DM's word for it and moving on. The game thrived for 35 years on there being one arbiter who the buck stopped with, and now it's supposedly inferior to some people, and without that final arbiter (being replaced or marginalized) I don't forsee the game continuing as anything more than a different version of Mage Knight or Heroclix (or those "fighting flip-books" I played as a kid).



Of course the DM is the final arbiter when it comes to the 1 in 100 situation the rules don't cover.  I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise.  I expect there to be a slight give and pull in the rules as each DM interprets them SLIGHTLY differently.

On the other hand, I don't expect to fire a ranged weapon through 4 team mates at an enemy and be told that there is a 90% chance to hit my friends, because it is likely at least one of them will move into my shot.  Where did this come from?  The DM thought it was realistic.  There ARE rules for this in the book, if anyone is between you and the target, the target has cover (+4 to his AC), if someone is in melee with the target, you get -4 to hit by trying to avoid your friends.

Would I have made that shot if my character thought he'd hit his friends?  Nope.  Was I forced to make it anyways?  Yep, the DM said I should KNOW that firing past that many friends might hit them and wouldn't allow any rules to tell him otherwise.  He knew what was realistic and good for HIS game.  He wouldn't let some game designer who OBVIOUSLY didn't know anything about realism to tell him what was good for his game.

Yes, I survived about 5 years with DMs making arbitrary decisions like this and the rules backing them up.  Did I like it?  No.  Did I accept it because there was nothing better?  Yep.  I liked killing dragons and defeating evil and going up levels.  It was worth putting up with the bad part to get the good parts?  Yes.  I really liked D&D.  Is it better now that I can have the good parts WITHOUT the bad parts?  YES.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 7, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Other than the rule explicity describing the situation, you mean?Again, my point is, that at three different tables a "nigh-explicit" rule has three different answers - your. mine, and *Patryn of Elvenshae*'s. Not wildly different, certainly, but also not covered explicitly in the rules and one subject to different interpretations by different GMs.
> 
> Thank you for making my point for me.



Umm...there's a rule about tumbling OVER wallls?  Don't remember that one.  If there is one, I'd love to see it, normally I don't miss something that obvious.  Generally tumble has 2 uses: Avoid AOO and take less damage from falling.

Any time the rules go outside of what is written, I expect different interpretations, but similar ones, as I said.  That's why I say that there should be as many rules as possible to minimize the situations where you have to make those decisions.  The idea is that actions that are only done rarely don't need seperate rules.  Plus, the general idea holds true in each game: Jump gets you over things or takes less damage from jumping down, tumble is as above, climb gets over things you can't jump over (or things you can jump over and just want to climb).  They have estimated DCs which allow all our games to be very close.

The goal being that when the player tries any one of those actions, he can know which skill will be used and based on his skill level how likely he is to succeed.  He doesn't have to worry that since he didn't take any ranks in Profession(athlete) he won't be able to get over the wall this time.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 8, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Tumble is silent on moving from a higher position to a lower position in making the move - one can interpret that to mean that there is no difference since it's not explicitly spelled out but one could make a credible case for a Jump check or increasing the DC of the Tumble check, given that there is a "degree of difficulty" represented by the change in elevation from table to floor.




Right - Tumble doesn't say anything about changing heights, so therefore changing heights has no effect on Tumble.  Feel free to move *beyond the rules* if you'd like, but there's no reason to do so.

Hell, if you feel so inclined, add a *circumstance modifier* - also known as the "DM's friend."  Nothing says you have to, but they're there if you want to use them.  Maybe this qualifies as a "+2 to the DC" kind of situation.  I don't think it is, but maybe you do.  That's ok - it's what it's there for.  That way, you aren't even moving beyond the rules.

A Jump check?  Please.  A DC 15 Jump check allows you to take no damage from *the first 10'* of a fall and convert the damage from the next 10' into nonlethal, if you jump down.  This is a table - it's not high enough for falling damage to enter into it.

If you think it takes a Jump check to get out of bed in the morning, feel free to add one here.  Heck, you'll notice that I made an allowance that it might be a particularly tall table when I answered your question.  Note also that, if for some reason, you require a Jump check to avoid the damage caused from moving from the table to the floor, you should also allow an additional Tumble check - also DC 15 - to negate the damage, as well.

It's silly, and the rules specifically don't require it - but feel free to add it in if you must.



> Since I said that his goal was to flank the opponent, an ally was assumed. The move was off the table to flank - no mention of moving through an ally's position was mentioned in describing the difficulty.




That's because moving through allies' squares is free, and doesn't affect the difficulty at all.



> Now you're picking the flyshit out of the pepper, *Patryn of Elvenshae*




Which, oddly enough, brings me to my final point.  Lets look at where, according to you, we have the biggest disagreement.



> Your DC 10 assumes that waist-high can be expanded to 4' - in fact when I ran this particular obstacle I made it DC 12 to reflect the height (and I specifically made the wall a bit higher to offer a slightly greater challenge).




How did I rule that this would happen, based on a quick thumb-nail of what I remembered from the Jump skill?  Jump check, DC 10.

How did you rule that this would happen, based on whatever method you picked?  Jump check, DC 12.

You realize, don't you, that there's an entire *2 point difference* in our DCs?  And that we both used the same skill?  Heck, toss in KM's answer, and you've still only got a *4 point difference* between your DC and his - and it's still using the same skill.

Compare that to the methods and answers you would have received had we been discussing how someone should handle this in, say, 2nd Edition.  You'd've had people proposing Strength checks, Dex checks, auto-success based on the PCs being heroes and "being able to do this kind of thing," rolls against the Acrobatics non-weapon proficiency, and that's just what I can come up with off the top of my head.

Let that sink in a moment.

For all your comments about how "The rules don't handle this," three separate DMs came up with three nearly identical answers.

And that's why 3rd Edition wins.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 8, 2005)

Once again, I'm starting my post by highlighting a few other excellent posts that I agree with: Hussar's point in #94 on the shift in emphasis from DM as storyteller/scriptwriter/director to DM as referee/aribiter, Jackelope King's point in #97 about the DM's responsibility to ensure that the entire group is having fun, Majoru Oakheart's point in #103 that a solid set of rules helps rather than hinders the DM, and Kamikaze Midget's point in #119 that the DM has a bigger job, but it doesn't give him extra privileges.

The impression I get from reading some posts is that some DMs do not like the fact that players now have a better grasp of the rules and default assumptions behind D&D and now have expectations when they play the game, whether it is expectations of how likely they are to succeed at a particular action, how magic is supposed to work, what options are available, what sort of challenges and rewards they will encounter, etc. If so, then I will admit that D&D is probably moving in a direction that they will not be happy with. However, I think the change in D&D is not a cause but a symptom of people generally wanting more equal relationships. Consumers want more information about products in order to make better choices, and guarantees of the quality of the services they use. Citizens demand more transparency and accountability from their governments, and more decisions that are based on reason rather than whim. Hence, it is not surprising that players do the same with their DMs. 

From that perspective, the DM's power has been eroded. He still has all the authority he needs to do his job - he can make up rules on the fly, he can create a setting and populate it with NPCs, he can set house rules, change the monsters, make a snap decision to keep the game going, run low-magic campaigns, disallow anything he feels to be unsuitable for his campaign, etc. However, what he cannot do is to avoid being judged by his players, and they have a much better basis of doing so because of the clearer, more consistent rules, and forums such as ENWorld which let them know that other DMs are doing it differently. And if he doesn't measure up, he's out of a job.

To answer an earlier point raised by Henry, I don't think any open-ended rules set can ever do without a DM because it is practically impossible to be comprehensive enough to cover everything that creative players can come up with. However, a good and consistent rules set does make it less necessary for the DM to make his own rulings. Some see it as a benefit - instead of thinking about rules, the DM can concentrate on the other aspects of the game that do not rely on rules such as the setting and the portrayal of NPCs. Others see this as an erosion of DM power. However, it is only an erosion of DM power insofar as it presents players with an alternative to how the situation could have been handled. Any DM whose players agree with the way he handles things ought to have no problems whatsoever.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 8, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> For all your comments about how "The rules don't handle this," three separate DMs came up with three nearly identical answers.
> 
> And that's why 3rd Edition wins.




Yeah. Exactly. Because there are some simple, basic principles that are consistent throughout those rules. 

Granted, books beyond core break that. They do contradict the core rules or even ignore some of those good design principles. So there can be (and is) more work when you go beyond PH, MM and DMG. But in many cases those additional rules make less work. The old days of arguments in 1E? My god. My head still hurts remembering some of the absolute knock down, drag-em-outs because there was nothing to even attempt to find a principle with to adjudicate. Whatever logic a player could attempt to grasp became a weapon to "beat" the DM at their ruling to drag out some miniscule advantage in that combat.

Then you had to write it down to be consistent.

Then the PCs conveniently forgot it when it helped them.

Then they argued it when you brought it up with new and different reasons why it shouldn't apply (if it benefitted them) or why it should (if it benefitted them). 

Are the current rules stifling creativity and gameplay. Nope. I think they are enhancing it.

What I think is happening instead is that we're hearing more about all sorts of gaming groups. The player whose DM is only doing it because someone "has to" instead of wanting to put in those hours polishing the world. The story-oriented DM who is getting started with a group of veteran powergamers hungry to try out the latest Complete option. The newly formed group who all hate each other but play together because it's the only game in town. And the success stories - the ones behind every successful DM posting in this thread.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 8, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Umm...there's a rule about tumbling OVER wallls?  Don't remember that one.  If there is one, I'd love to see it, normally I don't miss something that obvious.



Go back and re-read the MSRD description of Tumble in my earlier post.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Any time the rules go outside of what is written, I expect different interpretations, but similar ones, as I said.  That's why I say that there should be as many rules as possible to minimize the situations where you have to make those decisions.  The idea is that actions that are only done rarely don't need seperate rules.



First, the other approach is that instead of creating a plethora of detailed rules, teach GMs to make consistent calls based on abilities or skills or whatever mechanic generally covers the action you want to resolve - this is how slim rulebooks are made.

I'm not suggesting that one approach is better than another - I do know which one I prefer.

Second, it's the rare actions what will bring the game to a screaming halt as GM and players fumble through rulebooks - teaching GMs good skills for making those rulings quickly, along with the understanding among everyone at the table that it's the GMs role to make that ruling, are what keep the action front and center.







			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Right - Tumble doesn't say anything about changing heights, so therefore changing heights has no effect on Tumble.  Feel free to move *beyond the rules* if you'd like, but there's no reason to do so.



Actually, it is addressed by the uneven terrain provision in the rules, as I believe *Majoru Oakheart* noted earlier, so yes, changing heights can affect the ability to Tumble.







			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Hell, if you feel so inclined, add a *circumstance modifier* - also known as the "DM's friend."  Nothing says you have to, but they're there if you want to use them.  Maybe this qualifies as a "+2 to the DC" kind of situation.  I don't think it is, but maybe you do.  That's ok - it's what it's there for.  That way, you aren't even moving beyond the rules.



Once again your spotting the trees but missing the forest.

Circumstance modifiers are subject to GM fiat - in many cases so are DCs. A 3e GM may increase a DC to reflect a higher degree of difficulty for a task, as per the rules - however, this is exactly the kind of GM "control" that a number of of posters suggested was such a problem with earlier editions of D&D.







			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> A Jump check?  Please.  A DC 15 Jump check allows you to take no damage from *the first 10'* of a fall and convert the damage from the next 10' into nonlethal, if you jump down.  This is a table - it's not high enough for falling damage to enter into it.
> 
> If you think it takes a Jump check to get out of bed in the morning, feel free to add one here.  Heck, you'll notice that I made an allowance that it might be a particularly tall table when I answered your question.  Note also that, if for some reason, you require a Jump check to avoid the damage caused from moving from the table to the floor, you should also allow an additional Tumble check - also DC 15 - to negate the damage, as well.



Jump covers more than just avoiding falling damage - it also covers getting from one place to another safely, and it carries consequences for failure other than damage, such as falling prone for failing an untrained check. Adding the chance of falling while jumping from a table in the middle of a melee (which is quite different from falling out of bed) adds to the excitement and the challenge - make it a DC 5 check, such that it's just a formality for most characters but still makes the challenge just a little more difficult, the action a bit more intense.

For me, the rules are a tool to generate that feeling among the players. If the rules work against that, then it's the rules that need to change. If that makes me a power-mad control-freak GM, well, I'll wear that label and not lose any sleep.







			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> For all your comments about how "The rules don't handle this," three separate DMs came up with three nearly identical answers.



I never played 2e, so I couldn't predict how such a discussion might play out. I can for _Castles and Crusades_ however - make a Dex check and maybe a Str check if the CK is so inclined. (Didn't have to crack a book to come up with that one, either.)

You attribute the fact that our answers are simliar to 3e/d20's rules - I attribute it to the fact that we were describing a similar action. What I find amusing is that there was variance at all - for all its vaunted consistency, three different GMs had three different (though similar) rules interpretations for resolving both actions.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 8, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Go back and re-read the MSRD description of Tumble in my earlier post.



Still don't find anything that would say you could use tumble to get over a 4 foot wall using the 3.5 PHB the MSRD and the 3.5 SRD.  It says it reduces falling distances and gets through and around enemies without AOO.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Circumstance modifiers are subject to GM fiat - in many cases so are DCs. A 3e GM may increase a DC to reflect a higher degree of difficulty for a task, as per the rules - however, this is exactly the kind of GM "control" that a number of of posters suggested was such a problem with earlier editions of D&D.



It's not DM fiat I have a problem with, it is the AMOUNT of it.  If 1/100 times you have to make up a rule and 9/100 times you have room to "wiggle" a bit where the DC of something would be up to the DM, but likely within 2 or 4, and you are still using the same RULE, then that means 90% of the time, you are using rules that you know well because of how often they come up.  It means players likely know the rules without having to ask you.  It means you can quickly adjudicate them and move on.

On the other hand, in 2nd edition there was no rules at all for grappling.  Everytime you suggested "I grab him", it was a grab bag to see what rule the DM came up with.  Opposed attack rolls?  Opposed strength check?  Dex checks?  Opposed attack rolls modified by your bend bar rolls?  What about opposed Nonweapon Proficiency checks in some type of grappling NWP?  All of these seem reasonable to me based on the rules of that game.  Each one you choose opens the game up to an arguement from every player at the table who thinks that new rule is stupid or allows some really unrealistic things to happen(mages consistantly beat low dex fighters because if it is an opposed dex check, for instance).  Will your DM remember the ruling next time?  If they do, will they rule that since this is a HALFLING, he gets to use his dex instead of his strength?  No idea, I can't predict it, so I can't be assured that I have a good chance of succeeding.  So, I'd prefer just to attack normally.  I know what that will do.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Jump covers more than just avoiding falling damage - it also covers getting from one place to another safely, and it carries consequences for failure other than damage, such as falling prone for failing an untrained check. Adding the chance of falling while jumping from a table in the middle of a melee (which is quite different from falling out of bed) adds to the excitement and the challenge - make it a DC 5 check, such that it's just a formality for most characters but still makes the challenge just a little more difficult, the action a bit more intense.



I don't find that in the jump description, actually.  At least in the 3.5 Edition PHB.  I see the skill is used for jumping on to things, over things and down from things.  However, I see that it makes the 1st 10 feet of the jump nonlethal damage.  If it's less than that, it doesn't do damage, no reason to roll.

Don't see any chance to fall over when jumping down from a table.  You COULD go beyond the rules, but what does it prove?

It reminds me of the foreward in Combat and Tactics in 2nd Edition.  It was talking about the lack of a critical miss chart and why they chose not to put one in there.  The game designer commented that although some people liked the fact that there was a chance to drop your weapon or hit your party members with each swing, the fact that you gained more attacks per round as you went up levels meant that the higher level you got, the MORE chance there was to fumble.  Plus, a natural 1 was a 5% chance to fail horribly each time you swung a sword.  This didn't seem right unless they made the percentage so low as to be nearly insignifcant.  Also, if the percent chance is so insignificant why bother rolling an extra set of dice on every attack roll for the whole game on the off chance that it happens.  It eats up game time for no noticeable benefit.

So, jumping down from a table has an insignificant chance of falling over, so no rules for it in the game.  No rules for it in the game, no reason to needlessly complicate the game by coming up with them.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I never played 2e, so I couldn't predict how such a discussion might play out.




There's the problem! Now I might be wrong, but isn't this thread about how it is different from 2nd Edition in terms of player/dm balance (as the only point of reference I can think of)? If you havn't played an older version of D&D then how can you make an informed statement on the relative power of players versus the DM (again without some kind of reference)? It is much more consistant than it used to be. Consistant = Players having an idea that they'll have a Tumble check between 15-20 instead of the DM pulling who knows what random ruling out of his hat, from "you automatically succeed" to "if I roll a 1 on this d20 you succeed." The player, before, could never be sure which it would be. Even if they tried the same thing twice in the same session sometimes!


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 8, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's up to the player. If they want to hop it, it's a Jump check. DC 16 with a running start, DC 32 from a standing position.




"Dude, are you kidding me?  It's a 5' wall.  You can easily prop yourself over that.  I used to do that all the time playing indoor soccer and subbing on and off.  Just hop over the boards.  And I don't have a +22 Jump check."

Hmm.  You can still get the same reaction to a DM using 3E's rules as you did back in 2e.


----------



## Henry (Sep 8, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> If you haven't played an older version of D&D then how can you make an informed statement on the relative power of players versus the DM (again without some kind of reference)?




Shaman is an OD&D and first edition veteran who skipped 2nd edition entirely, if I recall correctly. There were a LOT of former players coming back to D&D in 2000 in this same boat. (Me, I was a sucker for every edition since 1981, myself. )


----------



## Henry (Sep 8, 2005)

FireLance said:
			
		

> From that perspective, the DM's power has been eroded. He still has all the authority he needs to do his job - he can make up rules on the fly, he can create a setting and populate it with NPCs, he can set house rules, change the monsters, make a snap decision to keep the game going, run low-magic campaigns, disallow anything he feels to be unsuitable for his campaign, etc. However, what he cannot do is to avoid being judged by his players, and they have a much better basis of doing so because of the clearer, more consistent rules, and forums such as ENWorld which let them know that other DMs are doing it differently. And if he doesn't measure up, he's out of a job.




In my case, I've ALWAYS had the occasional player wanting to twist the rules -- the guy who wanted to be a dark elf so he could brew sleep poison, the guy who tried to convince me that the Oriental Adventures martial arts Tae Kwan Do style (1st ed. AD&D) would allow him to break bones and cause penalties, the lady who wanted to use Spot instead of search because "that's the way her old group did it" -- but what we DMs don't have is a rule that says _"If the Archmage PrC combined with the spellcasting prodigy Feat and a +5 headband of intellect allows save DC's in the 40's, the DM has the authority to refuse to allow one or more parts of it in his game."_

Now, people frequently quote "Rule 0", but does it say that REALLY? Step 0 says, "Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules." This is only in regards to creating a character, and by inference you can say it applies to in-game rules and situations that crop up after character creation, but some players may be willing to argue that. 

I KNOW I have the authority, and my current players KNOW that I have this authority, but try telling that to CRPG players raised on Diablo, Warcraft, or KOTOR alone. (I love all three of those games and have played them fanatically in the past, so it's not "game hate" it's taking the conventions of that genre and assuming they must apply in another that bugs me). 



> To answer an earlier point raised by Henry, I don't think any open-ended rules set can ever do without a DM because it is practically impossible to be comprehensive enough to cover everything that creative players can come up with.




I am afraid that if D&D continues in this path, WotC will find that the answer to this problem is, _"then get rid of the DM and the open-ended ruleset."_ It's the biggest hindrance left in making RPG's more universally appealing.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 8, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> I KNOW I have the authority, and my current players KNOW that I have this authority




Which is presicely why you have that authority.  The players give it to you.  If you take some other people who won't give you that level of authority - looking to the rulebooks instead - you aren't going to have it.  Group dynamics and all that.


----------



## Henry (Sep 8, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Which is presicely why you have that authority.  The players give it to you.  If you take some other people who won't give you that level of authority - looking to the rulebooks instead - you aren't going to have it.  Group dynamics and all that.




Which is why I am concerned for the future of new DMs as well as the future of the game as a whole, and why I quote Mearls in the first place.

In truth, I'm not sure why I'm concerned; In 40 or 50 years' time, the state of the game will be irrelevant to me, anyway.


----------



## Sholari (Sep 8, 2005)

The five failures of WOTC...

1) Failure to adequately support DMs with tools and time-saving material with an edition that is quite a bit more difficult to administer.  When you neglect your DMs eventually you will have less people running the game.  Declining DM base will lead to an eventual decline in player base.  My recommendation is to provide a better infrastructure through a lower cost channel, but make sure it is quality material.  The WOTC website just doesn't cut it.

2) Failure to make the system accessible to next generation of players and actively recruit new players into the game.  Eventually new forms of enterainment such as computer games and online games will continue to eat away at the D&D market.  The new D&D Basic Set has not been very successful in bringing new players into the business.

3) Failure be leader in supporting group formation, retail channels, and other RPG community infrastructure.  Facilitating game formation and purchase decision making will also hinder the market, especially new gamers entering the market.

4) Failure to translate the intellectucal capital of table top games to the computer medium.  The decision to move from Black Isle Studios to Infogrames was a really bad one.  Black Isle understood gaming and how to successfully design a roleplaying game for the computer.  A lot of the stuff that Infogrames has been in charge of is really subpar.

5) Failure to understand relationship marketing and how it could be effectively used as a tool for bringing new gamers into the business.  The lifetime value of the average gamer is enormous and yet the opportunity to leverage relationship marketing at a tool has been largely ignored.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 8, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Actually, it is addressed by the uneven terrain provision in the rules, as I believe *Majoru Oakheart* noted earlier, so yes, changing heights can affect the ability to Tumble.Once again your spotting the trees but missing the forest.




Actually, I think he's referring to this table:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Surface Is . . . 	DC Modifier
> Lightly obstructed (scree, light rubble, shallow bog1, undergrowth) 	+2
> Severely obstructed (natural cavern floor, dense rubble, dense undergrowth) 	+5
> Lightly slippery (wet floor) 	+2
> ...




I don't see an entry for "uneven terrain."  Accordingly, you might decide that it counts as "Lightly Obstructed," or perhaps "Sloped or Angled," which ... Shock and amazement on my part ... both carry a modifier of +2 to the DC.

In other words, it's exactly in line with my earlier suggestion that Tumbling off of a table might warrant a +2 DM's friend circumstance modifier to the DC.

But again, and to turn your own words back on you, "you're missing the forest for the trees."

We're arguing about whether the DC is 15 or 17 - which, for most characters, is *not a material difference*.  For the most part, either a character has no ranks in Tumble - in which case, they can't do this at all - or they've devoted a number of skill points to it, in which case the 2 point move isn't going to change the probability of success by a lot.

And we're still using the same mechanic, the same skill, and roughly the same modifiers.

Repeat that with me: We're arguing about whether the Tumble DC is 15 or 17 (or 25 or 27, depending on the route chosen).  We're not arguing about whether the PC can do it at all, what mechanic we should use, what ability score should modify this thing, etc.  We're 98% in agreement about who can do this and how hard this should be to do (a reasonably trained and naturally-gifted 1st-level character should be able to pull it off every time when he's under no particular pressure and ~50% of the time in combat).  We are arguing minutiae.

This is an important distinction between 3E and every other edition of D&D.



> Jump covers more than just avoiding falling damage - it also covers getting from one place to another safely, and it carries consequences for failure other than damage, such as falling prone for failing an untrained check.




It covers *jumping* from one place to another safely, and it carries consquences for *failed checks and some successful ones* like falling prone.

What's the DC to hop down from a table without falling?  The nearest thing the rules have to say about this is the DC 15 check to jump down 10' or more.  If it's less than 10', then there's no check required in the rules, because there's nothing that happens in the rules at less than 10'.  At 10' or more, a failed check or a successful untrained check which doesn't beat DC 20 results in you landing prone.

Other than that, why add to the rules burden?



> Adding the chance of falling while jumping from a table in the middle of a melee (which is quite different from falling out of bed)




Slight difference - I mentioned getting out of bed in the morning.  Beds are, occasionally, the same height as tables.  



> adds to the excitement and the challenge - make it a DC 5 check, such that it's just a formality for most characters but still makes the challenge just a little more difficult, the action a bit more intense.




Does it make it more intense?  It makes it so that anyone with an armor check penalty in excess of their strength fails more than 50% of the time when hopping down from a table and lands on their butt.



> I can for _Castles and Crusades_ however - make a Dex check and maybe a Str check if the CK is so inclined. (Didn't have to crack a book to come up with that one, either.)




And what's the TN?



> You attribute the fact that our answers are simliar to 3e/d20's rules - I attribute it to the fact that we were describing a similar action.




And I say that you're wrong, and we're, for nearly all intents and purposes, providing identical answers.

You would not have such agreement under any other version of the D&D rules.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 8, 2005)

Sholari said:
			
		

> 4) Failure to translate the intellectucal capital of table top games to the computer medium.  The decision to move from Black Isle Studios to Infogrames was a really bad one.  Black Isle understood gaming and how to successfully design a roleplaying game for the computer.  A lot of the stuff that Infogrames has been in charge of is really subpar.




Black Isle and Interplay are also very, very bankrupt - and were becoming so *before* D&D was handed over to Infogrames.

Your summary shows a surprising lack of knowledge about what happened in and around that time period.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 8, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Shaman is an OD&D and first edition veteran who skipped 2nd edition entirely, if I recall correctly. There were a LOT of former players coming back to D&D in 2000 in this same boat. (Me, I was a sucker for every edition since 1981, myself. )




Thanks for the clarification. I hear there are a lot of people like that, but the phenominon pretty much skipped everyone I knew, strangely enough. That puzzles me, though, since it was even more open ended back then. I started in 1st Edition, but man, I could make up rules on the fly with the best of 'em. It was required back then to be a good DM. Now, not so much. Which, I think is the biggest difference of all.


----------



## Sholari (Sep 8, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Black Isle and Interplay are also very, very bankrupt - and were becoming so *before* D&D was handed over to Infogrames.
> 
> Your summary shows a surprising lack of knowledge about what happened in and around that time period.




I don't think I commented on their financial condition, just the products they put out.  Some of the stuff that Bioware has been putting out is also good.  However, that doesn't get away from the fact Infogrames puts out really poor quality D&D licensed products.


----------



## Henry (Sep 8, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification. I hear there are a lot of people like that, but the phenominon pretty much skipped everyone I knew, strangely enough. That puzzles me, though, since it was even more open ended back then. I started in 1st Edition, but man, I could make up rules on the fly with the best of 'em. It was required back then to be a good DM. Now, not so much. Which, I think is the biggest difference of all.




I'll admit, a lot of 2E turned me off too (the ranger changes, the illusionist simplifications, the gutting of all subraces, the die caps on various spells) and by the same token, there was a lot I liked (the new wizard specialists, the cleric spheres, the oodles of goodies in Complete Fighter's handbook). I just solved it by using a hodgepodge of ALL the rules, 1st and 2nd. 

One thing I love about 3E has been the simplification of mechanics and the fact that most mechanics do follow a pattern that is intuitively deriveable (the saving throws, the 3.5 jump DCs, relative volumes of creatures). However, when there ARE nonintuitive or confusing rules (the new cover rules, the new druid wildshape, etc.) it bugs me to have to haul a rulebook out to use 'em instead of being able to "recreate" them on the fly. (Don't ask me why I find one-quarter, one-half, three-quarters, and nine-tenths more intuitive than half and whole cover, I just do. )


----------



## FireLance (Sep 8, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> I am afraid that if D&D continues in this path, WotC will find that the answer to this problem is, _"then get rid of the DM and the open-ended ruleset."_ It's the biggest hindrance left in making RPG's more universally appealing.



Actually, they already did that and called it D&D Miniatures . Seriously, though - take away the open-ended ruleset and what you have left is a wargame with orcs and wizards. And people who feel constrained by the restrictions of the wargame will add more options into it, and we'll have a roleplaying game again. Or maybe they'll just fall back onto the 3.5e rules in the SRD. They can't take that away from us.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 8, 2005)

Point the first, about there being a lot of rules to look up?

That's in the DM's hands. Obviously if you're using the core alone, there's no more rules than the core to look up. That's still a lot of rules, but you only really need to know the ones that the PC's and NPC's are likely to use. If you're using tentacle demons with improved grab, know grapple. If you're using NPC's, know gear-wealth amounts. And if you are allowing more (knowing that at least WotC has a pretty rigorous process for balance), yeah, it's your job to learn them as much as your players use them. If you don't want to use them, if it's not fun for you to grapple, ditch it. The rules are only there to help you have fun, and if they don't help you have fun, they ain't doin' their job. 

Point the second, about the minutae in Jumping over that wall?

It comes down to how the character gets over the wall. In a game situation, there would be context. If he's hurdling it, Jump check. If he's standing next to it, crawling up it to the other side? Climb check. Any average person can climb over a four foot wall (it's only a DC of 10 -- out of the heat of battle, you can take 10. In the heat of battle, there's not time to, say, look for handholds, so the roll needs to be made.) Most people would have trouble hurdling it (it's a DC of 16, but this is a wall that goes up to you chest). If you're bigger than Medium, you can use the "hop up" DC 10 Jump check.

All that took about 1 minute looking it up in the PHB. And I addressed it exactly as I would have if one of my own players did it. There are rules for this situation, and I used them because when I'm trying to have fun, I don't want to bugger around thinking about what numbers I should assign, compared to what I have assigned, compared to the educational examples given in some manual of how to adjudicate justly.

I want the book to tell me what to do. It did. Assuming my players wanted to have fun and not debate rules with me (which really isn't much fun for most people in the middle of a combat), it makes sense and it acceptable.

If I care to refine it further than that, I have the option. Large-size hop-up? Tumble check? Sure. But I don't need to consider all the options spur of the moment. I just need one that works and makes sense - enough to maintain verisimilitude, not so much that I'm quoting rules and not playing. If it is important enough to know, 

Are there lots o'rules and stuff? Sure. But they are there to serve the game. Creating rules on the fly isn't something that should have to happen very often. It'll happen inevitably, but the basic work should already be done for you, so when you do have to do it, there's hundreds of examples to work from already, to keep it standardized and to make sure that if two different module designers put in four foot walls that they use basically the same rules for it.

Looking up a similar rule is as easy as turning to the index and glancing at some italicized text. I shouldn't have to go through the effort of creating a rule on the spot. What am I paying the developers for, in that case? Creating a rule is more difficult, more time-consuming, and ultimately less satisfactory for me in the middle of play than using a rule. 

Either way, simplicity is something that I do believe is under-vlaued in current D&D.  But it is a trade off for realism.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 8, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Ok, now that I have gotten through your negative history with some DMs, we can get to the core of your argument, which makes little sense.  In one sentence, you let the players tell the story, while in another, you work on the setting and story behind the curtain.  The statements seem to contradict one another.
> 
> Setting and story is the entire purpose for having the role of DM.  There can be no game without those aspects.  The DM provides the direction for the game.  Even if you provide a bare minimum of direction, you are still creating NPCs and developing encounters.  Even the bare esssentials makes a DM more than a referee.
> 
> ...




I can explain how I am a referee easily.  As the DM, I set the stage BEFORE gameplay starts.  I have a pretty good idea of what's where and what the situation is before the players sit down.  Once gameplay starts however, I do not feel I should change rules.  Before and after the game is perfectly acceptable, but, once we've sat down to game, the rules that the players understand to be in effect at the beginning of the session STAY in effect until the end of the session.  Now, if one of those 1% events comes up in my game, unlike a referee for soccer, I do have to make a ruling to keep the game moving.  However, as a group, we've decided on a method for resolution.  Event occurs, players make their arguements, I rule one way or the other, game moves on.  After the session, we can discuss the ruling ad nauseum, but, in the game, getting things moving is more important.  Now, my players trust me enough to know that I'm ONLY going to do this in the 1 in a 100 cases where it needs to be done.

For the other 99 cases, I follow the RAW or any house rules we've agreed to before the session begins.  In that way, nearly all the time, I am purely a referee.  As was mentioned earlier, I have no vested interest in the outcome of any particular action.  Like many others here, I've run into one unbelievable DM's fiat ruling after another.  

Just to recap



> A DM directs the combat, places the monsters, provides a reason for the monsters to be there, acts as the barmaid in the tavern who needs help against a gang of local thugs etc.
> 
> The DM directs the cooperative story and provides every element of that story except the main cast




I agree with almost all of that.  Except the part about DIRECTING a cooperative story.  In my game, the players direct the story, not me.  If I'm directing the story, that means that I no longer am disinterested in the outcome.  If you direct something, you have to direct it TO somewhere.  I couldn't care less how the story comes out.  That's the player's job.  And, if directing a story means that I have to create new rules on the fly, then perhaps my story isn't as good as I think it is.  

Like the example of the undispellable trap.  How dare the players use the abilities of their characters to get around my idea.  Nope, by Gum, they are going to solve my riddle or rot.  No shortcuts for you, peasant!   

I refuse, absolutely refuse, to play in that style of game anymore.  If the DM is incapable of challenging the players without cheating (ie rewriting the rules) then he or she shouldn't be DMing.  

Do DM's have the right to say no?  Absolutely.  As I said, my role as campaign creator occurs between sessions.  That's when you tell your players that they can't play this or that because it doesn't fit into your game.  While running a Scarred Lands campaign, I had a player playing a Forsaken Elf barbarian (long story).  He came to me sometime later and wanted to play a fairly unpronounceable PrC from the BOED, some sort of god touched elven barbarian.  Got all sorts of divine style abilities.  Only one problem though.  The Elven god in SL is dead (sort of).  In my game, he was all dead.  The Elves were dying off because of it.  Allowing this would require major rewriting of established campaign facts, something I wasn't willing to do.  The fact that the elf god was dead was known by all, so, it couldn't be added.  

Now, I have no problems with that and the player, after whining for a while, understood my point as well.  However, what I didn't do was allow him to play the PrC and then turn around and change the rules of the PrC down the road without any input from him.

That's why I consider myself a referee (in the soccer sense).  Watch a soccer game sometime.  Soccer refs have a great deal of latitude regarding the rules.  Is that a foul?  A yellow card?  A red card?  Offside?  The list goes on.  The rules are there to be used, but, each ref interprets the rules slightly differently.  The example of the jumping tumbler above illustrates that perfectly.  At no point in that discussion was someone suggesting that a simple Dex check should replace skill checks.  The exact interpretation of the rules was different, but, it was still the same rules being used.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 8, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I see the [Jump] skill is used for jumping on to things, over things and down from things.  However, I see that it makes the 1st 10 feet of the jump nonlethal damage.  If it's less than that, it doesn't do damage, no reason to roll.
> 
> Don't see any chance to fall over when jumping down from a table.  You COULD go beyond the rules, but what does it prove?





			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> [Jump] covers *jumping* from one place to another safely, and it carries consquences for *failed checks and some successful ones* like falling prone.
> 
> What's the DC to hop down from a table without falling?  The nearest thing the rules have to say about this is the DC 15 check to jump down 10' or more.  If it's less than 10', then there's no check required in the rules, because there's nothing that happens in the rules at less than 10'.  At 10' or more, a failed check or a successful untrained check which doesn't beat DC 20 results in you landing prone.
> 
> Other than that, why add to the rules burden?



Why indeed?

Because IMX gaming complex tasks is more exciting and more interesting than simple ones.

The rules serve the game, and if I can make an encounter more gripping, if I can up the stakes by extending a rule to cover an action not explicitly addressed (or addressed in such a way that it takes away from the action), then that's an easy choice for me. I'm more interested in making action memorable than I am in strictly applying the rules as written where those rules make for a dull game.

In my Modern games, a discovering a booby trap may involve separate Search checks to locate the trip and the device and two or three Demolitions checks to disarm the device - a strict interpretation of the RAW would tend to make it one Search check and one Demolitions check. The DCs vary, the consequences for failure vary, and I tend to add circumstace bonuses and/or reduce DCs for players thinking through and describing exactly what their characters do in handling the device. IMX it takes what could be a routine roll of a die and makes it a significant happening for that player and character.

As I mentioned, the Jump check for hopping over the wall did appear in one of my games. The Tumble off the table scenario was just something I made up to encourage different reactions - I've never actually ajudicated that one in 3e/d20, and simply argued the point to play devil's advocate. I have ruled on it in 1e AD&D - it was a Dex check with a -3 modifier.

I haven't played 1e in something like sixteen years, but I still remember that because I used a consistent system of ability checks to cover things not specifically addressed in 1e rules. The idea that GMs make a different ruling each time is simply foreign to me - different GMs might vary from one another to some degree, but IMX a GM usually had a pretty consistent approach, such that if it varied it was usually for a good reason and set the new standard for future situations of the same kind. The idea that exhaustively detailed rules prevent inconsistency just doesn't jibe with my personal experience of playing pre-3e/d20 - I've never seen more vituperative arguments over rules interpretations as I have with the current game.

To me 3e attempts to solve a problem that I didn't have in the first place, as a player or a GM. I don't think rulebook after rulebook prevent bad GMing and that the idea of "player control" is illusory - from my own experience I don't believe that a dense rules system makes mediocre GMs better.







			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Repeat that with me: We're arguing about whether the Tumble DC is 15 or 17 (or 25 or 27, depending on the route chosen).



No, that's what you're arguing - at this point you're focused on the candlestick while I'm looking at the two faces in the picture, so there's really no point in dragging this out any further.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 8, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I don't expect to fire a ranged weapon through 4 team mates at an enemy and be told that there is a 90% chance to hit my friends, because it is likely at least one of them will move into my shot.  .




Wow.    

I was nodding all the way through " I don't expect to fire a ranged weapon through 4 team mates at an enemy..."   

Then I read the rest of the sentence.    

FWIW I would give 90% cover (+10 AC*) to the target here, with misses being rerolled vs the friends.  However I'd tell the player this* before * they made the shot.  They could then roll it or try something else.

*One of the stupidest things about 3.5 was its elimination of variable cover bonuses.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> This sentiment (and the similar ones about DM's putting so much time and effort into the game that they deserve a better say) is incorrect.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Yes, DM's put more work into their campaigns than players.





My original statement was that the idea that players put equal time and effort into the game was ludicrous (or words to that effect).  You claimed that it was incorrect.  So, the idea that DMs put more time and work into the campaign is wrong.  Yet, two paragraphs down, you contradict yourself.  

I agree that DMing is not a carte blanche permission to "run roughshod over everyone else at the table on some sort of die-infused power trip" .... but if that is what the DM is doing, I would imagine that he is DMing to an empty house.




> The DM does the bigger job because the *want to*. If you don't want to do it, don't. If you do want to do it, well, you aren't entitled to some sort of unlimited authority because of it. The game is not YOUR creation. You need players, too. The game is a group experience. Yes, the DM does more work. But that's because they want to -- and if they like that side of the game, why should it be considered "more work" for them?





Because something is enjoyable, and a hobby, does not mean that there is less work involved.  The term "work" does not mean simply "unpleasant work".

And, yes, I *am* entitled to unlimited authority because I DM (within the context of the game).  That is the condition of my DMing.  Unless you are willing to grant that, you are not welcome at my table.  If I abuse that authority (in your eyes), you are certainly welcome to leave my table.  *It really is that simple.*

I need players to run a game, but that isn't really a problem.  My first game was run the day after Christmas in 1979.  My most recent game was run Tuesday last.  In all that time, no player has ever chosen to leave the table due to abuse of authority.  It has simply been a non-issue.

Right now, my gaming group has nine players.  I was thinking about reducing the size, which has caused a lot of anxiety because no one seems to believe that I should not be entitled to run the game.  I also have another group of six players (different from the nine) trying to convince me to start another side game.  Again, needing players isn't really a problem.

I understand that you (and others) may have encountered DMs who abuse that authority.  Maybe I shouldn't have to say this, but that authority doesn't have to be stated in the rulebooks.  The rulebooks can even state that the DM doesn't have that authority.  THat won't prevent the DM from saying "My way or the highway."  If you find yourself faced with those types of DMs, simply don't play with them.  I've had to walk away from the table as a player too.

BTW, the game is MY creation (in this case, really, because of _extensive_ rules re-writes).  Which brings us to:




> That said, DM's have, AFAIK, all the power in the world should they exercise it. But players are being understandably more cautious now than they ever were in old editions. The simple reason is that the rules are *better* now than they were in older editions, and so they don't *need* as much tinkering and tweaking. Thus, tinkering and tweaking the rules is seen as a vanity, not a nessecity, and players may be reluctant to sign up for something that they may hate just because some guy really likes his own little ruleset.





The current edition has some built-in assumptions that some might find require more than a little tinkering and tweaking.  The basic engine is a good one, but the specifics can cause some problems.  Again, one just has to drop by the House Rules (or even General Rules) forums to see that there are all kinds of people out there whose cranks are not turned by the video-game style of 3.X.

And don't even get me started on the XP system.....


RC


----------



## Belen (Sep 8, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I can explain how I am a referee easily.  As the DM, I set the stage BEFORE gameplay starts.  I have a pretty good idea of what's where and what the situation is before the players sit down.  Once gameplay starts however, I do not feel I should change rules.




Whoa....hold on there.  Please find where anyone advocated changing the rules on the fly during gameplay.  I certainly never supported anything of the sort.  I think you may be letting your bad experiences with some poor DMs color your thinking.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> For the other 99 cases, I follow the RAW or any house rules we've agreed to before the session begins.  In that way, nearly all the time, I am purely a referee.  As was mentioned earlier, I have no vested interest in the outcome of any particular action.  Like many others here, I've run into one unbelievable DM's fiat ruling after another.




N0.  You have run into poor DMs.  The problem here remains that a DM who wants to power trip can do so in 3e.  The rules are not going to stop any DM bent on having their way.

A good DM is always vested in the outcome of any particular action.  A good DM wants the players to succeed.  He may not want them to run through a cake encounter, but he does want them to succeed.  The DMs you describe want the players to fail.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I agree with almost all of that.  Except the part about DIRECTING a cooperative story.  In my game, the players direct the story, not me.  If I'm directing the story, that means that I no longer am disinterested in the outcome.  If you direct something, you have to direct it TO somewhere.  I couldn't care less how the story comes out.  That's the player's job.  And, if directing a story means that I have to create new rules on the fly, then perhaps my story isn't as good as I think it is.




It is directing.  Or do you never throw out a plot hook or create encounters for the characters.  If players direct things then I fully expect them to look at you and say "Hey, DM, we want to fight a Troll.  Hurry up."  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Like the example of the undispellable trap.  How dare the players use the abilities of their characters to get around my idea.  Nope, by Gum, they are going to solve my riddle or rot.  No shortcuts for you, peasant!




I can create an unbeatable trap in 3.5 and do it via the RAW.  You are describing a bad DM regardless of edition or system.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Do DM's have the right to say no?  Absolutely.  As I said, my role as campaign creator occurs between sessions.  That's when you tell your players that they can't play this or that because it doesn't fit into your game.




So you are saying that it is ok to be arbitrary and have total control as long as it does not happen during gameplay?  

Again, you are confusing your experience with bad DMs and my argument that DMs need more support from on high.  There are entirely too many players who believe that they can play whatever they want whether the DM makes the call in or out of play.  And Wizards does seem to supoort this notion.  The connotation of "options" in 3e means "requirement" in the eyes of a lot of folks, most especially those who have only played 3e.

WOTC needs to say that a DM has control over the style, power, and available options in their game and that saying "no" does not violate the rules.  The players are not entitled to every option released for the game.  They also need clear instructions on how a DM can modify the rules to suit their world or style of play.  These instructions would go a long way to providing consistency among house rules.

Right now, 3e is a player-friendly game and decidely neutral (if not hostile) with regards to the DM.


----------



## jasper (Sep 8, 2005)

Henry has the right of it. And what happens when the rules are not specific K M? Aka astral projection mining 
KM you making our point. It took you 1 minute to look the rule up in the core rules. Now if the dm must allow x splat books which would or may modify the tumble/jump check how long would you allow the dm to stop the game to determine if Piratecat’s, Ninja half chipmunk with kung fu grip and GI Joe prestige class pc can do it? When can the dm just say I limiting the rule books to these and I do not care if Diaglo has just spend $3200 on the “Super Thick Munchkin and Dirty Tricks for Dwarves”?


----------



## Henry (Sep 8, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> FWIW I would give 90% cover (+10 AC*) to the target here, with misses being rerolled vs the friends....
> 
> *One of the stupidest things about 3.5 was its elimination of variable cover bonuses.




S'mon,

*Get 

Out 

Of 

My 

Brain!
*





> As the DM, I set the stage BEFORE gameplay starts....if one of those 1% events comes up in my game, unlike a referee for soccer, I do have to make a ruling to keep the game moving...Event occurs, players make their arguements, I rule one way or the other, game moves on. After the session, we can discuss the ruling ad nauseum, but, in the game, getting things moving is more important. Now, my players trust me enough to know that I'm ONLY going to do this in the 1 in a 100 cases where it needs to be done.




This is the funniest part of these discussions, because I see it every time -- you run your rules discrepancies EXACTLY the way we run ours. The only difference is, I see rules questions and issues more than one time in 100; during the game, it's more like 1 situation in 10. And the need for the DM as a final authority is RIGHT THERE, whether your group came to a consensus or not.

One way we differ, however, is if we find something unbalancing for our game. If an item I allowed previously (PrC, feat, player-created magic item) is becoming too effective, and either making the game boring to the other players with its effectiveness, or the other players are complaining because my ramping up the challenges to take the unbalanced thing into account it hurting them, I will after the session discuss it with them, disallow the thing, and give the player a retroactive option, or compensation for losing the item. But I won't let it continue to upset the other players just because, "well I allowed it and now it's in-game."

I'll also put a blanket stop to PCs killing other PCs, too, because in all cases this leads to less fun for the group -- but it doesn't make me a Bad DM. In my opinion, it makes me a good one. It's also why I recommend every player taking a turn at DM'ing, too -- because I ALWAYS notice problem players put a stop to nonsense after they've had a turn putting down other people's nonsense.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I agree with almost all of that.  Except the part about DIRECTING a cooperative story.  In my game, the players direct the story, not me.  If I'm directing the story, that means that I no longer am disinterested in the outcome.  If you direct something, you have to direct it TO somewhere.  I couldn't care less how the story comes out.  That's the player's job.  And, if directing a story means that I have to create new rules on the fly, then perhaps my story isn't as good as I think it is.
> 
> Like the example of the undispellable trap.  How dare the players use the abilities of their characters to get around my idea.  Nope, by Gum, they are going to solve my riddle or rot.  No shortcuts for you, peasant!
> 
> I refuse, absolutely refuse, to play in that style of game anymore.  If the DM is incapable of challenging the players without cheating (ie rewriting the rules) then he or she shouldn't be DMing.






Actually, I am shocked that you ever accepted that.

When I was in high school, lo these many years ago, I had a friend DM White Plume Mountain.  In one of the encounters, I decided to go around the edge of a cavern wall rather than face an intermittant hot mud geyser.  The DM disallowed it because it wasn't an option in the module.  But, he was new at DMing, and I forgave him.

Another guy, running one of the Slavelords modules, decided that the PCs aged 10 years/round whenever they didn't do what he wanted.  I got up and walked away from the table and never looked back.

OTOH, I don't see the problem with the DM deciding that there's a chance of hitting an allied character when you fire through areas occupied by four of them to hit another target.  The rules, as written, may not support that decision, but common sense does.  To some degree, the DM's job is to ensure that common sense trumps the rules (bucket of snails and great cleave?)....and also to ensure that the rules are used to support the integrity of the game/game world rather than to undermine it.

PCs should not know everything.  They should be surprised by new monsters, new feats, new spells, etc., etc.  The DM should be designing new rules (i.e., "crunch"), and letting the players learn about it in character.  It is *not* "unfair" that a group of NPCs has a feat option that the PCs didn't have (but maybe have now).

The DM has information about the world that the players do not have.  As a result, a decision that the DM makes may *appear* to be simple fiat when it is not.  In a really good DM's campaign, seeming rules inconsistencies are actually clues as to the nature of the world, and/or what's going on in a particular circumstance.


RC


P.S.:  Anyone claiming that previous editions of D&D had as comprehensive and internally consistent of a ruleset as 3.X are simply blowing smoke.  3.X is a better ruleset than previous editions *from a game design standpoint*.  Of course, anyone claiming that the current edition is without ruleset problems is doing likewise.  The forums here (and elsewhere) demonstrate that point amply.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2005)

*Rights vs. Responsibility*

BTW,

All rights (whether they be civic, legal, or social) are balanced by a responsibility to use those rights without abusing them.  We exist in a society (at least, here in North America) that is really big on knowing what our "rights" are without giving a second thought to our "responsibilities".

When the DM was the final arbiter of the game (or where, if it is still the case at your table [as at mine]), the success or failure of a camapign fell pretty squarely on the DM's shoulders.  Bad DM = bad campaign.

Giving more "rights" to players means, as a necessary corollary, that the players have more "responsibility".  Yet we do not see many forum threads suggesting that a poor campaign experience is the players' fault.  Nor do we see many forum threads that suggest that the players be responsible for dealing with problems arising from the actions/styles of particular individuals.

Instead, when it's time to dish out "responsibilities" the same people who were bellying up to the trough for their "rights" are nowhere to be seen.

I realize that this is a broad generalization.  I realize that this isn't true for every group out there (and, thankfully, not for mine).  But it is something I have noted coming up repeatedly in thread after thread.


RC


EDIT:  It occurs to me, too, that this is often the case of of bad DMs, too:  Everything is the players' fault & their stuff is gold.  If you can't handle the responsibilities, you shouldn't ask for the rights.  Peter Parker's Uncle Ben was right, you know:  "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility."  DMs everywhere should take note.


----------



## Thotas (Sep 8, 2005)

Okay, this is an enlightening thread!  

'Cause I've seen a million "edition wars" threads, and never seen the point of them.  The anti-3e people would blame the new version for an evil I remembered from 1979, and the pro-3e people would praise it for solving problems that a lot of people had never had.   

There's evidently been some confusion, at least part of the time, between The Rules and The Use of The Rules.  This thread is basicly discussing rules lawyering, and whether it's a good thing or not.  Ten years ago, if asked what a rules lawyer was, almost all owners of a Player's Handbook would have said something like, "A really obnoxious kind of player that most DMs tolerate, sometimes just barely".  Of course, that would be a tongue-in-cheek exaggeration.  That was only a problem if they were frequently arguementative and overlooked the letter of the RAW if it worked to their benefit.

But things, as we see here, have changed.  Again, I'd say it's not so much the rules as it is the way they're sold and spun.  Which is why it slid under my radar, and I didn't understand edition wars.  I've always known how I wanted to use new material, so I skipped all the ad hype and foreward pages that have encouraged the view created by card and computer games.  

As Henry said, I know I have the authority.  As I said earlier, I've taught some newbies that I have the authority.  When I took a break from running the game and took a player's seat, the newbs asked me questions; I told them the fellow behind the screen now had the authority.

If one of these newer types does hit my table some day?  Raven crowking said it very nicely above, and as he said, it really is that simple.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 8, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> No, that's what you're arguing - at this point you're focused on the candlestick while I'm looking at the two faces in the picture, so there's really no point in dragging this out any further.




I'm sorry - I thought it was *you* who brought up the "wildly divergent" answers provided by three different people as "proof" of the lack of internal consistencty in D&D 3E, in what the rules do or don't cover.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but so far we have three possible interpretations for these "nigh-explicit" rules, as well as differing circumstance bonuses and DCs.
> 
> That's my point.




The two people (other than yourself) who answered picked the same skills and similar DCs for each action.

You picked the same skills and almost exactly the same DCs - but added an extra check not required by the rules in one instance while admitting that you like to break the rules in order to make things "more fun" or "more dramatic."

Your "evidence" does not support the conclusions you want to draw.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 8, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I'm sorry - I thought it was *you* who brought up the "wildly divergent" answers provided by three different people as "proof" of the lack of internal consistencty in D&D 3E, in what the rules do or don't cover.



Good job of selective quoting - I said the answers were NOT wildly divergent, but that they were still arrived at differently.

If you have to mislead to make your point, the point probably isn't worth making.

That everyone used the Jump skill is about what I would have expected - no real surprises there.  However, you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that there's another way of looking at the results - that everyone had to interpret the rules to make the call since the action isn't covered explictly. You believe that this is easier and more consistent in 3e than in other editions or game systems? Fine - I'm not attempting to disabuse anyone of that notion. But it still takes someone making a decision on how to interpret and apply the rules when gaps appear.

Please feel free to continue arguing with yourself from here on.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 8, 2005)

For an example of where I am coming from, check out this thread:  http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=146135&page=1&pp=40


The DM asks a rules question, and then determines that a particular optional class will not work in his campaign.

Needless to say, the community responses are relevant to this discussion.




			
				Synthetik Fish said:
			
		

> Sounds like you like taking out a lot of material because it doesn't make sense to you. That's fair enough. Also, I'd say that a lot of the un-official D&D stuff can be pretty un-balanced anyways. In the end though, I'd say that even if it DOESNT MAKE SENSE, as long as it's balanced it should be allowed. Sure, he's gettign a couple extra dice to a ranged attack when he moves. BUT<<< he always has to move when he does this, and also he's only getting one attack.
> 
> Tell me, do you make any special rules and GIVE players extra stuff if it makes sense to you? Or do you just take it away?





RC


----------



## jasper (Sep 8, 2005)

PCs should not know everything. They should be surprised by new monsters, new feats, new spells, etc., etc. The DM should be designing new rules (i.e., "crunch"), and letting the players learn about it in character. It is not "unfair" that a group of NPCs has a feat option that the PCs didn't have (but maybe have now).
bingo raven. Amen
I had two gms who ran Chill. The 1st was sitting on the second guy's game. He fail some rolls and started rule lawyering about the rules state that above x% he should have been successful. When he didn't get his way he left the table. At the end of the game the new monster had modifiers which affect everyone rolls. 
I have to disagree with Syntethik Fish. Sorry I don't care if it is balanced I have a set amount of time to learn the rules, make the adventure, run the game and get on with the rest of my life. Just because you bought a cool book does not mean I have waste my time learning those new rules.  but then again I been know to walk away from the game as player and dm when I was no longer having fun.


----------



## Belen (Sep 9, 2005)

jasper said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with Syntethik Fish. Sorry I don't care if it is balanced I have a set amount of time to learn the rules, make the adventure, run the game and get on with the rest of my life. Just because you bought a cool book does not mean I have waste my time learning those new rules.  but then again I been know to walk away from the game as player and dm when I was no longer having fun.




I agree, although it has been my experience that few players buy a lot of books.  They mostly get purchased by DMs so that the group has a source of game material.


----------



## Testament (Sep 9, 2005)

jasper said:
			
		

> <SNIP>It is not "unfair" that a group of NPCs has a feat option that the PCs didn't have (but maybe have now).




What the spork?  Assuming you're talking about humanoids, like the PCs, in what way is it NOT unfair that they can do things that the PCs just flat-out cannot access?  Goose and gander law people, what possible justification is there for this sort of nonsense?


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 9, 2005)

Testament said:
			
		

> Assuming you're talking about humanoids, like the PCs, in what way is it NOT unfair that they can do things that the PCs just flat-out cannot access?  Goose and gander law people, what possible justification is there for this sort of nonsense?



It could be sacred learning specific to a deity and its adherents, it could be training offered by an order which the PCs cannot join, it could be the teaching of a specific master whom the PCs have not met, it could be that the feat, talent, or whatever was invented by the NPC and is unique to that being, it could be the result of wild magic...


----------



## Testament (Sep 9, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> It could be sacred learning specific to a deity and its adherents, it could be training offered by an order which the PCs cannot join, it could be the teaching of a specific master whom the PCs have not met




This isn't "flat out cannot access", this is limitations built into the setting.  That is acceptable, assuming it isn't overused (note that if these sorts of guys are the plot villains, that exempts them from the overuse clause).  Although I'd like to know why the PCs can't join said order.



> it could be that the feat, talent, or whatever was invented by the NPC and is unique to that being, it could be the result of wild magic...




This just smells like grudge-monstering to me though.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 9, 2005)

Testament said:
			
		

> This just smells like grudge-monstering to me though.



"Grudge-monstering"? That definitely needs to be added to the game lexicon (if it's not there already)!  

I think it's about giving an opponent a unique ability that separates it from the run-of-the-mill. I agree that any of these techniques are questionable if overused, but I don't think players should expect 100% _quid pro quo_ - besides, it could be that some of the adventurers' abilities are unique in the game-world as well.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 9, 2005)

I have always run that anything the PC's use, the NPC's can use... and vice versa.

 That does not mean that the NPC's cannot introduce a new Feat or ability to the game... every once in a while I find a new Feat that fits well, such as Spear Fighting.. surprising the living daylights out of my players and created a 'thats cool' moment.

 Given the opportunity, those players could seek out that training and take the same Feat.

One comment I would like to add to the mix, I have had good experiences relying on my players to understand how thier characters abilities work. I don't need to know the nit-picky details.
 What I do need to know, before it happens in my game, is how certain synergies can spin out of control. For that, I come here and ghost along the Rules forums. When I see something that will impact my game, such as the recent Entangle thread.. I see how other GM's are handling it and find a fair path to present to my players before it comes an issue.

The only time I have had a problem is one player whose comprehension level creates some confusion when he reads the rulebooks. Unfortunatly he also has some liguidatable cash and tends to buy said rulebooks 
  My other players don't even own the PHB. All my players concede to the flow of the game and I refuse to have indepth rules discussions mid combat.

I agree with a poster upthread who mentioned that DM fiat is sometimes the transparent effect of an unknown quality that the PC's face. An example from a recent game.. I had a Fey strike from within a waterfall at a monk who chased said Fey. The Fey got Sneak Attack damage depsite not flanking nor being completely invisible. Player got upset as it went against the rules as he knew them and could not grasp that *this* Fey had a special attack ability that allowed the action as an exception to how the rules usually worked.
  {to put a bit of perspective on this.. said player complained about being 'taken out of the fight' as he was 'severely wounded'.. at half HPs, still more than the Mage who was engaging in melee combat with a dagger...the character retreated from combat and sucked down potions of healing for the rest of the combat.}



I think the whole power thing comes down to a matter of presentation.
 Players have more power to affect how the game plays out, as thier choices must have impact on the style of the game for them to gain full benefit from thier choice {see 'Arrghh.. my rogue sucks!' thread...and others of its ilk}
 DM's have more power by being able to shape these choices.. and thereby the style.. by allowing/veto's of material.
 Roleplayers of all stripes have more power to provide thier own fluff on top of a relativley stable base of crunch..without recreating the days of 2e where you never wanted to join a new group because of the effort it took to learn all the new house rules.

 In previous version, house rules were required to set the style of play. In 3X, fluff can set the style while still using the same D20 mechanics. The previous 'jump over a 4 foot wall' is a testament to that. 3 posters used the same basic mechanics.. yet described the action in 3 differing ways. 
  There are still loopholes and areas that are not addressed fully.. the reason I ghost at the House Rules forum as well! Much of the 'I need a HR to cover that' ends up being.. 'I will use mechanic X, as it is close to what I need but will call it Leaping Tumble over Wall check instead of a Jump check.'


Anyway.. I am starting to ramble.. and its only been 15 hours on the job. Time for me to go home


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2005)

B.U. and others.  I actually find that I agree with pretty much everything you're saying.  I think there are far more similarities than differences in our approach.  Just to back off a bit from the impartiality thing - It's my goal to be impartial, but, also, there is the realization that 100% impartiality is impossible.  I will always lean one way or the other.  However, I do seriously try to remain impartial.  If a creature's act will result in the death of a PC and I feel that the action is warranted, then it's new character time.  One missed die roll in my last session meant that instead of three unconcious PC's, had I hit, I would have had three dead PC's.  

Just a point about the jumping thing.  I'm not sure where the problem is.  Of course you are going to have interpretations.  That's a given.  The point always has been that the starting point is exactly the same.  At no point is anyone suggesting that a completely different skill or other roll should be made.  That the DC is slightly different is simply a style difference.  Again, to go with the Referee idea, different ref's will make different calls.  Does that mean they are using different rules?  Of course not.  They are all starting from the same place.

On the arrow thing, I would likely do something similar.  However, one thing I would not do is change, or announce new rules AFTER the action was taken and then not allow the player to change his action.  That's a perfect example of what I mean by ad hoc DM'ing that should not be allowed.  While the call may be perfectly realistic, by forcing the player to use new rules the DM has done wrong.  The player announced his action with the understanding that the RAW would be used.  Had he known that new rules would be in effect, he might have chosen a different act.  Whether the call is realistic or not is irrelavent.  It's just a case of the DM saying, "Aha, gotcha, yer screwed.  Aren't I just a nasty boy?"  

Like I said, access to feats or templates or whatever can be done outside of game.  That's perfectly fine in my books.  However, if I suddenly change established rules without warning, then I'm wrong.  It's like the DM who suddenly ups the AC of his BBEG because the PC's are hitting too often.  Or the DM who insists that such and such "just can't happen" because he doesn't like the result.

Here's another example.  In a recent discussion with some other DM's we were talking about a situation in one of the games being run.  The party faced off with a young red dragon.  The dragon was kicking the party's butt when one of the players, a gnomish barbarian (ok that one's a little weird to me too) announced that he wanted to intimidate the dragon.  In 3.5 rules, if successful, the dragon would have some penalties to attack in the next round.  A number of DM's flat out said they would NEVER allow a PC to intimidate a dragon, regardless of the rules.  When I asked why not, I was told that dragons can never be intimidated, because, well, they're dragons.

To me, this is a gross violation of DM's powers.  There is no reason to automatically rule failure.  The barbarian's chances were pretty slim anyway (IIRC, he needed a 19 or a 20), but that's beside the point.  It wouldn't matter to them if the chances were 100%, they would still rule that the PC had zero chance of success.  Most of the justifications were what I would call, story based.  I reject that.  I do not feel it is the DM's role to automatically rule one way or the other.  When the players take an action that has a chance of success, then let the dice decide.  That it's "stupid" is not a reason for DM's fiat.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Sep 9, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Here's another example.  In a recent discussion with some other DM's we were talking about a situation in one of the games being run.  The party faced off with a young red dragon.  The dragon was kicking the party's butt when one of the players, a gnomish barbarian (ok that one's a little weird to me too) announced that he wanted to intimidate the dragon.  In 3.5 rules, if successful, the dragon would have some penalties to attack in the next round.  A number of DM's flat out said they would NEVER allow a PC to intimidate a dragon, regardless of the rules.  When I asked why not, I was told that dragons can never be intimidated, because, well, they're dragons.
> 
> To me, this is a gross violation of DM's powers.




To me, this is a perfect example of when a DM should use common sense to overrule the RAW.  A gnome intimidate a dragon?  That's just silly.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 9, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, this is a gross violation of DM's powers.  There is no reason to automatically rule failure.  The barbarian's chances were pretty slim anyway (IIRC, he needed a 19 or a 20), but that's beside the point.  It wouldn't matter to them if the chances were 100%, they would still rule that the PC had zero chance of success.  Most of the justifications were what I would call, story based.  I reject that.  I do not feel it is the DM's role to automatically rule one way or the other.  When the players take an action that has a chance of success, then let the dice decide.  That it's "stupid" is not a reason for DM's fiat.




If that's not a reason for the DM to rule out an action, I don't know what is? Of course, different DMs might have different POVs of what is stupid and what is not, and it's always a matter of DM and players being on roughly the same wavelength, but you need that for most games to turn out good anyway.

In this example, a player wanted to try something because "the skill works that way, I have it, and it isn't specified if it works on dragons or not". It's about a "fierce" gnome barbarian trying to intimidate a dragon who is busy mopping the floor with him and his companions. You could of course handle it by allowing him that roll, adding a few penalties for simply not being a threat at all, and listen to the player argue that those penalties are unfair and not in the rules. Or you let him roll, don't really care about the result but simply announce it didn't work without giving a real DC, and listen to the player trying to back-calculate any modifiers and the dragon's HD based on that table in the PHB. Or you flat-out tell him no, give him a shorthand of your reasons for it, and leave it at that. It's always up to the group's individual make-up which way works better, of course.

But that's one point for the original topic: with all them options being equally available to players and DMs alike, I've noticed an increase in players expecting, or even demanding to make this-and-that ability check, asked for or not, because it "says so in the rules that I can" and expect to get the results as written in the rules. The endless discussions from OD&D/2E IF some action is possible and how to handle it have been replaced by players trying to overrule the DM with the existing rules. One is as annoying as the other, but in the former case, the DM was still expected to have the last word in a rules decision.

To be honest, if a bunch of roleplayers who have been playing for 15 years and up suddenly get in your face about a rule decision, arguing that it will "unbalance the whole game" and "that you're trying to get something out of it that's simply not built into it", you're close to throwing the whole thing overboard as a DM. I'm not saying it's the standard in D&D players, but I can confirm that too many options, and a ruleset that tries to codify *every* possible action, stifles creative thinking on both sides of the screen, and leads to a lot of frustrating, number-crunching discussions. :\


----------



## S'mon (Sep 9, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> S'mon,
> 
> *Get
> 
> ...




Great Gm minds think alike.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 9, 2005)

Thotas said:
			
		

> But things, as we see here, have changed.




Sometimes ENW does sound like _*The Triumph of the Rules Lawyers*_    

I guess WoTC know what they're doing market-wise in importing a CCG & minis-wargame mentality into a roleplaying game.  Not my cup of tea though - I like minis wargames but they're a completely different kettle of fish from RPGs, with different rewards & satisfactions.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 9, 2005)

Gnomes intimidating dragons - I'd always allow the attempt, but would set a reasonable DC.  if the gnome has just killed two of three dragons & tries Intimidate on the third, the DC could be fairly low, the book DC  10+ dragon hd + dragon WIS mod would probably be about right, maybe even lower.  If the dragon has just killed the gnome's two companions and is about to shred the gnome I'd set it much higher, probably 50 or so for a typical dragon, much higher for a great red wyrm.  So I can see a legendary/epic Intimindator doing it, but not a typical gnome.

Edit: Actually this reminds me strongly of the Matthew McConnaghy Kentucky National Guard Barbarian commander in Reign of Fire.  He looked to have a pretty darn high Intimidate score.  The dragons weren't scared though.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2005)

See, again, this is where I don't agree.  I did mention that the dragon was a young one in the first post, that was the only reason that the PC had any chance at all.  However, there's nothing in the rules that say, "Well, if the critter is really cool, then you shouldn't get to intimidate it."  The only reason for nixing this is because of a DM's notions that a dragon should never be intimidated.  But, then again, why should this be limited to dragons?  How about other creatures with the same chances as a young red dragon?  Should they also be immune to intimidation?  Why not?  By the RAW, they are exactly as susceptable to intimidation as the dragon.  Why the special treatment for the dragon?  If my cleric has the same chances of not being intimidated, does that mean that my character will never be intimidated, no matter what?

That's what I'm talking about when I say I strive to be a referee and not a storyteller.  A story teller makes the sort of judgement that his story cannot be good if a dragon gets intimidated, therefore the dragon cannot be intimidated.  A referee doesn't care about the story.  For a referee, the story comes out afterwards, NEVER before.

To me, the story of the gnome that pulled off intimidating a dragon is FAR cooler than the gnome who got splattered for the temerity of trying to intimidate a dragon.  Granted, 90% of the time, it's the latter story that's going to get told, but, hey, heroic stories are all about the exceptional times aren't they?

As much as I possibly can, I try to divest myself from caring about the outcome of a situation.  If it ends in a TPK, so be it.  If the party cakewalks that encounter I just spent three hours crafting, well, too bad for me.  I'll get them the next time around.  It was mentioned earlier that the DM should be rooting for the players.  Not me.  Not in game.  I roll almost all rolls in the open with all modifiers visible.  About the only thing I hide is a search for traps roll which, really, has to be hidden for mechanical reasons.  My players know that I WILL NOT save them.  EVER.  If the bad guy crits three times in a row, there will be zero fudging.  Nor will the bad guys suddenly gain a point of AC or an extra couple of hit points.  It works both ways.  

And it works for me.

Here's an example from a recent session as to why I do this now.  The party gets escorted to the orcish chieftain who is nearly catatonic.  The only thing that will rouse the orc chief is a suggestion of the party joining forces with the orcs.  The half orc barbarian grabs the chieftain's fallen battle axe and proceeds to declare himself warchief.  Orc chief stands up and gears up for battle.  Half orc barbie wins initiative, lands a crit, obliterates the 5th level orcish barbarian in a single hit with 50ish points of damage.  Becomes warleader.

Now, all of that was exactly by the RAW without the slightest bit of fudging for me.  Three weeks later, the players are still talking about it.  It was a beautiful scene.  Now, the party cakewalked what should have been a very, very difficult fight.  But, why should I care?  The party thought it was fantastic, and, in all honesty, so did I.  

To me, the story of the gnome barbarian pulling off the intimidation of the dragon is a much cooler story than the DM screwing over the players because he doesn't want his pet critter to lose the fight too easily.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 9, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Here's another example.  In a recent discussion with some other DM's we were talking about a situation in one of the games being run.  The party faced off with a young red dragon.  The dragon was kicking the party's butt when one of the players, a gnomish barbarian (ok that one's a little weird to me too) announced that he wanted to intimidate the dragon.  In 3.5 rules, if successful, the dragon would have some penalties to attack in the next round.  A number of DM's flat out said they would NEVER allow a PC to intimidate a dragon, regardless of the rules.  When I asked why not, I was told that dragons can never be intimidated, because, well, they're dragons.
> 
> To me, this is a gross violation of DM's powers.  There is no reason to automatically rule failure.  The barbarian's chances were pretty slim anyway (IIRC, he needed a 19 or a 20), but that's beside the point.  It wouldn't matter to them if the chances were 100%, they would still rule that the PC had zero chance of success.  Most of the justifications were what I would call, story based.  I reject that.  I do not feel it is the DM's role to automatically rule one way or the other.  When the players take an action that has a chance of success, then let the dice decide.  That it's "stupid" is not a reason for DM's fiat.



This example, I think, goes to the core of what this discussion is about. The mindset that if it is in the rules that it should be allowed. 

Personally, I would very rarely allow a Dragon to be intimidated, especially in the situation above. If the Dragon were losing the fight, then maybe there is a chance to intimidate him, but with the dragon winning, there just is no way that it will happen, regardless of who is attempting it. The fact that the character attempting to intimidate the dragon is a Gnome, would just give it a negative modifier (or raise the DC, which amounts to the same thing). 

Since Dragons tend to be the most powerful and dangerous monsters in most settings, and being intelligent as well, I would personally rule that attempting to intimidate them would be an ABsurd maneuver at the very least (Absurd would equate having a DC of at least 40, possibly higher for older dragons). These are creatures that know that they are baddest of the bad, thus they would not be open to intimidation very often.

In the way that I view things, GMs have several duties and responsibilities. I listed some of these in the GMing section of the HARP rulebook. Here is a partial list:

*Know the rules -* or at least know where to find them. In HARP, this isn't difficult as not only does it provide the basic rules and resolution methods, but also tells how to use them when something unexpected comes along.
*The Rules are not set in stone -* In other words, if there is a rule that the GM disagrees with, feel free to change it, and yes, it says to let the players know when the GM has changed a rule so that they are not playing under false assumptions.
*Don't change the rules in the middle of a session -* unless a rule is really disruptive to the game, wait until afterwards, and then let players know you are changing it. It also says to be wary of any rule changes that might require players to rework their characters.
*Be consistent -* Having the same action work multiple ways in the same session is a bad thing, it will cause players to lose faith in the GM. More enjoyment is found (normally) in having the knowledge that things will work in a consistent manner.
*Be flexible -* Nothing will ever go according to plan when players are involved. Deal with it and move on.
*There is always a chance -* This one is not actually listed in the book because it is built into the HARP system itself, but I figure it deserves mention here. No matter what the players want to try, there should always be a chance of success. This chance could be extremely slim (like requiring that two 20's be rolled in a row), but it should always be there given reasonable circumstances.

To put it another way, it is the GM's job to make sure that the campaign setting runs in a smooth, consistent manner. If the rules being used for the game do not allow this, then he needs to change those rules, but he also needs to inform players of any changes as well. Disallowing something (a class or Feat or PrC) that does not fit in with his vision of the campaign setting is not only the right of a GM, but it is also his duty.

This is not to say that a player cannot ask for something to be allowed. Of course they can, but they should not EXPECT it just because it is in the rules. A good GM will work WITH his players to see if there might be some way to allow it, but this does not mean that he will or should allow it just because it comes in an official book.

With the sheer number of classes, feats, and PrCs, it is impossible to gauge how every single one will interact with one another in every possible combination. Some combinations will be severely broken (IIRC, the Hulking Hurler?), even from "official" sources. The GM has the responsibility to make sure that nothing like that gets into his game as it will quite likely ruin the game for those without the uber-combo.

On the topic of GM Fiat, it has to be remembered that the GM knows a lot more about what is going on in the setting than the players do. Part of the game is the players exploring and finding out. 

For example, in one game, the players were ambushed by Kobolds who were using Dwarven weapons, and a couple even had Dwarven armor. The players asked what they were doing with those. My response was "You don't know, now do you? How are you gonna find out?"
I gave the same response later when they discovered that they were being followed by a kobold in a town where they themselves had trouble entering (entrance to the town was tightly controlled).

I used these events as plot hooks, to give the players some goals to accomplish. There were things that went against the normal rules, but I had the reasons why all worked out in advance, and it became part of the goals of the group to find out what was going on.

In other words, what you might have called "GM Fiat" was actually something planned and setup to give the party a mystery to look into.


----------



## jasper (Sep 9, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper
<SNIP>It is not "unfair" that a group of NPCs has a feat option that the PCs didn't have (but maybe have now).


What the spork? Assuming you're talking about humanoids, like the PCs, in what way is it NOT unfair that they can do things that the PCs just flat-out cannot access? Goose and gander law people, what possible justification is there for this sort of nonsense? I see no goose and gander law in the books please give page cite? Ok I use the same law most of time.

Okay Testament. Ex I create a new race of Amazons in the “land of the lost” valley which have the tickle armpit attack feat.  Will save dc 15 + cha of Amazon. The first couple of encounters the party loses it due this new tactic. Now if they want to say in the area for game year learning the feat they could take at the next time they get a feat. 

Of course I old school which means the monsters (which include npcs) may have special abilities that the PCs do not and will not have just to make an interesting encounter.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 9, 2005)

Testament said:
			
		

> jasper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Um, let's see:

1)  That wasn't jasper you were quoting.  It was me.

2)  I imagine that your game world doesn't have secret cults with secret knowledge, but mine does.  Mine also has knowledge that once existed, but is now lost.  Finally, powerful patrons can grant abilities because they choose to do so; not all PCs meet the requirements for all of these patrons.

3)  In many cases, once they become aware of options, PCs can use them.  To me, information is a major reward, because it can increase PC options.

4)  What happens when you come across a cool new feat that you want to use?  Decide not to because the players didn't have access to it?

5)  Spell research means that NPC wizards can have new spells.

6)  I also allow PCs to do things that NPCs can't automatically do.  Such as the results of PC spell research, new PC magic items, and (coming up) new PC feats and technology.  I have a setup where you can gain a free social feat by being a member of a group.  PCs can form such a group and easily exclude NPCs.

Etc., etc.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 9, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I think it's about giving an opponent a unique ability that separates it from the run-of-the-mill. I agree that any of these techniques are questionable if overused, but I don't think players should expect 100% _quid pro quo_ - besides, it could be that some of the adventurers' abilities are unique in the game-world as well.






Exactly.  It's also about the common-sense idea that meaningful choices create not only new options but new limitations as well.  I.e., taking benefit A or B becomes a far more important choice if you know that the benefits in question are mutually exclusive.

Most of the tricks of good DMing are the same things as the flaws of bad DMing.  The individual DM's goal in applying those tricks, and skill in meeting that goal, is what seperates one from the other.

RC


----------



## Quasqueton (Sep 9, 2005)

> Originally Posted by Hussar
> Here's another example. In a recent discussion with some other DM's we were talking about a situation in one of the games being run. The party faced off with a young red dragon. The dragon was kicking the party's butt when one of the players, a gnomish barbarian (ok that one's a little weird to me too) announced that he wanted to intimidate the dragon. In 3.5 rules, if successful, the dragon would have some penalties to attack in the next round. A number of DM's flat out said they would NEVER allow a PC to intimidate a dragon, regardless of the rules. When I asked why not, I was told that dragons can never be intimidated, because, well, they're dragons.
> 
> To me, this is a gross violation of DM's powers. There is no reason to automatically rule failure. The barbarian's chances were pretty slim anyway (IIRC, he needed a 19 or a 20), but that's beside the point. It wouldn't matter to them if the chances were 100%, they would still rule that the PC had zero chance of success. Most of the justifications were what I would call, story based. I reject that. I do not feel it is the DM's role to automatically rule one way or the other. When the players take an action that has a chance of success, then let the dice decide. That it's "stupid" is not a reason for DM's fiat.





Assuming a level 7 gnome barbarian (as the young red dragon is CR7):

gnome barbarian 7: 10 ranks Intimidate, probably no Charisma bonus = +10, but is Small vs. dragon Large (-8) comes to = +2 (3-22)

young red dragon: 13HD, +1 Wisdom modifier = +14 (15-34) or +18 (19-38)*

* I could even see giving the dragon a +2 or +4 bonus (using the completely legitimate "DM's friend") because he was winning the battle they were currently engaged in. Just winning = +2, really "kicking the party's butt" = +4.

If the DM had just gone by the RAW, the dragon would have essestially been immune to the gnome barbarian's Intimidate anyway. And even if the barbarian did roll well enough (19 or 20) *and* the dragon roll bad enough (1 or 2), all it does is give the dragon a -2 on attacks, checks, and saves for *1 round*. Not a big thing.

So, by the rules, dragons *are* difficult to intimidate, without the DM waving his hand and saying "can't be done".

I also dislike when a DM stops/overrules a legitimate tactic or action or result just because. I don't do it as a DM.

Those DMs who are saying you wouldn't allow a dragon to be intimidated: would you allow them to be killed? "Yeah, but he was never shaken [-2 on rolls] for a single round."

Quasqueton


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 9, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> This example, I think, goes to the core of what this discussion is about. The mindset that if it is in the rules that it should be allowed.




I think allowing the rules to work as written is a good thing.


----------



## Quasqueton (Sep 9, 2005)

> I think allowing the rules to work as written is a good thing.



Quoted for agreement.

Quasqueton


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 9, 2005)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> I think allowing the rules to work as written is a good thing.



Even when those rules go against common sense and setting consistency? Like having a 3' tall Gnome intimidate an 8' or 9' tall dragon (who was whupping the PCs collective butts)?

Dragon's Thoughts - "I am wiping the floor with them and this tiny thing is growling at me and expecting me to be scared of it? Cause it is waving a axe? ROFLMAO!!"


----------



## Quasqueton (Sep 9, 2005)

Rasyr, you should read the list of "duties and responsibilities" you gave. Especially:

Know the rules - actually take a look at the Demoralize Opponent rule in the Intimidate skill description.

Don't change the rules in the middle of a session - especially in the middle of a battle.

Be flexible - Dragon thinks, "By Tiamat! That little thing nearly cut my forleg off!"

There is always a chance - Again, read the Intimidate rule.

Quasqueton


----------



## Hussar (Sep 9, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Even when those rules go against common sense and setting consistency? Like having a 3' tall Gnome intimidate an 8' or 9' tall dragon (who was whupping the PCs collective butts)?
> 
> Dragon's Thoughts - "I am wiping the floor with them and this tiny thing is growling at me and expecting me to be scared of it? Cause it is waving a axe? ROFLMAO!!"




Sure, and, by the rules, it's virtually impossible anyway.  But, then again, once in a million chances work 100% of the time.   

However, there is no mechanical reason for changing the rules.  There is only your opinion that a dragon cannot be intimidated.  Does that mean that any CR 7 or better creature can no longer be intimidated?  Does that mean that once my PC hits 7th level, I am immune as well?  I'm somewhat curious as to how many DM's would rule in favour of the PC's in this way.  "Well, the bad guy is doing something pretty off the wall, so, nope, it has no chance of success, screw the RAW."  is an opinion I highly doubt many DM's would take.

Now, there are times when mechanics fail.  I don't deny that.  The "Hulking Hurler" is a perfect example of that.  Another is a character I made in a pick up game recently.  An 8th level halfling fighter with lots of mounted combat feats, power attack and a dog to ride.  Small enough to go into dungeons.  There's nothing in the RAW that prevents a lance from being used two handed which makes Spring attack plus power attack a devastating combo.  I was pumping out well over 50 points of damage on a single attack minimum and easily topping 60.  Tack on improved critical and there was a chance my damage would reach triple digits.  After the game, we talked about it and came up with a restriction to nerf that in the future (power attack does not get included in spring attack damage - a 4 point power attack becomes 8 when used two handed then 24 with spring attack.  That's a pretty big bonus for a -4 to hit.) .  And that's no problem.  There was a problem that existed, it was identified and we corrected it.  I guess that would be one of the 1% issues that was brough up earlier.

However, as far as intimidating a dragon goes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the RAW.  The only problem is in people's preconceptions of dragons.  I get very, very uptight when people start making exceptions to the rules that only go against the players.  Since I  would not make this exception in favour of a player, as a DM, I will not make the exception in favour of my critter.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 9, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Even when those rules go against common sense and setting consistency? Like having a 3' tall Gnome intimidate an 8' or 9' tall dragon (who was whupping the PCs collective butts)?




I used to think exactly the same way. Until I realized that we're talking about a grey-skinned big-nosed creature the size of my kid who has the innate ability to cast magical illusions.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 9, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OTOH, I don't see the problem with the DM deciding that there's a chance of hitting an allied character when you fire through areas occupied by four of them to hit another target.  The rules, as written, may not support that decision, but common sense does.  To some degree, the DM's job is to ensure that common sense trumps the rules (bucket of snails and great cleave?)....and also to ensure that the rules are used to support the integrity of the game/game world rather than to undermine it.



And this is my point.  Each DM I've seen change the rules hasn't done it to try to kill the players or to exercize power over the game.  They've done it for their OWN sense of "common sense".

In this case the rule in the book is that you add +4 to the enemies AC since you are aiming so far away from your friends (since you wouldn't dare risk hitting them) that it becomes very difficult to hit your foe.  I can see using the optional rule in the book to increase the amount of AC the enemy gets due to the amount of cover.  That's supported withing the spirit of the rules.  The point is that the character is basically saying "I take the shot only at the moment I KNOW there is no chance of hitting my friends, even if it means missing my target".

Here's another secret about this rule.  The chance to hit your friends was removed because it slowed down gameplay too much as you had to roll extra dice(or figure out a math equation) everytime you fire through them (which happens nearly EVERY combat for us).  It is also no fun to hit your friends.  I know that critical fumble rules nearly ruined our game as everytime someone would roll a fumble the game would become a role playing nightmare as the character who was hit would demand that the character who "tried to kill" him was kicked out of the party or worse, killed themselves.

But DMs who don't understand WHY the rules are the way they are could say "common sense says you should hit your friends, so I'm changing the rules to that".  Each DM thought the original rule was "stupid" and rather than seek to understand WHY the rule was written as it was



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> PCs should not know everything.  They should be surprised by new monsters, new feats, new spells, etc., etc.  The DM should be designing new rules (i.e., "crunch"), and letting the players learn about it in character.  It is *not* "unfair" that a group of NPCs has a feat option that the PCs didn't have (but maybe have now).



I agree completely.  It's the "laws" of physics that should be standard and shouldn't change arbitrarily.  There are always enemies you haven't heard of, spells someone else invented, new technique and fighting styles.  On the other hand, I loathe to make these up due to the time it takes and the chance of introducing overpowered rules into the game.  3e D&D is a lot more complicated than people think it is.  Changing "one small thing" that you figured would have no effect at all can ruin an entire game(like the time our DM removed flatfootedness from the game as it was "stupid").



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The DM has information about the world that the players do not have.  As a result, a decision that the DM makes may *appear* to be simple fiat when it is not.  In a really good DM's campaign, seeming rules inconsistencies are actually clues as to the nature of the world, and/or what's going on in a particular circumstance.



I agree as well.  I have had to tell my PCs a couple of times (that are used to my strict adherance to the rules) "don't worry, he can do it".  When they said "he just moved, full attacked, then moved again...spring attack only lets you make one attack, you know?"  Other times, it's me being forgetful and I say "you're right, he only hits you once then".  I appreciate that my players can keep me fair as much as I keep them fair.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Anyone claiming that previous editions of D&D had as comprehensive and internally consistent of a ruleset as 3.X are simply blowing smoke.  3.X is a better ruleset than previous editions *from a game design standpoint*.  Of course, anyone claiming that the current edition is without ruleset problems is doing likewise.



It HAS problems, but most of them are due to poor wording by the authors or people misinterpreting rules with what they THINK is common sense.  It also has flaws in a couple of situations that don't come up very often unless you actually TRY to break it.  I'm aware of most of them and have plugged all of them I'm aware of in my game.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 9, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, the story of the gnome that pulled off intimidating a dragon is FAR cooler than the gnome who got splattered for the temerity of trying to intimidate a dragon.




I agree with this 100% and if it's what the player wants I will work to facilitate it.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 9, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Sure, and, by the rules, it's virtually impossible anyway.  But, then again, once in a million chances work 100% of the time.
> 
> However, there is no mechanical reason for changing the rules.  There is only your opinion that a dragon cannot be intimidated.  Does that mean that any CR 7 or better creature can no longer be intimidated?  Does that mean that once my PC hits 7th level, I am immune as well?  I'm somewhat curious as to how many DM's would rule in favour of the PC's in this way.  "Well, the bad guy is doing something pretty off the wall, so, nope, it has no chance of success, screw the RAW."  is an opinion I highly doubt many DM's would take.
> 
> ...





No, it doesn't mean that *any* CR7 creature from this moment cannot be intimidated anymore. It just means that some DMs adjudicate the chance of that gnome successfully intimidating *this* dragon, even a young one, while it's busy chomping on his comrades, as Zero without adding up the numbers and modifiers. To take up Quasqueton's example, in the case of a looming TPK by the dragon, that "DM's friend" would have been an easy +4 (in my game, of course), and the result would have been the same...no chance to Intimidate. It's about adjudicating the situation, not about rewriting the whole game.

As for the matter of Dragons being immune to Intimidation because they are "cool" critters...I don't know if they changed it in 3.5E, but in 3E all dragons are immune against the Frightful Presence of their own kindred...so why should a dragon all of a sudden be intimidated by a 3' tall axe-swinging gnome, if it won't be intimidated by even the eldest of its own race?  As far as I know, a paladin who is immune against _fear_ effects is also immune against Intimidation, is he not?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 9, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> After the game, we talked about it and came up with a restriction to nerf that in the future (power attack does not get included in spring attack damage - a 4 point power attack becomes 8 when used two handed then 24 with spring attack.  That's a pretty big bonus for a -4 to hit.) .  And that's no problem.  There was a problem that existed, it was identified and we corrected it.



A little off topic, but why does it become 24 due to spring attack?  Unless you are referring to the extra damage in a charge?  Yes, I have a player play a duplicate of this character in my game.  When I pointed out to him that when he used rideby attack, he needed to move at least 10 feet before he attacked for it to count as a charge, that he had to move in a straight line (only forward) for the whole round, that lance was a reach weapon and had to attack in the first space he was able to, so he has to start 20 feet away from his enemy, move to 10 feet away, make his attack, and then still have room and movement to get to 20 feet on the other side of the enemy to be able to rideby attack next round.  Also, if there was any uneven terrain or obstacles anywhere in that line, he could not do it as a charge.

He realized most dungeon rooms didn't have at least 40 feet of room to move back and forth in without his party members getting in the way (or columns or something else).


----------



## S'mon (Sep 9, 2005)

& rem that PCs are immune to Intimidate, aren't they?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 9, 2005)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> As for the matter of Dragons being immune to Intimidation because they are "cool" critters...I don't know if they changed it in 3.5E, but in 3E all dragons are immune against the Frightful Presence of their own kindred...so why should a dragon all of a sudden be intimidated by a 3' tall axe-swinging gnome, if it won't be intimidated by even the eldest of its own race?  As far as I know, a paladin who is immune against _fear_ effects is also immune against Intimidation, is he not?



Because it's not immune to fear entirely.  There are still things dragons fear.  In a world where a Gnome could be a god or just be a 20th level wizard, even a dragon has a right to fear them.

That's what the rules are for.  They are for putting that exact right tone in your voice and look in your eye that the dragon isn't so sure that you AREN'T something so powerful that it couldn't beat you.  It's not like if the gnome succeeds that it will prove all that much, the dragon gets a couple small minuses.  The gnome wouldn't have that much chance to begin with anyways.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 9, 2005)

Mishihari Lord said:
			
		

> To me, this is a perfect example of when a DM should use common sense to overrule the RAW.  A gnome intimidate a dragon?  That's just silly.



As silly as a 20th-level gnome monk killing a Huge mature adult red dragon (CR 18) with a single blow? A 20th-level gnome monk has a BAB of +15. Assuming Str 18 and a +5 enhancement bonus, that's an attack bonus of +25 which will enable him to hit the dragon's AC of 32 on a roll of 7 or better (70% chance). Assuming a Wisdom of 22, the DC of the gnome monk's quivering palm attack is 26. An average mature adult red dragon has a Fortitude save of +20, which means he fails 25% of the time (5 or less on d20). So, I make that a 17.5% chance of silliness. 

Now, before people start chiming with other reasons why a lower-level gnome that obviously isn't a monk can't intimidate a dragon when he and his party are on the losing end of a fight, think carefully about how you imagine an intimidated dragon would act. Do you see it cowering on the ground, pleading for its life? Is that the "impossible" situation you're trying to avoid? Guess what, the rules agree with you.

If the gnome was attempting to demoralize in combat (a standard action), and he succeeds, the dragon is shaken. It gets a -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, ability checks and skill checks. For 1 round. Is it "impossible" for the gnome to do or shout something so surprising or threatening that the dragon loses a bit of confidence for a short while? Remember, it's not running. It's still in the fight and still doing its level best to rip the party into shreds, just with a bit less skill.

If the gnome was attempting to change the dragon's attitude, that takes a minute. If the gnome is still alive after a minute despite the dragon's best efforts, is it "impossible" for it to develop a bit of respect for the gnome? A successful Intimidate check merely makes the dragon act as if it was Friendly, i.e. chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate. It doesn't say anything about cowering, groveling or begging for its life.

Basically: please look at what the rules actually say before you decide that you don't like the way they work. You may find out that thay actually do what you want them to.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 9, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Each DM I've seen change the rules hasn't done it to try to kill the players or to exercize power over the game.  They've done it for their OWN sense of "common sense".



And that's what GMs get to do. It even says so in the rule books.

If you consistently disagree with a GM's calls, then play with someone else.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> In this case the rule in the book is that you add +4 to the enemies AC since you are aiming so far away from your friends (since you wouldn't dare risk hitting them) that it becomes very difficult to hit your foe.  I can see using the optional rule in the book to increase the amount of AC the enemy gets due to the amount of cover.  That's supported withing the spirit of the rules.  The point is that the character is basically saying "I take the shot only at the moment I KNOW there is no chance of hitting my friends, even if it means missing my target".



Is this an example a GM ruining your game, making a stupid call because s/he lacks the imagination to understand your perfectly valid idea?

I'm sorry, but I would have to agree with the unimaginative GM's stupid call on this one.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Here's another secret about this rule.  The chance to hit your friends was removed because it slowed down gameplay too much as you had to roll extra dice(or figure out a math equation) everytime you fire through them (which happens nearly EVERY combat for us).



What's true for you and your gaming groups may not be true for other gamers. Some gamers like this level of specificity and verisimilitude, so when the rules change, they might opt to stay with the older interpretation.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It is also no fun to hit your friends.  I know that critical fumble rules nearly ruined our game as everytime someone would roll a fumble the game would become a role playing nightmare as the character who was hit would demand that the character who "tried to kill" him was kicked out of the party or worse, killed themselves.



As I read this, what you're describing is a social problem (e.g., playing with dweebs), not a rules problem.

I would say that this lies at the core of a lot of the problems discussed on this board: inexperienced or immature GMs and players.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> But DMs who don't understand WHY the rules are the way they are could say "common sense says you should hit your friends, so I'm changing the rules to that".  Each DM thought the original rule was "stupid" and rather than seek to understand WHY the rule was written as it was.



A GM who likes much of what a game has to offer, but finds that certain rules or even rules sections don't work to the GM's satisfaction in creating the experience s/he wants to offer, may not care why the rule was written. If a rule in the game takes away from exciting possibilities, then I tweak the rule - I don't dumb-down my game so that I can conform to someone else's idea of fun. What works for our group and our game is what's important to me, not what Ryan Dancey or Mike Mearls or Skip Williams tell me is important.

*Henry* made a trenchant observation earlier in the thread: the rules for D&D reflect a shift in the direction of games like HeroClix, closing the open-ended ruleset more and more. That style of play may work for some folks, but not for me - when I reach a point where the preponderance of the rules in a game system don't allow me to readily create the games I want to run or join a game where I would enjoy playing along, then I'm done with that rule-system.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Sep 9, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> *Henry* made a trenchant observation earlier in the thread: the rules for D&D reflect a shift in the direction of games like HeroClix, closing the open-ended ruleset more and more. That style of play may work for some folks, but not for me - when I reach a point where the preponderance of the rules in a game system don't allow me to readily create the games I want to run or join a game where I would enjoy playing along, then I'm done with that rule-system.




I'm with you on this one, Shaman.  The rules are neither complete (cover all situations) or realistic (in accord with how my   common sense says the world should work)  Since it's not entirely possible to remedy either of these  by adding rules, it's my job as DM to make up for these deficiencies.  WOTC has tried to fix these issues with rules by adding a whole lot more of them, but this has caused further problems, such as increasing the difficulty of learning the whole rule-set, increasing DM prep-time, increasing the difficulty of "winging it" when PCs go outside of your prepared material, empowering obnoxious rules-lawyers, and making the game more difficult to customize to how you want to play  (Everything affects everything else, and Forgotten Realms D&D needs slightly different rules to support that style than, say, a Conan style D&D)

It sounds to me like those advocating a rules-slave approach to D&D have been burned by bad DMs playing fast and loose with the rules and think the solution is to make everything follow the rules precisely.  Not so.  Really good DMs also play fast and loose with the rules, but the difference is that they do so less visibly and for the fun of all.

The rules-slave approach also puts the game's emphasis somewhere that I don't want it to be.  I would rather be thinking about what actions would make sense from my PC's point of view than what would give me another +1.  That is  i prefer a simulationist approach and insisting on precisely following the rules even when they don't make sense seems very gamist.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> & rem that PCs are immune to Intimidate, aren't they?




No.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 9, 2005)

*Firelance* hit the hidden nail on the head...



> Basically: please look at what the rules actually say before you decide that you don't like the way they work. You may find out that thay actually do what you want them to.




As a player, if I have a DM who houserules over RAW ... but that DM has chosen DM Fiat without even understanding the rules to begin with?  Bah. 
 Increase frustration when the RAW would work just as well, if not better, than the houserule designed to 'fix' a problem..

 Looking back over the years of posting in the House Rules forum, three quarters of my HR forays end up being nixed as I learn how the RAW addresses the issue.

But heaven forbid I ask a DM to follow the concepts listed in the HARP rulebook {thanks *Rasyr * for posting that..} I mean, really. Why learn the relatively consistant rules when you can make stuff up on the fly? I am sure this method of play does nothing to engender a player frustration when they design a character around the rules in the PHB, only to find out that things work different in your game.
 I am sure that any fictional player who may be frustrated with your ad-hoc rulings wont start fighting back in a confrontational way by turning into a rules-lawyer, whipping out highlighted pages that show the RAW in support of thier actions.

DMing 3x does take alot more planning and preparation than earlier editions. In return for this, the game can be much more reliable and consistant, allowing those playing the game to stretch thier imaginations with a good idea of what the heroic actions chances of success are...without going with the old 'If the DM thinks its cool, then it will work.. otherwize I am screwed' line of thought.

 My suggestions: 
  DM, know the rules. Bend them only slightly to match your style
  Players, know your characters abilities
  Both.. communicate desires and plans.. before commiting action in play.

 And, given the chance.. players take a turn at the DM's side of the screen. The appreciation for how much work goes into a nights session can tone down alot of the confrontational stuff that happens at the tables.
 DM, Understand that the world you create... belongs to the group. Your players will bend, tear, mutilate, and shred it to bits and pieces. Enjoy the results and see where the game takes you!

Anough rambling.. been doing that alot lately


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 10, 2005)

FireLance said:
			
		

> As silly as a 20th-level gnome monk killing a Huge mature adult red dragon (CR 18) with a single blow? A 20th-level gnome monk has a BAB of +15. Assuming Str 18 and a +5 enhancement bonus, that's an attack bonus of +25 which will enable him to hit the dragon's AC of 32 on a roll of 7 or better (70% chance). Assuming a Wisdom of 22, the DC of the gnome monk's quivering palm attack is 26. An average mature adult red dragon has a Fortitude save of +20, which means he fails 25% of the time (5 or less on d20). So, I make that a 17.5% chance of silliness.




Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to nitpick here maliciously or anything...I'm just taking your advice on reading the rules, and at least from my 3E point of view, it won't work, because...



			
				PHB 3E said:
			
		

> The monk must be of higher level than the target (or have more levels than the target's number of Hit Dice).




A mature adult red dragon has 25 HD...which simply trumps the monk's 20 levels. So I guess I can say safely that this 20th level gnome monk won't be able to kill that dragon. It would work with a young adult dragon, if I read the MM correctly, though. But it also is a supernatural ability, not a mundane skill. No nerve strikes with _Knowledge (Anatomy]_.  

And to repeat what I said before...it isn't about rewriting the game, it's about adjudicating a specific situation. A situation in which a gnome barbarian (diminuitive foe) who is part of a group that gets its collective butt kicked by a dragon thrice his size tries to intimidate the same dragon. As a DM, I HAVE to ask myself (and the player in question) what reason there should be in that situation for an intimidation attempt to be an action that could be even remotely successful. If that barbarian flies into a rage and manages to hit the dragon for some nice damage, and tries the intimidation attempt the round after, sure, you have the "rat in a corner effect" or whatever you want to call it. Might even be good for a circumstance bonus. But out of the blue?

Comparing this specific situation to something general, or the supernatural _Quivering Palm_ to the mundane _Intimidate_ skill, does not really do this justice either, does it?  And in the end, it should be a question from the player to the DM if he allows a skill check, not a demand that he should be allowed under all circumstances, just because the short skill description in the PHB only gives a few examples how it should work instead of a heap of exceptions when it shouldn't. That's what the DM is there for, even in 3E...to judge if a situation and a player idea warrant a check of any kind.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 10, 2005)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> And in the end, it should be a question from the player to the DM if he allows a skill check, not a demand that he should be allowed under all circumstances, just because the short skill description in the PHB only gives a few examples how it should work instead of a heap of exceptions when it shouldn't. That's what the DM is there for, even in 3E...to judge if a situation and a player idea warrant a check of any kind.



Well-said.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> A little off topic, but why does it become 24 due to spring attack?  Unless you are referring to the extra damage in a charge?  Yes, I have a player play a duplicate of this character in my game.  When I pointed out to him that when he used rideby attack, he needed to move at least 10 feet before he attacked for it to count as a charge, that he had to move in a straight line (only forward) for the whole round, that lance was a reach weapon and had to attack in the first space he was able to, so he has to start 20 feet away from his enemy, move to 10 feet away, make his attack, and then still have room and movement to get to 20 feet on the other side of the enemy to be able to rideby attack next round.  Also, if there was any uneven terrain or obstacles anywhere in that line, he could not do it as a charge.
> 
> He realized most dungeon rooms didn't have at least 40 feet of room to move back and forth in without his party members getting in the way (or columns or something else).





Gack, typo.  That should be Spirited Charge, not spring attack.  Whoops.  Heh.  Umm.    

However, while you do need a 20 foot run up, you do not HAVE to use ride by each round.  It was the fact that my halfling was pumping out consistently 60+ points of damage per hit that had us a little boggled.  You don't have to make a second attack.  It's dead in the first one.    Again, it was more because I only had to take a -4 to hit to get a +24 to damage that became the problem.  In some campaigns I would see this as not becoming a problem, particularly if you do dungeon crawls in very tight spaces.  The dungeons we were seeing were nice and roomy and it became obscene to see what this character was doing.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2005)

To me, there is only three possible outcomes for the intimidating gnome story:

A)  Gnome is allowed to try, fails and the party giggles about a rather spectacular and unique way to perish.

B)  Gnome is allowed to try, pulls the rolls out of his vas deferens, and possibly causes the dragon to miss for one round, thus possibly saving a party member.  Party giggles about a very spectacular success and tells the story for weeks to come.

C)  DM flat out nixes the idea.  Players talk about what a putz the DM is for ignoring the RAW in favour of his cool critter.  

Personally, I'd MUCH rather be in party A or B.  C just isn't all that interesting for me.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 10, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> ...pulls the rolls out of his vas deferens...



 

I feel violated just thinking about that...


----------



## shilsen (Sep 10, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I feel violated just thinking about that...



 You've never heard of a portable hole?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 10, 2005)

And my work here is done.  Hehehe.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> To me, there is only three possible outcomes for the intimidating gnome story:
> 
> A)  Gnome is allowed to try, fails and the party giggles about a rather spectacular and unique way to perish.
> 
> ...





What about:

D)  DM uses the RAW, states that the gnome can make the check, but has a -12 modifier due to size difference on his roll, whereas the dragon gains a +2 circumstance modifier to the DC due to the dragon wiping the floor with the PCs, making this a roll that cannot be pulled out of any portable hole by this particular gnome, unless he used a d30.  Following this the player:


(1)  Says, "Yeah, I guess it's not going to work.  Can I take another action instead?" or

(2)  Says, "What a putz you are, DM, for thinking there should be a +2 circumstance modifier when clearly there shouldn't!"


RC


EDIT:  My point is merely that "player fiat" occurs whether or not you follow the RAW.  Bad players and bad DMs have a lot in common.

That said, I have to admit that I find this initimidate vs. a dragon side argument a bit tedious because (1) this is an area that the RAW covers pretty well, and (2) in most cases, this is an area where the RAW and the supposed DM fiat end up with the same result.  At the most, four points difference in the DC (from very, very unlikely to impossible) .... which is the same as the tumble from a table example.

IMHO, the RAW does work extremely well from a game design standpoint.  However, (also IMHO), campaign design trumps game design.  It is more important that the rules fit the game than that they are followed slavishly.

The problem with bad DMs (and players) is that they cannot determine when variance from a rule is appropriate....or when slavish devotion is not.  The 3.X system makes this easier for the players, because following the rules is _almost always_ appropriate from the player's standpoint.  However, the DM still has to decide whether or not to allow (for example) various spells and feats into his campaign world.  If the DM is not looking for generic D&D, s/he must invest in the modification of rules.

Eberron, Oriental Adventures, and Forgotten Realms (again, for example) all show how this creative DM tinkering should work.  New things are added.  Some old things may be subtracted.  What fits in a world is kept.  What should be in a world, but does not yet exist, must be created.  Rules might need tweaking to handle new situations.  This is all part of good DMing.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2005)

BTW, I don't know how many of you have played 1st Ed ADD&D, but if you read the introduction to the 1st Ed DMG (which the 3.0 DMG was designed to emulate, including using the same dungeon as an example, and having some illustrations which were modelled off ones in the older book), there is a bit by Gygax in which he claims that only games using official TSR rules are really D&D.  In other words, even back then we had the beginning of "Please use the RAW, because it'll put money in our pockets."


RC


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 10, 2005)

*Raven Crowking*, Do you ever have a critter attack at a PC when you know that the PC's AC is too high for the monster to possibly hit?...

  Or is metagame knowledge commonly used at your table?

The Dragon does not know if this Gnome is indeed the terrible Master Monk of legend that can Quivering Palm him to death.
The Gnome does not know if an Intimidate can work.. 

*Until he tries!*


If said Gnome/Dragon encounter happened at my table, I would tell the PC.. "Dude, the Dragon is wiping the floor with your party.. its improbable that you can scare it.. but if you want to try, go right ahead."
 The power the PC wields with knowing the rules can't influence this because of two reasons:
 1) I know the rules better than he does
 2) I know the circumstances better

IMHO, this is a better way to go than flat out deny the action.

Incidently, I am running Eberron and use Action Points.. so the chance could be a bit higher, but still what are the odds of one dice at 19 and the other at 1?
I think this sidetrack has been sufficently beaten. The argument boils down to whether its better to GM by allowance or by denial.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 10, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> *Raven Crowking*, Do you ever have a critter attack at a PC when you know that the PC's AC is too high for the monster to possibly hit?...
> 
> Or is metagame knowledge commonly used at your table?





Unlike skill checks, a natural 20 always succeeds on attacks.  Also, if there were rats when the PCs were low-level, there are still rats when they are high level.




> If said Gnome/Dragon encounter happened at my table, I would tell the PC.. "Dude, the Dragon is wiping the floor with your party.. its improbable that you can scare it.. but if you want to try, go right ahead."
> The power the PC wields with knowing the rules can't influence this because of two reasons:
> 1) I know the rules better than he does
> 2) I know the circumstances better
> ...





Sure, you and I would probably handle the situation similarly, except that I would merely say, "Are you SURE you want to do that?  Okay, roll your check."  The player would, honestly, have no way of knowing whether or not I "played fair".  For the record, as I said earlier, I think the RAW covers this pretty well, and I am not at all worried about having the dragon taken aback momentarily by a crazed gnome.  

Either way, though, the player might feel hard done by if his "KEWL" action didn't work.  There is a growing trend among players to think that their actions should work just because they want them to.

Sometimes cool things do work.  If you build your character to have a high Intimidate score, then you should get the benefits of it.  The DM's "But it's a _dragon_!" probably applies to the dragon as well ("But I'm a _dragon_!") and can easily account for the one-round penalty from Intimidate.

I once ran a game where a PC hung from a rope like a circus acrobat and fired arrows (successfully) at a grick that was attacking another climbing PC.  The player built his character to do just this sort of thing, and it worked.

The players require that the RAW be followed enough to allow them to know what they reasonably can do if they make choices X, Y, or Z in character creation.  Going back to the beginning of this thread, that does not mean that the DM has to allow choice Z in the campaign world.

Likewise, if the DM flat-out rules that something won't work, you can get up from the table if you're incredible offended by the decision.  Or you can try to do something else.  It depends upon your group dynamic and how much you trust the DM based on past actions.  Making the game fun is everyone's responsibility, and as the players gain more power to determine what is likely in 3.X, they also gain more responsibility to make it fun for all involved, including the DM.  *Get up or game on.*  Don't waste everyone's time whining at the table.

If earlier versions of the game tended to produce a few really bad DMs, so does 3.X produce more bad players than any previous edition.

It's something we all have to work on if the hobby is going to continue to prosper.


RC


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 10, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If earlier versions of the game tended to produce a few really bad DMs, so does 3.X produce more bad players than any previous edition.




No, the bad DMs and players exist that way due to natural tendencies. Rules can actually help mitigate that a lot. Much of the so-called "badness" however is really a complete difference in preferred play styles. 

Growing the hobby requires community service, patience, teaching abilities, and a great level of maturity and tolerance for those different play styles.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 10, 2005)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to nitpick here maliciously or anything...I'm just taking your advice on reading the rules, and at least from my 3E point of view, it won't work, because...



I think the rule was changed in 3.5e. The SRD reads:


			
				SRD (Classes) said:
			
		

> *Quivering Palm (Su):* Starting at 15th level, a monk can set up vibrations within the body of another creature that can thereafter be fatal if the monk so desires. She can use this quivering palm attack once a week, and she must announce her intent before making her attack roll. Constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures, and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be affected. Otherwise, if the monk strikes successfully and the target takes damage from the blow, the quivering palm attack succeeds. Thereafter the monk can try to slay the victim at any later time, as long as the attempt is made within a number of days equal to her monk level. To make such an attempt, the monk merely wills the target to die (a free action), and unless the target makes a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 the monk's level + the monk’s Wis modifier), it dies. If the saving throw is successful, the target is no longer in danger from that particular quivering palm attack, but it may still be affected by another one at a later time.



Good on you for checking the rules, though. 



> And to repeat what I said before...it isn't about rewriting the game, it's about adjudicating a specific situation. A situation in which a gnome barbarian (diminuitive foe) who is part of a group that gets its collective butt kicked by a dragon thrice his size tries to intimidate the same dragon. As a DM, I HAVE to ask myself (and the player in question) what reason there should be in that situation for an intimidation attempt to be an action that could be even remotely successful. If that barbarian flies into a rage and manages to hit the dragon for some nice damage, and tries the intimidation attempt the round after, sure, you have the "rat in a corner effect" or whatever you want to call it. Might even be good for a circumstance bonus. But out of the blue?



That's one thing I like about the slightly abstract nature of the D&D rules. The player or DM can describe how the gnome demoralized the dragon any way they want - it doesn't have any effect on the actual game result. Maybe the gnome started frothing at the mouth and the dragon thought he was rabid or a frenzied berserker. Maybe he uttered such a horrible threat that the dragon was distracted for six seconds. Maybe he used the favorite catchphrase of a famous gnome dragonslayer. Certainly, I have no problems visualizing something like that happening "out of the blue". Like I mentioned, the dragon doesn't go from confidence to panic in a single round. It's just hesitating for a while, in case things aren't what they seem.



> Comparing this specific situation to something general, or the supernatural _Quivering Palm_ to the mundane _Intimidate_ skill, does not really do this justice either, does it?  And in the end, it should be a question from the player to the DM if he allows a skill check, not a demand that he should be allowed under all circumstances, just because the short skill description in the PHB only gives a few examples how it should work instead of a heap of exceptions when it shouldn't. That's what the DM is there for, even in 3E...to judge if a situation and a player idea warrant a check of any kind.



I suppose I see it this way. The player describes what he wants to do, and the DM decides what is the best way to determine whether he succeeds or fails. If the player decides that his gnome character wants to try and scare the dragon, and the DM decides that the Intimidate skill doesn't apply, it's like the DM ruling that a character can't use the Hide or Move Silently skills when he's trying to sneak past a monster. I have no problem with the DM saying that the attempt doesn't work if the applying the rules results in an impossibly high DC, or the creature has some special ability that prevents the attempt from working (e.g. a creature immune to fear, in the case of intimidate, or a creature with tremorsense or blindsight in the case of Hide and Move Silently). I do have a problem if the DM ignores the rules or decides that the attempt doesn't work simply because he doesn't want it to. After all, I signed up to play D&D, not DM May I.


----------



## Drowbane (Sep 10, 2005)

Wow, has 2e been forgotten already?  3e hasn't even begun the "Arms Race" in comparison...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2005)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> No, the bad DMs and players exist that way due to natural tendencies. Rules can actually help mitigate that a lot. Much of the so-called "badness" however is really a complete difference in preferred play styles.





Sorry, no.  I am not a relativist.  As a Sith, I am forced to deal in absolutes.    


Darth Crowking


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2005)

Like I said earlier, I have no real beef with houserules.  As was mentioned, all campaigns have them.  If you play in a particular world, that particular world will have certain rule changes.  I have no problem with that because those rule changes ARE KNOWN BEFOREHAND.  My beef comes when the DM changes the rules midgame.

Here's an example from Scarred Lands, because it's a campaign world I know well.  In SL, arcane casters heat up when they cast spells.  As a bonus, this heat makes them less susceptable to cold for a period of time as per an endure elements spell.  As a side effect, all spell failure chances due to armor are doubled.  

Now, I have no problems with that.  It's a  cool idea and goes a long way to explaining scantily clad northern barbarian sorceresses.    Anyone playing in a SL game knows that this exists and can plan accordingly.

If, on the other hand, I didn't use this SL rule until one of my players decided to take a level of fighter with their mage and I sprang it on them in the middle of a combat, then I would be a bad DM.  Despite the fact that this is the same rule, the timing of the presentation of that rule changes me from a creator of an interesting campaign quirk to a butt head.  

My main beef with homebrew rules is that IME, many, many are the result of poor understanding of the mechanics.  Take another SL example.  In Relics and Rituals, magic items were not given a gp or xp value for creation.  The reason given in RR was that magic in SL is rarer and more difficult to create.  That's fine as far as it goes, but, that homebrew rule interferes with a number of other mechanics.  As a DM, if I don't know how much an item is worth, I have to guess as to whether the item is a realistic reward for an encounter.  Also, considering they didn't change any of the item creation rules, the homerule made pretty much zero sense.  If creating items has the exact same difficulty as other campaigns, then there is no real reason for items to be more rare.

In the end, SL errata'd the list and added xp and gp values to magic items in RR.  

To me, this is a pretty good example of a homebrew rule that simply wasn't carried far enough.  If you start changing rules, you can't just look at the rule itself.  You also have to look at how that rule fits into the mechanics.  IME, most DM's neglect that part and just change rules to suit their own sense of right or wrong.  And frequently, again IME, these changes make less sense later than at first blush.

Sure, slavish attention to the RAW is not necessarily a good thing.  But, half arsed rule changes are, IMO, far worse.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 11, 2005)

I would like to point out the DCs to intimidate a red dragon:

wyrmling: 1d20+7
very young: 1d20+11
young: 1d20+14 
juvinile: 1d20+18 
young adult: 1d20+21 
adult: 1d20+26 
mature adult: 1d20+29 
old: 1d20+33 
very old: 1d20+37
ancient: 1d20+41 
wyrm: 1d20+44 
great wyrm: 1d20+48

So,yeah. If a gnome can make an average DC 36 Intimidate check, I'll give the CR 15 dragon a -2 to some stuff for _one round_ while he's a bit worried about the opposition. A 15h level character, after all, with a 20 charisma and maxed ranks and Skill Focus (Intimidate) will have a 50/50 chance, which isn't totally out of line here. 

I think some people are overestimating the ease of which one can actually use the intimidate skill on a high Hit Die, high Wis opponent like a dragon. The difficulty is built in. There is no need for a DM to say it won't work. If there are circumstances that make it more difficult, the DM's best friend can come into play for a -2 to -4, but to just not allow it to work seems like a situation where the DM just doesn't like the idea so it doesn't work, which is what I think 3E tried to get away from.


----------



## TheGM (Sep 11, 2005)

Simple facts. 

- I don't know of a long-term game that kept out expansions, just like none of those DMs who told me "I'll never go to 3.5" are still playing 3.0.

- WoTC removed all direct references to "This is the GM's world and he makes all final decisions" out of the game.

- CR/EL and wealth guidelines, no matter how much you nitpick Rasyr's knowledge of them, are a further undermining of the GM's authority. A game designer who has never seen my world has absolutely no clue how much wealth the characters need. And since I run low-magic worlds, I would argue they failed on those guidelines completely.

Lucky for me, my players are cool, but I really don't like the "distance the control from the guy who does all the work" attitude, and I do believe it was done not in the interests of the game, but in the interests of selling more books.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2005)

TheGM said:
			
		

> Simple facts.
> 
> - I don't know of a long-term game that kept out expansions, just like none of those DMs who told me "I'll never go to 3.5" are still playing 3.0.
> 
> ...




Actually, that's not true.  It's not that the guidelines have failed, its simply that you have deviated radically from the core assumptions of those guidelines.  The DMG assumes a particular style of gameplay - the style presented in the DMG.  Where a particular creature of a particular CR will be an estimated threat to a given level of party based on the wealth structure assumed by the DMG.  If you radically change those assumptions, then you cannot complain that the rules have failed you.  If your world deviates radically from the standards presented in the DMG, then any game designer realy does have no clue what your characters need because he has no idea what assumptions you are working from.

This is true for many things.  A game designer with know knowledge of the Iron Heroes system would have no idea how to create adventures for Iron Heroes.  Does that mean that Iron Heroes is a failure?  No, of course not.  However, it IS a departure from the core assumptions.

Now, let's look a little more closely at a "low magic" DnD setting.  To create a "low magic" setting, you would need to make, at a minimum, the following changes:

1) Complete rework of item creation feats from the ground up.
2) Complete rework of the item creation rules from the ground up.
3) Complete rework of many core spell casting classes - all permanent duration spells would need to be removed - requirements for becoming those classes would need to be greatly increased - at a minimum.
4) Massive rework of many creatures.  Any creature which can be used as a mount, a guard animal, easily summoned, able to create items - would need to be either removed or changed.
5) Classes with supernatural powers such as the monk would need to be removed or reworked.
6) Races with innate magical abilities, such as gnomes, would need to be reworked.

That's what I can come up with out of my head in about thirty seconds of thinking on the topic.  I'm quite sure there are very many more issues that need to be addressed.  If any of the issues on that list are not addressed, then you don't have a low magic setting.  You simply have a setting in which these issues are hand waved away and lacks internal logic.  While that is fine for many DM's, I strongly question the assumption that this is somehow "better" than a logically consistent setting where these issues are taken into account.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 11, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If any of the issues on that list are not addressed, then you don't have a low magic setting.  You simply have a setting in which these issues are hand waved away and lacks internal logic.




Pardon me for asking, but what makes you so certain that your views of how a low-magic setting should be created is the be-all and end-all in D&D? Isn't that up to each DM's individual taste, style, preference and above all definition of the term "low-magic", which has already been trotted flat here on ENWorld? Which, as far as I checked, is not yet standardized in the SRD either? I apologize for maybe being a bit touchy on the subject, but that's exactly what a lot of DMs here are complaining about...somebody else coming in, telling them with some obscure voice of authority that they have to handle their game this or that way, demanding adherence to a set of rules that should be more a set of guidelines than hewn-in-stone commandmends, telling them it has to be done *this* way or it's not correct. If it's a game designer doing so in a book I bought, I can choose to ignore that. If my players suddenly start going that route, because they think I'm nothing but the number-crunching machine behind the DM's screen, there is a certain problem. If game designers and publishers actually encourage that kind of player behaviour through their supplements, it's starting to grow out of proportions.

There have been a few points in this thread that I agree to...house rules being known beforehand, the players and the DM working together to create an enjoyable game together, a ruleset that should be consistent enough throughout the game for both sides. But there's also the fact that the DM is the final arbiter of how the rules apply, and when they have to be bent to make the game more enjoyable for all. It should be clear that common sense should still prevail, even in a game that thrives on the fantastic, and that all parts of the game should be on the same wavelength about how that common sense is expressed by the rules...or if it isn't. In the latter case, the DM is there to fill in those gaps.

And here D&D goes way overboard by trying to present a set of rules that tries to cover *all* possible actions, eventualities and options, while at the same time having a very specific set of assumptions behind its rules. And I bet that more than 50% of the homebrewed or simply modified campaigns running out there are deviating from those assumptions, you only have to look at the threads here on ENWorld to get a small sample of that. Now I, as the DM of my campaign, KNOW where I deviate from it, I know how my world works (or ideally should  ), and I don't see the sense in somebody pushing a rule on me that doesn't fit my style and taste of play, just because it's in a "WotC officially approved" D&D book. Or D20 book. Or website. Or whatever. I'm open to discussion, compromise, and I've bent the rules to my players' advantage as often as against them, to heighten the fun of the game. I make on-the-spot rulings, and if I have the choice of spending 5 minutes puzzling together a rules-conform decision from a handful of rulebooks or stitch together a rules-compatible decision on the fly, I usually go for the latter, except if it's a really deciding and important problem. What I won't tolerate is being reduced to a bean counter who is only there to add up numbers for the monsters and NPCs, and who is trumped by any obscure rules quote from some book, and is patched via printed updates every 3 or 4 years.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2005)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Pardon me for asking, but what makes you so certain that your views of how a low-magic setting should be created is the be-all and end-all in D&D? Isn't that up to each DM's individual taste, style, preference and above all definition of the term "low-magic", which has already been trotted flat here on ENWorld? Which, as far as I checked, is not yet standardized in the SRD either? I apologize for maybe being a bit touchy on the subject, but that's exactly what a lot of DMs here are complaining about...somebody else coming in, telling them with some obscure voice of authority that they have to handle their game this or that way, demanding adherence to a set of rules that should be more a set of guidelines than hewn-in-stone commandmends, telling them it has to be done *this* way or it's not correct. If it's a game designer doing so in a book I bought, I can choose to ignore that. If my players suddenly start going that route, because they think I'm nothing but the number-crunching machine behind the DM's screen, there is a certain problem. If game designers and publishers actually encourage that kind of player behaviour through their supplements, it's starting to grow out of proportions.




Well, I would say that my views of a low magic setting come from the fact that you want to create a LOW magic setting - as in a setting without a great deal of magic.  Otherwise, it's not usually called a low magic setting.  I would have a problem calling a group comprised of a cleric, paladin, wizard and bard a low magic campaign.  When three of the four PC's are spell casters and can possibly create magical items at 1st level while the fourth PC has magica immunities and abilities, calling that campaign low magic seems a little strange to me.  If a DM wants to call his campaign low magic and have that statement actually be true, then my list is a pretty good start.  It's not the only way, that's true, but, I'd say that you'd need to at least partially address those issues if you truly wish a low magic setting.  



> There have been a few points in this thread that I agree to...house rules being known beforehand, the players and the DM working together to create an enjoyable game together, a ruleset that should be consistent enough throughout the game for both sides. But there's also the fact that the DM is the final arbiter of how the rules apply, and when they have to be bent to make the game more enjoyable for all. It should be clear that common sense should still prevail, even in a game that thrives on the fantastic, and that all parts of the game should be on the same wavelength about how that common sense is expressed by the rules...or if it isn't. In the latter case, the DM is there to fill in those gaps.




I agree 100% with all of that and have done so all the way along.  It's part and parcel with being a referee.  A referee has to know the rules well enough to know when the rules can be ignored.  Not every foul is called in a soccer game, because, to do so would result in a terrible game.  However, a good referee knows when a foul should be called and when one should be ignored.  



> And here D&D goes way overboard by trying to present a set of rules that tries to cover *all* possible actions, eventualities and options, while at the same time having a very specific set of assumptions behind its rules.




I'm going to disagree with that.  The ruleset does not try to cover all possible actions.  What it does try to do is give robust enough rules that can be applied without massive modification to determine the outcome of actions where there is a chance of failure.  That's close to what you said, but not exactly the same.  The assumptions behind the rules varies greatly depending on which rules you are talking about.  However, it is incombent for the DM to recognise those assumptions before altering the rules, otherwise, alterations tend to cause more problems than they solve.  I illustrated that above with the Relics and Rituals example of not including gp and xp values for magic items because magic in SL is "incredibly rare and priceless" while not changing any of the core item creation rules.  This creates an automatic conflict between the rules that needs to be addressed.



> And I bet that more than 50% of the homebrewed or simply modified campaigns running out there are deviating from those assumptions, you only have to look at the threads here on ENWorld to get a small sample of that. Now I, as the DM of my campaign, KNOW where I deviate from it, I know how my world works (or ideally should  ), and I don't see the sense in somebody pushing a rule on me that doesn't fit my style and taste of play, just because it's in a "WotC officially approved" D&D book. Or D20 book. Or website. Or whatever. I'm open to discussion, compromise, and I've bent the rules to my players' advantage as often as against them, to heighten the fun of the game. I make on-the-spot rulings, and if I have the choice of spending 5 minutes puzzling together a rules-conform decision from a handful of rulebooks or stitch together a rules-compatible decision on the fly, I usually go for the latter, except if it's a really deciding and important problem. What I won't tolerate is being reduced to a bean counter who is only there to add up numbers for the monsters and NPCs, and who is trumped by any obscure rules quote from some book, and is patched via printed updates every 3 or 4 years.




Again, I agree with this 100%.  You are the DM.  What rules are used are up to you to approve.  That approval should be made prior to gameplay, and, IME, usually is.  Most DM's now advertise their campaigns with the caveat that this or that ruleset is in effect.  This has always been true.  If I played a 2e Forgotten Realms campaign, then certain rules would be in effect - particular gods and effects for example.  If I played a Known World campaign, there would be a completely different set of rules (although mostly the same for basic actions) from a Dragonlance or Ravenloft game.  And certainly, in the interests of time, making snap decisions is perfectly acceptable with one corollary.  If the snap decision is being made because no one knows exactly what the RAW says and you want to keep the game moving, that's fine.  However, if a DM simply disagrees with the RAW because it offends his or her sense of theatrics, then that's not cool.  The players are playing with the assumption that the RAW exists for a reason and should be followed.  They are certainly constrained to follow the RAW to the letter.  No one would argue that the players should be allowed to play fast and loose with the RAW to satisfy their sense of theatrics.  The DM should operate under, if not the same restrictions, then at least in the same ballpark as the players.  

Like I said a while ago, I believe we agree more than we disagree.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 11, 2005)

TheGM said:
			
		

> - CR/EL and wealth guidelines, ...., are a further undermining of the GM's authority




EH? Thats like saying that the sample DC's in the skill section are a further undermining of the GM's authority.



			
				www.m-w.com said:
			
		

> Main Entry: guide·line
> Pronunciation: 'gId-"lIn
> Function: noun
> : a line by which one is guided :
> ...




CR is provided to provide an indication of how lethal that creature could be... under the standard assuptions of the game. And it does that. CR needs to be re-evaluated for your purposes if your game deviates from these standard assumptions.
 Ever been in a game that didn't deviate? CR is not hard rules of 'you must throw X character against a party of Y level.

El.. same same.

Wealth.. an indication of what sort of $$=power the player should have in order for the CR/EL assumptions to be met. 

These three items work in concert to provide the GM with the ability to tailor his/her deviated game with a relatively easy reference for designing encounters. How in the world does this undermine any authority?

I use the RAW to make my prep time easier and shorter. I deviate greatly from the Wealth guidelines.. yet still manage to run challenging and entertaining adventures. This is because I see the RAW as a framework to hang my story on.. not a set of directives that need to be bowed down before.

 Its been said a couple times in this thread.. and no response has come from the other half od the discussion. "The GM should know the rules better than thier players"
If this is true, then the players cannot use 'obscure rulings' as the DM will have already either announces the obscure ruling doesn't apply or is willing to use it as is.

The rules provide the players a better understanding of what should happen in the standard setting. The DM provides the players with the style specific changes to that standard.

In no way do these rules {or players} trump the DM...unless the DM allows them to.
Does recent comments from WOTC prove they are after player money? Yup. This does not mean they are empowering a player revolt agasint the DMs.. just that the DM has a bit more work deciding what to allow and what to deny.

Side note.. it seems most of this debate is split down the middle, with DM's who allow pretty much anything and use the RAW to back up thier rulings.. and DM's who restict alot and use DM Fiat to back up thier rulings. 
This.. of course.. is a large generalization and not intended as an insult to anyone of their gaming style.

Anyway.. here I go rambling again.  I really should not have forgotten my EoM project at home...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, let's look a little more closely at a "low magic" DnD setting.  To create a "low magic" setting, you would need to make, at a minimum, the following changes:
> 
> 1) Complete rework of item creation feats from the ground up.
> 2) Complete rework of the item creation rules from the ground up.





Not really.  One merely has to rework the XP rules to effect changes in the frequency of magic items.  If the PCs are only getting, say, 1/2 the XP that the DMG recommends, they will be far more careful about using those XP on magic items rather than character levels.




> 3) Complete rework of many core spell casting classes - all permanent duration spells would need to be removed - requirements for becoming those classes would need to be greatly increased - at a minimum.
> 4) Massive rework of many creatures.  Any creature which can be used as a mount, a guard animal, easily summoned, able to create items - would need to be either removed or changed.
> 5) Classes with supernatural powers such as the monk would need to be removed or reworked.
> 6) Races with innate magical abilities, such as gnomes, would need to be reworked.





Of course, now we are getting into "What do you mean by low-magic?"  The assumption that the innate magical abilities of gnomes don't work in such a setting, for example, doesn't necessarily wash.  I am using a setting that, by WotC standards, is definately low-magic and low-wealth.  However, the only changes I have been forced to make are changing the XP system and varying the amount of treasure I give out from the assumptions in the DMG.  

Of course, I am using my own definition of "low-magic" here.  There are fewer high-level characters than the DMG would suggest (again, 1/2 XP).  I make fewer NPC spellcasters.  Some spellcasters in the past have caused problems that cause people to look down upon them.  There are magic items to be found, but no magic item shops.  You cannot even buy a sunrod.

Now, some here might classify my setting as high-magic, but the RAW certainly would not.  And, I would argue that my setting is as internally consistent as any setting that follows the RAW.  Of course, YMMV, but the RAW hand-waves things like commoners and experts gaining XP and levels, IMHO.


RC


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 11, 2005)

"Core assumptions" is being bandied about a lot now. Just remember what happens when you "assume". 

The problem as I see it is not the rules themselves, but the fact that these "core assumptions" are worked so deeply into the rules that it is nigh impossible to change those assumptions without having to do a whole lot of work and practically rewriting the game in some respects.

A good game should not have to make assumptions, it should provide the GM with a toolkit to use in creating his own game. Because of these "core assumptions", you are not playing YOUR game, you are playing WOTC's game.

Caveat - some games, such as Star Wars, or Buffy, or Angel, or even Arcana Evolved all come with a specific setting. Those that do have a setting are EXPECTED to have "core assumptions" based on the setting.  Yes, "core assumptions" should be based upon the setting of the game, NOT upon the core rules of the game.

This is where D&D fails. It is making many "core assumptions" and codifying them into the core rules, rather than the setting, yet trying to present itself as generic set of rules usable for any setting.

Almost every instance of GM Fiat being described here can most likely be attributed to using a setting that does not match the "core assumptions" of the rules.

Now there are two different kinds of GM Fiat being discussed as well. The first is where the GM is using a setting different from the one indicated by the "core assumptions", and the GM has to make decisions based upon the setting. Now it is highly probable that the players will not know everything about the setting in such cases and something that the GM makes a decision on may seem like whim when it actually isn't, but is based on something that the GM does not want to explain (as he feels that it would ruin aspects of the game for players if he told them rather than them finding out in the course of the game).

The second type of GM Fiat is where the GM makes decisions based upon whims. This is something that I am totally against.

Another major issue of D&D is that the rules are written in such a way that it encourages players to expect certain "core assumptions", no matter what the setting. This includes allowing any "official" PrC or Feat, certain Wealth levels, certain level of encounters at certain levels, etc..

Encounters - I view an encounter as a sighting, either the PCs sight the object of the encounter (or traces of it such as tracks) or the object of the encounter sights the PCs. Anything after that should depend upon the nature of the object of the encounter and/or the actions of the PCs themselves. An Encounter does NOT, to me, mean combat automatically. 

The 1st level PCs spotting an ancient dragon (35th level or higher) flying overhead is an encounter in my book. If the PCs are stupid enough to want to try and fight it, that is their own fault (though I will attempt to warn them off without giving them any information about its stats).

Well, enough of my ramblings for one day......


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2005)

Just as a question, what is your reason for cutting xp in half?

On a side note, I would argue that your setting is low magic item, not low magic.  Like I said, if your party (not that it does, but if) consists of three spellcasters and a fighter, I would say that that's not low magic.  Sure, I can't buy a sunrod, but, then again, I can make one if I'm a spellcaster and spend some ranks on craft alchemy.  Now, since no one else is making sunrods, why wouldn't I stop for a year and crank out sunrods at 1000% profit?  A year out of my life is not going to end my adventuring career and I can set myself up pretty well in mundane equipment simply by exploiting my own abilities.

Heck, the third level cleric should be sitting on his duff cranking out continual flames for a year and make a mint.  As the only source for never ending, perfectly safe lights, I could charge a thousand gold each and people would still buy.  What's the incentive to adventure when I can simply take advantage of my own abilities to make huge profits without any risk or cost?

That's what I've been talking about with logical consistency.  To have a truly low magic setting, there's no way around nerfing much of the spell list.  If a PC cleric could spend a year and make thousands of gold simply by casting continual flame on a stick, what's preventing other NPC clerics from doing the same?  Since, as you say, there are absolutely no magic shops, there's no competition.  I have a monopoly on a commodity that everyone would want.

This is a point I've been trying to make time and again in this thread.  Low magic settings can be an absolute riot.  I've played in them, I've DM'd them and I've enjoyed them.  However, 3.5 DnD mechanics really don't support that very well.  And, to make 3.5 mechanics support it, you have to strip away a great deal.  Otherwise, you wind up with situations like I just outlined.  

Realistically, the cleric doesn't even have to take time off from adventuring.  Just take a week or two off, crank out light sticks, sell them to the highest bidder, and move on.  Easy cash.  And a lot of cash considering he's got no competition.  And it's hardly limited to just Continual Flame.  In the second level spell range you get things like Magic Mouth (how much would a noble pay for a perfect alarm system?), Cure spells, Lesser Restoration (great for that guy who just suffered a touch of bubonic plague), just to name a few.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 11, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, since no one else is making sunrods, why wouldn't I stop for a year and crank out sunrods at 1000% profit?



Because it's blatant metagaming, perhaps?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 11, 2005)

???

Hrm, I have a skill which allows me to craft sunrods - alchemy.  The DM has not changed the rules for this skill to my knowledge. I ask the DM if this skill has been altered and, just for the sake of arguement, let's assume it hasn't.

So, my character has the skill and ability to craft an item of incredible utility, that no one else is making available, but, if I use that skill to make money, then I'm metagaming.

How does that work?

Sorry, but if a person has an ability to do something that no one else can do and that thing is valuable to other people, he's going to make a killing doing it.  That's not metagaming, that's pretty basic economics.

Wizzie:  Hrm.  I'm pretty poor right now, so I guess I should get out there and make a bit of money.  Let's see, I can tag along with these guys and try to see what fortune I can make, or I can take this nifty little trinket that I know how to make, crank out a bunch of them and make ten times as much money as these poor schlobs are ever going to make.  I think I have a better idea.  Hey, big fighter dude, I want hire you as my bodyguard.  You other two, you'll be delivery boys, and I'll pay you 50 gp each per day.

Rest of party:  No way!  Forget that.  We don't want easy money.  We want to go into terrible danger to earn a pittance.  Come on, forget all that wealth, let's go mug orcs for coppers.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 11, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just as a question, what is your reason for cutting xp in half?





Cutting XP in half performs two major functions.

(1)  It slows character progression.  

(a)  The core rules assume (essentially) that a character can go from 1st level to 10th level or higher within the course of a single game year.  If this was the case, then there should be a lot more high-level adventurers out there than there are in most core-assumption campaigns.  To me, this is more ridiculous than the cleric taking a year off to make torches for profit.

(b)  Also, the rate of progression in RAW D&D prevents players from truly understanding/utilizing the abilities they have before they have a whole new slew of powers to learn.  Slowing things down allows PCs to better understand the strengths and limitations of their characters.  On this subject, I recently ran WLD using full XP progression.  At first, as the PCs gained levels quickly, they were pretty happy.  Eventually, however, the _players themselves_ began to agree that the slower rate of progression was better _for them_.​
(2)  It lowers the amount of magic available in the campaign.

Call it "low magic item" if you like, but fewer XP means fewer magic items crafted means less magic available.  PCs have to rely upon their characters more and their characters' stuff less.  To me, this is a good thing.  

As for the cleric sitting on his duff and cranking out _continual flames_:

(a)  Hasn't happened yet.  The players, surprisingly, are more interested in adventuring than commerce.  Oddly enough, though, I have had players want their PCs to go fishing with the intent of selling the fish for profit.  Go figure.

(b)  Perhaps you missed the part where I said "I am using a setting that, by WotC standards, is definately low-magic and _*low-wealth*_" (emphasis mine).  Good luck finding the people willing and able to pay for your _continual flames_ at 1000% profit.  Could you make a profit?  Yes.  Could you make the profit you are implying?  No.

(c)  IMC, clerics gain their spells from gods, and are most often part of organized hierarchies that might have something to say about their activities.  In other words, how much of the profit you make is yours, and how much belongs to the Church?  Divine spellcasting is not considered to be _your own ability_.  You have a liege/vassal relationship with your god(s).

(d)  You also apparently missed the part where I said, "Some spellcasters in the past have caused problems that cause people to look down upon them."  Genetically modified foods may (or may not) be perfectly safe, but that doesn't mean that everyone is comfortable with the idea.  Now, remove the easy transfer of ideas that the modern era creates and add the fact that the genetically modified foods have, in the past, gotten up and eaten the farmers.  _Continual flame_ may be perfectly safe (and even without changing the RAW, it may not be if after a time the flames attract fire elementals, for example, or ethereal filchers), but how do you convince your target market of that fact?  Show that you aren't burned by the flames?  You're a spellcaster, though, and only the gods know what powers you might have.....!​

YMMV, of course, but I find that the core assumptions give rise to far worse logical inconsistencies.  For example, if the standard XP and wealth progression is used, where is all the money coming from?  Shouldn't epic characters be a dime a dozen?  Why haven't they wiped out all the low-level monsters long, long ago?  Or at the very least, consigned them to zoos or private reserves?

Etc., etc.


RC


EDIT:  I should have mentioned the Guild System.  You're going to need that fighter bodyguard.

I also should have mentioned that I view this as a perfectly valid idea, and I would be happy to let the PCs try it.  If they work out the kinks and make a ton of cash, good for them.  The game isn't, for me, about preventing the PCs from coming up with good ideas.

RC


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 11, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> That's not metagaming, that's pretty basic economics.



Yes, unless your group set out to play _Sunrods and Speculators_, it is metagaming.

Did you sit down at the table to play a fantasy adventure game, or to figure out ways to break the game-world's economic system?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 11, 2005)

From an in-game perpective...the guys who make a lot of money producing and selling lamp oil, tar torches and candles.  

On another angle, I could see plenty of adventures arising just from that priest trying to stay out of the grasp of several guilds and shady organizations, who want to keep him producing that stuff...for them only.

Not to speak of the inquisitors of his own church, who have a few pointed questions about why he started selling the magics that were so far only used to lighten the sacred temples without the need for oil or candles.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 11, 2005)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> From an in-game perpective...the guys who make a lot of money producing and selling lamp oil, tar torches and candles.
> 
> On another angle, I could see plenty of adventures arising just from that priest trying to stay out of the grasp of several guilds and shady organizations, who want to keep him producing that stuff...for them only.
> 
> Not to speak of the inquisitors of his own church, who have a few pointed questions about why he started selling the magics that were so far only used to lighten the sacred temples without the need for oil or candles.



One point that seems to get missed in the discussion of magic's implications for the game-world is that "logic" is highly subjective when talking about cultural systems - "the market" is only one factor affecting the availability of goods and services in an economy, as *Geron Raveneye* alludes to here.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 11, 2005)

Rasyr,.. yes 'core assumptions' are being bandied about.. and we all know what assuming means.

 However, show up at a basketball court. Get some folks together to play some 5 on 5 and take the position of outside guard. Spend all your time working inside at the hoop and when the rest of your team complains tell them its your style.

 If I sit down at your DnD game, I will assume that certain things work the way the rules say they work. I will assume that a +9 ride skill and certain feats will be more than enough to make me a heroic mounted combat machine.
  Then, in play, I learn that a quickmount manuever is impossible for my character to accomplish....meaning I cannot chase down the Expiditious Retreating BBG ? Eh? 
 My assumption that quickmount DC 20 is something my mounted focused character can do with about a 50% chance of success. This is based on the rules of the game.
 Or that the Mage {Dex 10, no Ride skill } fights from horseback just as well as I can....?
 Your style of not allowing quickmount, for whatever reason, makes me wonder why I bother spending points in Ride in the first place.
 And for the record, I had a game that this very thing happened. 

Players will get argumentative and throw rules in the DM's face when they had made decisions based on rules that have been changed/altered or completely ignored without thier knowledge.

Earlier editions did not suffer this as much because the ruleset was so full of holes, houseruling was expected. There was very little the player could assume when walking up to the table. This made moving from one game to the next difficult and sometimes impossible.
3x is a common ground where movement from game to game should be easy.

I have to agree with the CrowKings reasoning, my game started at 100% xp just to get them out of the early death levels, and has scaled back to 60% at 3rd level.. probably scale farther back as they hit 6th.

 As to the economics... logic cannot really come into play. Recently had a chance to talk to one of my players about his Monk's goals. He mentioned starting a monestary in the local area.. to which I had to ask for him to change his mind. We had just finished a by the book module {core wealth level treasure award for 4 PC's split between 9} and he could have pulled off his 'long term' goal right there and then. Another character took Brew Potion and can spend a day to make a Cure Light potion..for a RAW cost of 1 xp and 50 gp... The only reason she did not retire an make potions for the rest of her life was that she would have to move to the cities to find clientele who could afford them... and RP considerations as she is hunting her fathers killers to bring them to justice.

 Anyway.. I find myself agreeing with the comments on this thread.. from all parties. I think its more of a communication issue than anything else at this point  Seems that some folks {myself included} are bringing our assumptions as to how this system is supposed to work to this thread!


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 11, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Anyway.. I find myself agreeing with the comments on this thread.. from all parties. I think its more of a communication issue than anything else at this point  Seems that some folks {myself included} are bringing our assumptions as to how this system is supposed to work to this thread!




I actually think this is one of those discussions where most participants are actually on the same general paper about the topic at hand, and simply present their own, unique point of view. Quite nice to read, and to be part of.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 12, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Yes, unless your group set out to play _Sunrods and Speculators_, it is metagaming.
> 
> Did you sit down at the table to play a fantasy adventure game, or to figure out ways to break the game-world's economic system?




While I agree with the others above that we are all generally on the same page, I really do have to disagree with this one.  How is using a skill exactly as it is presented in the RAW metagaming?  If I wanted to use Craft Alchemy to make gunpowder, then, fine and dandy, spank me hard for metagaming.  But, in this case, I'm using a skill precisely as it is written in the RAW.  The only thing I'm changing is the amount I would charge people.

My point isn't that the players should or will do this.  My point is that this idea is perfectly valid and SOMEONE would obviously think of it.  As soon as one person person figures this out, you have a cottage industry on the go.  There's no reason someone wouldn't clue into this and start making money.  The basic premise that particular items are not available doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless the method for creating those items change.

I would also point out that the original poster didn't mention any in game reasons for preventing a cleric or mage (not necessarily a PC, but any cleric or mage) from setting up shop and doing this.  If there are reasons why they cannot do this, and those reasons are known, at least to the DM, that's fine.  But, simply saying, "Well, no one would do this, because if they did it would screw up my campaign" is not a particularly well crafted house rule.


----------



## Berandor (Sep 12, 2005)

Before I'll rejoin this discussion by reading the past two pages, here's a quote from "Heroes of Battle" that I find relevant to this thread:

On the topic of "Leader Feats" (p.96)


> Since all leader feats include Leadership as a prerequisite, their presence in the game is subject to the DM's approval.



Thereby suggesting that all other new material is not subject to DM's approval, otherwise this sentence (in a sidebar, no less) should have been redundant. Heroes of Battle also features introductions to topics like "recognition points" with sentences such as "Chapter 2 included information for the DM about how to structure an adventure with recognition points. The actual rules are included here so players know how much points they get for certain actions" (not direct quote).

Those phrases can surely put some pressure on (especially newish) DMs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> My point isn't that the players should or will do this.  My point is that this idea is perfectly valid and SOMEONE would obviously think of it.  As soon as one person person figures this out, you have a cottage industry on the go.  There's no reason someone wouldn't clue into this and start making money.  The basic premise that particular items are not available doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless the method for creating those items change.





Well, I think that you are forgetting the general nature of the D&D rules.  They are abstractions.  For the purposes of rules, saying that you have a particular item creation feat means that you can create all associated items.  For the purposes of role-playing, this may not be the case.  While I have yet to see a PC take an item creation feat and then claim that (despite the rules) he only knows how to make a limited set of items, this is pretty common practice for DMs.  Similarly, the DM might create an armourer in a village who works chain but does not work plate.

The abstract nature of the rules does little to limit feats, but DMs create part of the feel of their worlds by deciding which feats are given to various NPCs.  You could easily create a campaign in which there is no one, living or dead, who has ever made a magic item before the PCs come along.  A bit extreme, I know, but the point ought to be clear.  The DM does not have to allow NPCs the same latitude he allows PCs.  This requires no rules changes whatsoever....you could even give the same general value of treasure, if you wanted to.





> I would also point out that the original poster didn't mention any in game reasons for preventing a cleric or mage (not necessarily a PC, but any cleric or mage) from setting up shop and doing this.






I repeat:

As for the cleric sitting on his duff and cranking out continual flames:


(b) Perhaps you missed the part where I said "I am using a setting that, by WotC standards, is definately low-magic and *low-wealth*" (emphasis mine). Good luck finding the people willing and able to pay for your continual flames at 1000% profit. Could you make a profit? Yes. Could you make the profit you are implying? No.


(d) You also apparently missed the part where I said, "Some spellcasters in the past have caused problems that cause people to look down upon them." Genetically modified foods may (or may not) be perfectly safe, but that doesn't mean that everyone is comfortable with the idea. Now, remove the easy transfer of ideas that the modern era creates and add the fact that the genetically modified foods have, in the past, gotten up and eaten the farmers. Continual flame may be perfectly safe (and even without changing the RAW, it may not be if after a time the flames attract fire elementals, for example, or ethereal filchers), but how do you convince your target market of that fact? Show that you aren't burned by the flames? You're a spellcaster, though, and only the gods know what powers you might have.....!​

As the original poster, I will point out that the post you are referring to included:




			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am using a setting that, by WotC standards, is definately low-magic and low-wealth. However, the only changes I have been forced to make are changing the XP system and varying the amount of treasure I give out from the assumptions in the DMG.
> 
> Of course, I am using my own definition of "low-magic" here. There are fewer high-level characters than the DMG would suggest (again, 1/2 XP). I make fewer NPC spellcasters. Some spellcasters in the past have caused problems that cause people to look down upon them. There are magic items to be found, but no magic item shops. You cannot even buy a sunrod.





And, again, YMMV, but I find that the core assumptions give rise to far worse logical inconsistencies. For example, if the standard XP and wealth progression is used, where is all the money coming from? Shouldn't epic characters be a dime a dozen? Why haven't they wiped out all the low-level monsters long, long ago? Or at the very least, consigned them to zoos or private reserves?

Etc., etc.


RC


----------



## Berandor (Sep 12, 2005)

Testament said:
			
		

> What the spork?  Assuming you're talking about humanoids, like the PCs, in what way is it NOT unfair that they can do things that the PCs just flat-out cannot access?  Goose and gander law people, what possible justification is there for this sort of nonsense?



It's not unfair, it's for the sake of the game.

Maybe I want to try a rule that might be unbalanced. Maybe I think an option would be unbalanced in a whole campaign, but not in a short encounter. Maybe I don't like an option enough to work at including it into my story, but like the abilities well enough that it would make for an interesting encounter nonetheless.

So yes, NPCs in my game can be warlocks, or magisters, or psions, even though my players can't. On the other hand, my players get to live through the fight, while the NPC often doesn't. Isn't that unfair, too?


----------



## Belen (Sep 12, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, I would say that my views of a low magic setting come from the fact that you want to create a LOW magic setting - as in a setting without a great deal of magic.  Otherwise, it's not usually called a low magic setting.  I would have a problem calling a group comprised of a cleric, paladin, wizard and bard a low magic campaign.  When three of the four PC's are spell casters and can possibly create magical items at 1st level while the fourth PC has magica immunities and abilities, calling that campaign low magic seems a little strange to me.  If a DM wants to call his campaign low magic and have that statement actually be true, then my list is a pretty good start.  It's not the only way, that's true, but, I'd say that you'd need to at least partially address those issues if you truly wish a low magic setting.




But what if the PCs are unique and they comprise only a handful of those types of classes in the world?  What if most "bards" are minstrels or most "paladins" are LG fighters who belong to the church?

It is not hard to use the 3e rules as is and still have a "low-magic" world.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2005)

Let's not forget that the terms "high magic" and "low magic" are relative to some set standard.  I would argue that, when discussing D&D worlds, the core assumptions are that set standard.  "Low magic" does not have to mean "no magic".


RC


----------



## Belen (Sep 12, 2005)

Core assumptions is a good way to describe the current trends with WOTC.  Wizards tells players that these core assupmtions should be a part of any 3e game.  What burns me is that some of those "core assumptions" are found in the DMG.  The players should have NO assumptions where the DMG is concerned.  It is a rulebook meant to provide guidance for DMs and should not be used to fit the DM into a box for the players.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> On the arrow thing, I would likely do something similar.  However, one thing I would not do is change, or announce new rules AFTER the action was taken and then not allow the player to change his action.  That's a perfect example of what I mean by ad hoc DM'ing that should not be allowed.  While the call may be perfectly realistic, by forcing the player to use new rules the DM has done wrong.  The player announced his action with the understanding that the RAW would be used.  Had he known that new rules would be in effect, he might have chosen a different act.  Whether the call is realistic or not is irrelavent.  It's just a case of the DM saying, "Aha, gotcha, yer screwed.  Aren't I just a nasty boy?"



Agreed, mostly.  With the caveat that changes to make the game more "realistic" start piling up since the rules are designed to be vague on purpose to cover as many situations as possible with the same rule to avoid having to come up for new rules for each circumstance.

For instance, the arrow situation was basically us in a 5-ft wide hallway with 4 party members in front of me and the enemy in melee with the first party member.  I was a sorceror in a D&D 3.5 edition game which took place in HARN world.  In other words, casting spells could get me arrested and killed.

In this situation, the rules give just a cover bonus to the AC of the enemies.  In the case of a house rule that allows you to hit your friends in the way, how many friends between you and your enemy does it take to get a percent chance to hit your friends?  Is it a straight percentage or do you actually have to have rolled high enough to hit your friends?  Does it happen with ranged touch attack spells as well as ranged weapons?  What about reach weapons?  Does the percentage change based on how many friends are between you and your enemy?  What if there are enemies between you and the enemy you are firing at, do you risk hitting them instead?  Is there a max percentage, or at some point do you have no chance of hitting the person you were aiming at?

Those are just the logic problems involved in just ONE house ruling.  Then there are the balance and fun issues.  Is it fun to play an archer when often you will be at the back of a party in a dungeon corridor with a large chance of hitting your friends?  Shouldn't everyone just play melee fighters rather than kill their own party?  If you happen to choose an archer anyways, what fun is it going to be for you when 90% of your actions are "I do nothing because I don't want to hit my party"?  Doesn't that remove a lot of choices from the players?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> That it's "stupid" is not a reason for DM's fiat.



Exactly, I also don't consider it a reason to change the RAW unless you think out the consequences of a rules HEAVILY before putting into place and even then, avoid making changes JUST because of a lack of "realism" in the rules.  Understand that your views on realism might not be the same as your players' views.  Often, the unrealistic version of the rule is also more fun and more easily remembered and understood.


----------



## Psion (Sep 12, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> What burns me is that some of those "core assumptions" are found in the DMG.




 

The core book on DMing isn't supposed to tell you what assumptions the game is built around?   



> It is a rulebook meant to provide guidance for DMs




I daresay it would be hard pressed to do so if it didn't make a few assumptions about the way play was supposed to proceed. Indeed, the way adventures are written, and the relative ease of conceiving activities for players in D&D, all falls back on the fact that the game has a strong core adventuring model.

Of course, all bets are off if the DM wants to deviate from that formula. But I think that fact is made pretty clear with the "step 0" of the chargen process.

Use the rules; don't let the rules use you.


----------



## Rasyr (Sep 12, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Core assumptions is a good way to describe the current trends with WOTC.  Wizards tells players that these core assupmtions should be a part of any 3e game.  What burns me is that some of those "core assumptions" are found in the DMG.  The players should have NO assumptions where the DMG is concerned.  It is a rulebook meant to provide guidance for DMs and should not be used to fit the DM into a box for the players.



Part of the problem is that some of the core assumptions are based on setting elements, setting elements that are NOT part of the core rulebooks. This includes things like the Wealth system. It is also a bad thing that the core assumptions actually include not only things in the rules, but abuot the style of play, and what should or should not be allowed in a campaign. (somebody gave an example about how one small group of Feats said to get GM approval cause it needs the Leadership Feat, implying that everything else in the book did not need GM approval for use).

To me, it all washes out to say "we want you to play OUR game, OUR way", which is something that I disagree with. My personal opinion is that once the GM gets his hands on the rules/guidelines it is no longer the company's game, but the GM's game.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 12, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> It is a rulebook meant to provide guidance for DMs and should not be used to fit the DM into a box for the players.



 Actually, core assumptions belong in the DMG more than anywhere else.

 Think of it this way. The DMG could cover a wide gamut of potential styles and assumptions.. from low magic, to high fantasy, grim-n-gritty.. etc.. and the book would be huge! Trying to be everything for everyone...
  Or.. they can say 'this is the default', covering one style and balance pattern. Allowing GM's to alter from that one base as desired.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2005)

Mishihari Lord said:
			
		

> The rules-slave approach also puts the game's emphasis somewhere that I don't want it to be.  I would rather be thinking about what actions would make sense from my PC's point of view than what would give me another +1.  That is  i prefer a simulationist approach and insisting on precisely following the rules even when they don't make sense seems very gamist.



I actually find it is the other way around.  When you KNOW that you can charge and you KNOW it adds a +2 bonus to your attack roll and lowers your AC by 2, then you know your options, you know what effects they will likely have.  Then you can decide "Would my character be the type who would risk himself this way?" and take the action.

The other way tends to end up with players making role playing decisions based on assumptions in the rules that end up killing them when they figured there was no risk.  I have yet to run into a DM who changed ALL his house rules upfront.  I had a couple who listed SOME houserules upfront, then as play progressed "discovered" all sorts of house rules as they suddenly learned how the RAW worked (they couldn't be expected to READ the rules, after all, it was their game, they could make up their own rules) and decided they didn't like the RAW.

It seems a difference in attitude, all of the DMs I've met who follow the rules rarely have any house rules at all or 1 or 2 at most.  Others who like to house rule tend to change almost everything, haven't read the rules(or did, 2 years ago...then forgot all the rules he didn't like), and come up with house rules for small situations that may never come up again on the fly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Often, the unrealistic version of the rule is also more fun and more easily remembered and understood.





In other words, you are advocating the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

However, for some of us, adjudicating the archer's situation is not that horribly difficult.  Simply apply a cover bonus to the AC of your target.  If the arrow misses the target due to the cover bonus (i.e., missed by within 4 if the target has a +4 cover bonus), then determine which of your potentials (PC, NPC, and other monsters) provided the cover that saved the target (I would say roll randomly, with the closest potential being more likely than the farthest potential to provide cover).  If the roll you made would have hit that person's Touch AC, but not his true AC, then the arrow was deflected without harm or foul.  It the arrow could hit both, then that person takes damage.  If the arrow could hit neither, the cover is eliminated and the attack strikes the original target.

Easy enough for me.  A bit more calculating, maybe, but not too much.

To answer your other questions, ranged touch attack spells work in the same manner (EDIT:  Just to be clear, since the ranged touch attack spell does not need to penetrate armour, if you happen to be the potential determined to provide cover, and it touches you, you take damage).  Reach weapons work in the same manner, with the caveat that if the reach weapon is unable to damage an adjacent figure, that figure can accidently block the attack but does not take damage.

Where KISS works, I'm all for it.  If "you never hit someone other than your target" works for you, then there is no problem.  However, I'm not planning on altering my DMing style or house rules simply because they rise somewhat over the lowest common denominator.


RC


----------



## Belen (Sep 12, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Actually, core assumptions belong in the DMG more than anywhere else.
> 
> Think of it this way. The DMG could cover a wide gamut of potential styles and assumptions.. from low magic, to high fantasy, grim-n-gritty.. etc.. and the book would be huge! Trying to be everything for everyone...
> Or.. they can say 'this is the default', covering one style and balance pattern. Allowing GM's to alter from that one base as desired.




I am not advocating that the DMG display different styles of play.  I am saying that the players should not look at the core assumptions in the DMG and attempt to tell a DM that is the only way that he can run the game.


----------



## Berandor (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It seems a difference in attitude, all of the DMs I've met who follow the rules rarely have any house rules at all or 1 or 2 at most.  Others who like to house rule tend to change almost everything, haven't read the rules(or did, 2 years ago...then forgot all the rules he didn't like), and come up with house rules for small situations that may never come up again on the fly.



Well, I've got a PDF file with all my house rules, including which supplement I have already allowed or expressively banned, and I only add new house rules in between game sessions and often after checking with my players.

So if you were to play in my campaign, I'd give you that file up front, and you knew what you were dealing with. In fact, I forgot to include one rule that I wanted to have in said file, and since it wasn't in the file, I didn't use it but stuck to the RAW.

I'm not out to screw players when I make house rules; I'm just trying to ensure they, and I, derive the most enjoyment from the game. If that makes me a bad DM in your eyes, then I will have to cope with that.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Before I'll rejoin this discussion by reading the past two pages, here's a quote from "Heroes of Battle" that I find relevant to this thread:
> 
> On the topic of "Leader Feats" (p.96)
> 
> Thereby suggesting that all other new material is not subject to DM's approval, otherwise this sentence (in a sidebar, no less) should have been redundant. Heroes of Battle also features introductions to topics like "recognition points" with sentences such as "Chapter 2 included information for the DM about how to structure an adventure with recognition points. The actual rules are included here so players know how much points they get for certain actions" (not direct quote).



Says who?  That is using the logic that Leadership is listed as a DM optional feat in the DMG, and since it is listed as optional, so should all feats that require it as a prerequisite.

The second part says "We gave the DM his half of the information about points, since the players aren't inventing the adventure and now we're giving the players their info so that they know how they work in terms of their own characters."

Not sure where you are going with that.


----------



## Berandor (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Says who?  That is using the logic that Leadership is listed as a DM optional feat in the DMG, and since it is listed as optional, so should all feats that require it as a prerequisite.



And if a feat doesn't list this as prerequisite, it is not optional, is it? Otherwise, this quote says "Remember, all feats are optional, but these are doubly optional."

No, the leadership feats are optional, but the DM is a meanie if he disallows anything else, because the other things don't rely on DMG stuff to work.



> The second part says "We gave the DM his half of the information about points, since the players aren't inventing the adventure and now we're giving the players their info so that they know how they work in terms of their own characters."
> 
> Not sure where you are going with that.



The problem is that "the DM half" of the information is not really all that much. What points are, how they work, how many you should award and all that is "player half" - the DM only gets to see a flowchart where these points are already written into.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (b) Perhaps you missed the part where I said "I am using a setting that, by WotC standards, is definately low-magic and *low-wealth*" (emphasis mine). Good luck finding the people willing and able to pay for your continual flames at 1000% profit. Could you make a profit? Yes. Could you make the profit you are implying? No.
> 
> (d) You also apparently missed the part where I said, "Some spellcasters in the past have caused problems that cause people to look down upon them."​



Even with half gp, most 6th level characters could easily afford 1000 gp for a light source that never runs out.  It is a one time payment and useful for the rest of your life.  Seems like a good deal to me.

As for problems with "role playing" reasons for it.  You just need to look for the exceptions.  Look for the one person in the crowd who doesn't view spellcasters that way.  Plus, if magic works the way it does in the RAW, it means there is no chance for failure, perfectly safe and very useful.  It would be fairly easy to create some illusions, convince someone to touch them and when they realize that it is perfectly safe understand that the torches are made the same way.  I'm thinking word would spread fairly quickly of this amazing discovery and there might be people from far away who would make a journey to pay for this.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And, again, YMMV, but I find that the core assumptions give rise to far worse logical inconsistencies. For example, if the standard XP and wealth progression is used, where is all the money coming from? Shouldn't epic characters be a dime a dozen? Why haven't they wiped out all the low-level monsters long, long ago? Or at the very least, consigned them to zoos or private reserves?



All the money?  Every empire since the beginning of time that ever produced gold, silver, and copper coins.  In Greyhawk...this is a lot.

People only get XP for defeating enemies, 95% of the people on the planet never defeat any enemies at all.  Those who do, do so very rarely.  Most people retire long before they get to high level.  Once you have enough money that you could live a life of luxury forever, would you keep working?  Especially if your job involved possibly dying.  It's very rare the person who actually stood out enough to learn the skills of adventuring in the first place, survived long enough to get to high level and had the desire to keep doing it long after they were rich.

The PCs are the rare exception to the rule.  So, there are very few high level people, as shown by the town level guidelines.  Not enough of them to wipe out all low level monsters.  Once you get to a high enough level that you could do it, you are normally concerned about bigger problems.  Plus, you are opposed by people of equal power who are evil and are helping the low level creatures.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In other words, you are advocating the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).



Yes, pretty much.  As for the rest of what you said, you are just using the optional rule from the DMG(or rule from the 3.0 PHB, whichever you'd like to consider it) exactly as written, sure, no problem.  I understan using some of the optional rules from the DMG.  It's easy for me to get into a campaign that says "I'm using the option hitting cover rules".  This particular rule makes sense and was only removed due to the math you had to do for every shot that had cover.

However, my DM at the time ruled that only having a 20% chance to hit my friends wasn't good enough, after all, there 4 friends in the way and only 1 enemy, and since 90% of the enemy had to be covered by my friends, 90% of the places I could fire should hit my friends.  It makes perfect sense using flawed logic.

I knew I needed a natural 20 to hit the enemy.  Actually, due to the minuses I had to hit, even if I rolled a 19 using your rules, I would have missed everyone and a natural 20 would have hit the enemy.  It just happened that in this situation, I rolled a natural 20 and the DM didn't even ask me to roll to confirm, he decided it was a critical hit, against my friend, the burly dwarf who barely tolerated my presence as is, as he didn't like the fact that I cast magic.

I only made the role due to a lack of spells and nothing better to do with my turn.  I figured, that using any rule I knew of, there was a 5% chance to hit the enemy and 0% chance of hitting my friends.  It was better than delaying.  The DM told me that I should have known not to rely on RULES when common sense worked much better.  Common sense told him that it was much more likely to hit my friends, so he used a percentile dice.  90% chance of hitting my friends regardless of what I rolled.

This is really what I don't like.  DMs who feel that THEIR common sense makes more sense than the the rules or someone else's common sense.  I disagree that it is common sense that I'd hit my friends.  That being the case, it seems "common" sense isn't common to everyone.  Better to invent a common set of rules that everyone can agree is now common sense to everyone rather than negotiate whose common sense to use for each decision.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 12, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> My personal opinion is that once the GM gets his hands on the rules/guidelines it is no longer the company's game, but the GM's game.




I completely agree with this opinion.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2005)

Rasyr said:
			
		

> To me, it all washes out to say "we want you to play OUR game, OUR way", which is something that I disagree with. My personal opinion is that once the GM gets his hands on the rules/guidelines it is no longer the company's game, but the GM's game.



This is the one thing I've never completely understood about RPGs.  Any game I play other than an RPG, I expect to play the game their way.  Even if someone plays Monopoly and they are only the banker, I expect them to play fair and not make up their own rules.

I've never gone into any other game EXPECTING that the rules will be changed from the standard ones.  Sometimes I do run into people who have a Monopoly House Rule, but very rarely.  That's because when I play Monopoly, I expect to play the game Monopoly, not Risk with the rules of Monopoly, and not a game of stock market prices, that's not what I'm there for.

To me, when I got into a D&D game, I expect that it will be a 3.5 Edition games with no house rules that takes place in a Greyhawk-like world unless I'm told otherwise.  The more changes from this, the less like D&D it feels to me.  Just like when playing Settlers of Catan, I expect we are playing the basic game unless someone says we're playing with expansions, however.

People are right, D&D has a lot of core assumptions and some setting elements built in.  If your campaign is far enough way from the core assumptions, it may be better to just use a more generic system like Fantasy Hero or GURPs.  D&D is more setting specific.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 12, 2005)

I found Monte's  thoughts on rules and DMs not to be what I had expected.


Quotes from Rules are Rules (but nothing more)
" I've received criticism in the past for being a stickler for rules and I don't mind that at all. Consistency is a good thing, and the rules are there for a reason. But that reason should not get in the way of creativity."
"
"As I've said (in another context), this is just a game, which is a good thing. Don't let the rules get in the way of fun. And don't let them be a replacement for creativity -- creativity is an essential element in running a game."

" The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, "What have we wrought?" Then I remember that we intended these rules to be tools to help people create their own game material. To demystify the craft of game designer -- to look behind the curtain. That was a good goal. The tools can be taken too far, though. The fact that tabletop roleplaying games have gamemasters is a strength, not a weakness. Don't let rules replace good DMing skills."


Quotes From Design Decisions, part 2

"Balance
While I've no one to blame but myself (and the other 3rd Edition designers, I suppose), there are some things that I think are simply unbalanced in the core rules. After years of further play, I just don't like how they work anymore."

"Using the DM
To try to explain some of the things I'm attempting to do with Arcana Unearthed (and the books that follow it), I'll occasionally have to back up a bit and explain some things that we did with the core rules. One thing, for example, that we tried to do was to "take the DM out of the equation" as much as possible. Now this has caused its own share of problems, but the reason we did it was to make the game as easy as we could for new players. If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying"

"Arcana Unearthed isn't for new players. It assumes at least a moderate level of experience and maturity. My philosophy is, "You don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way."


----------



## Mallus (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I've never gone into any other game EXPECTING that the rules will be changed from the standard ones.



My experience is the exact opposite. I expect _idiosyncracies_, because that's what I've always gotten (granted, I did most of my playing/Dm'ing prior to 3.x). Each game used a slightly (or massively) different iteration of the core rule set. Whichever that was.

I always saw the rules-as-published as the general framework from which each specific, indivdual game was bulit from. Rules as basic toolset, not as all-ecompassing (and complete) definition of the game environment. 



> People are right, D&D has a lot of core assumptions and some setting elements built in.  If your campaign is far enough way from the core assumptions, it may be better to just use a more generic system like Fantasy Hero or GURPs.  D&D is more setting specific.



While that's true for some players, I've always found people flexible enough to enjoy games with signifigant deviations from the 'norm'. Whatever that is.

My friends played D&D because it was the de facto common language for gamers in our area. And like language, everyone spoke a different dialect, with different rules and idioms. 

While that often led to disagreements, confusion, and all-out fighting, it was still preferably to all of us learning French, or Esperanto.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2005)

What strikes me as a bit odd is that those who defend RAW/core assumptions at all costs either must play on the world of Greyhawk or a homebrew exactly like Greyhawk. To play on other settings, even Eberron which has divergences from the standard D&D assumptions, is to break in one way or another with the core rules/core assumptions.

If I run a:

Midnight
FR
Dragonlance
Freeport
Darksun
Planescape
Spelljammer
Dawnforge
Arcana Unearthed
Arcana Evolved
etc.

game I am running a divergent setting with divergent assumptions from the core D&D rules and in some cases very divergent mechanics. Fundamentally, I am playing someone else's homebrew. In fact the only difference between an individual DM's homebrew setting and those 3rd party settings on the market is that some are labors of love and others are for profit enterprises. Any non-WoTC setting is essentially another DMs homebrew with snazzier art and higher production values.

Now according to the idea that D&D must be played with certain assumptions, I would argue that none of the settings I mention above should be played within the D&D game because their assumptions, setting, and mecahnics are in some cases strongly divergent from the core assumptions.

So, is it possible to cut the _"One True Faith"_ crap out and realize that RPGs have always supported DM creativity and innovation. The day they don't is the day I find another hobby....who am I kidding I will just keep playing the most recent version of the game that allows me to tinker with it. D&D is a game where the DM is final arbiter and lawgiver and the one who in many instances creates an entire setting for players to enjoy. Its laughable to assume that the core assumptions work for all settings when its obvious they would not.

The only folks I commonly see complain that DMs shouldn't have creative control of their own games are players who do not DM and think that somehow they are getting somehow screwed if they are not granted access to anything and everything in the core books or WoTC sourcebooks or access to rules that would benefit their characters from those books. 


Chris


----------



## Psion (Sep 12, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I am not advocating that the DMG display different styles of play.  I am saying that the players should not look at the core assumptions in the DMG and attempt to tell a DM that is the only way that he can run the game.




That I would have to agree with.

I think that the GM owes it to the players to give them some idea of what to expect. It's better to let the players dwell on the mysteries of the game world rather than newly conjured rules mysteries. But when the players are using the rules as a lever to get their way in all things, they have begun to outgrow their usefulness.


----------



## Belen (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> To me, when I got into a D&D game, I expect that it will be a 3.5 Edition games with no house rules that takes place in a Greyhawk-like world unless I'm told otherwise.  The more changes from this, the less like D&D it feels to me.  Just like when playing Settlers of Catan, I expect we are playing the basic game unless someone says we're playing with expansions, however.




So Wizards was wrong to create Eberron, right?  It is not a Greyhawk-like world.  Therefore, Eberron is not D&D and they should not use the logo for the setting books.  Also, D&Donline (which uses Eberron) is not D&D either.

If Wizards can create their own campaign world with rules that do not exist within the 3 core books because those rules are setting specific, then why is Joe Blow, the DM, barred from it?  Why is it that someone not hired by Wizards is not qualified to write rules for the game?

What you may want to consider is that 3e may not feel like D&D to people who played in the previous editions.  It is certainly different enough.  You may come to realize that D&D means different things to a large variety of people.  You cannot go tell them to play some other game because you do not feel they play D&D the right way.  



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> If your campaign is far enough way from the core assumptions, it may be better to just use a more generic system like Fantasy Hero or GURPs. D&D is more setting specific.




Now this statement is a joke considering that multiple settings exist for D&D and all of them do not follow the "core assumptions" 100%.  The entire purpose of d20 was to create a unified system.  You're saying that anyone who uses the d20 rules must play using the "core assumptions" of 3e.  You're also implying that anyone using rules from UA is not playing D&D because some of those rules change the "core assumptions."

D&D is a long tradition of DMs changing, modifying, or creating rules in order to fit specific campaign worlds or types of play.  Without the ability to do this, you may as well pull out a copy of Heroquest or D&D Minis.


----------



## Belen (Sep 12, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> That I would have to agree with.
> 
> I think that the GM owes it to the players to give them some idea of what to expect. It's better to let the players dwell on the mysteries of the game world rather than newly conjured rules mysteries. But when the players are using the rules as a lever to get their way in all things, they have begun to outgrow their usefulness.




I agree with you as well.  I have a two page document of feats and tweaks that every player in my game has access too.  If something would affect a player in the normal operating of the game, then they will know about it.  If I craft a new rule that would affect them, then I will ask for their comments and revise it before I release it.

It's not about stickin it to the players.  I just want to run a game that makes sense and runs smoothly.  And no rules set is without flaw, despite what some people may want to believe.

If players want a game that is run strictly by the RAW, then they can find one or run one themselves.


----------



## Quasqueton (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I've never gone into any other game EXPECTING that the rules will be changed from the standard ones.



I've started a new thread on Majoru Oakheart's statements in this thread.

Quasqueton


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I actually find it is the other way around.  When you KNOW that you can charge and you KNOW it adds a +2 bonus to your attack roll and lowers your AC by 2, then you know your options, you know what effects they will likely have.  Then you can decide "Would my character be the type who would risk himself this way?" and take the action.




Like I said, it's all about preferences for different styles of play.  I want a simulation of the experiences I've read about in fantasy fiction.  You want an upgraded form of Monopoly (to use an example you seem fond of)  I prefer that the DM use their common sense to overrule the RAW beacuse this works better for the style of play I prefer.  Your insistence that this is the wrong way to play is narrow and silly.  You've had a bad experience with this style of play, but IME this is the way most people do it, and I've seen very few problems with it.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 12, 2005)

Mishihari Lord said:
			
		

> Your insistence that this is the wrong way to play is narrow and silly.  You've had a bad experience with this style of play, but IME this is the way most people do it, and I've seen very few problems with it.




How can we have a productive discussion with folks deriding a certain play style? (99% of the differences in player compatibility can be explained by play style.)

Having been a DM for 20 years and using the "common sense overrides the rules" attitude, I can say that 3E helped me lose that for the better. I still do override the rules from time to time when there's a grey area, but I allow the rules to work for me now. I've talked to many players who truly appreciate that consistency because they have not just played but suffered under the caprices of martinet DMs. I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of being the latter by the way.

I think it's fair to say that people have different approaches that work for them. Nobody's going to win this argument, by the way. How many pages long is it? I think we have a better chance of teaching rocks to sing.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> This is the one thing I've never completely understood about RPGs.  Any game I play other than an RPG, I expect to play the game their way.  Even if someone plays Monopoly and they are only the banker, I expect them to play fair and not make up their own rules.




The difference is that RPGs, unlike other games in Western society, are not designed to be competitive.  RPGs are designed to be cooperative games with the rules as merely guidelines to aid in the cooperation of creating adventures.  Therefore, house rules have always been an acceptable means of altering the rules to help create specific styles of play- the exceptions being both tournament games which are competitive and the rpga which, as an organization, needs a consistant set of rules.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> So Wizards was wrong to create Eberron, right?  It is not a Greyhawk-like world.  Therefore, Eberron is not D&D and they should not use the logo for the setting books.  Also, D&Donline (which uses Eberron) is not D&D either.




You missed the obvious answer.

In Eberron, the house rules are presented up front and are agreed upon.  There are positive-energy undead-like things, there's new templates, gods work like X, etc.

The Eberron campaign setting book does not change midgame, and it most certainly doesn't say, "Use your common sense when your players want to do something you don't like."


----------



## Belen (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You missed the obvious answer.
> 
> In Eberron, the house rules are presented up front and are agreed upon.  There are positive-energy undead-like things, there's new templates, gods work like X, etc.
> 
> The Eberron campaign setting book does not change midgame, and it most certainly doesn't say, "Use your common sense when your players want to do something you don't like."




Yes, because I have been advocating rules changes willy nilly in this thread.   

I believe that I have already stated that I present rules changes or new rules upfront to my players.  So how are homebrew DMs that do it this way not playing D&D?


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You missed the obvious answer.
> 
> In Eberron, the house rules are presented up front and are agreed upon.  There are positive-energy undead-like things, there's new templates, gods work like X, etc.
> 
> The Eberron campaign setting book does not change midgame, and it most certainly doesn't say, "Use your common sense when your players want to do something you don't like."




The fact is that in published settings everything has to be laid out clearly from the beginning. Many DMs do not have the time or energy to imagine every potential problem with every particular rule or core assumptions before they encounter it. It simply isn't realistic to expect this. The only house rule or core assumptions alterations one can present to one's players are the ones the DM is currently aware of. Any other changes have to be taken as they come based on the situation or circumstances presented in the campaign.

For example, if a group of PCs go to a previously unknown region, one the DM just mapped a week before, then there may be unforseen rules changes on behalf of the players until gameday because the DM just ironed them out.




Chris


----------



## S'mon (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Even with half gp, most 6th level characters could easily afford 1000 gp for a light source that never runs out.  It is a one time payment and useful for the rest of your life.  Seems like a good deal to me.




1000gp?!  I don't think so.  My PCs are 5th level and after discovering a treasure cache they can finally just about afford to buy a +1 shield for 1300 gp or full plate armour - for an everburning torch they might pay 200 gp I guess, but no way 1000, not unless I removed all their Light spells and had the orcs always target their lanterns.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 12, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> If Wizards can create their own campaign world with rules that do not exist within the 3 core books because those rules are setting specific, then why is Joe Blow, the DM, barred from it?  Why is it that someone not hired by Wizards is not qualified to write rules for the game?...D&D is a long tradition of DMs changing, modifying, or creating rules in order to fit specific campaign worlds or types of play.



Quoted for emphasis.


----------



## Berandor (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You missed the obvious answer.
> 
> In Eberron, the house rules are presented up front and are agreed upon.  There are positive-energy undead-like things, there's new templates, gods work like X, etc.
> 
> The Eberron campaign setting book does not change midgame, and it most certainly doesn't say, "Use your common sense when your players want to do something you don't like."



So the Eberron setting book tells us the basic house rules, and further supplements (like "Explorer's Handbook" or "Races of Eberron") give more house rules.

How is that different from me giving a house rule document up front and later, when necessity presents itself, bringing new rules into the game between sessions?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Yes, because I have been advocating rules changes willy nilly in this thread.




Maybe you haven't, but those on your side of the argument *have*.

"Yes, I know the Intimidate skill says 'X', but it's more realistic for it to work like 'Y' in this instance."

"Yes, I know the rules on how cover and targets in melee affect ranged attacks say 'X', but it's more realistic doe it to work like 'Y' in this instance."

"Yes, I know the rules on ..."

Etc.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> How is that different from me giving a house rule document up front and later, when necessity presents itself, bringing new rules into the game between sessions?




*Between sessions.*

Not "in the middle of the session, as the player is attempting an action."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Even with half gp, most 6th level characters could easily afford 1000 gp for a light source that never runs out.  It is a one time payment and useful for the rest of your life.  Seems like a good deal to me.





Well, most 6th level characters in my campaign cannot easily afford 1,000 gp.  Moreover, with 1/2 XP, there are fewer 6th level characters around.  Finally, if I follow your reasoning, they should just make their own far cheaper.





> Plus, if magic works the way it does in the RAW, it means there is no chance for failure, perfectly safe and very useful.





Really?  So the RAW do not suggest that ethereal filchers are attracted to magic?  The RAW state that fire elementals cannot pass to the material plane through permanent magical fires?  The RAW suggest that there is no chance of an item being cursed due to flawed workmanship?  

Or are you suggesting that you are changing the RAW when you extrapolate from them?  Is there anything in the RAW that suggests such things do _*not*_ happen?




> It would be fairly easy to create some illusions, convince someone to touch them and when they realize that it is perfectly safe understand that the torches are made the same way.





It would also be fairly easy to create some illusions, convince someone to touch them (_charm person_, perhaps), and when they realize that it is perfectly safe offload those _scarabs of death_ on them.  I'm thinking word would spread fairly quickly when the first fire elemental popped out of some poor peasant's everburning torch and burned the village down.




> All the money?  Every empire since the beginning of time that ever produced gold, silver, and copper coins.  In Greyhawk...this is a lot.





And the gold, no doubt, comes from the Elemental Plane of Gold.    

Seriously, if there is a finite amount of Substance X available, logic dictates that there is a maximum amount of said substance to go around.  Not so, according to the RAW.  According to the RAW, _*the amount of wealth available in the game world is directly proportionate to the level of characters in the game world*_.  Even the population/gp available chart in the DMG is tied to the idea that characters of certain levels will be available in any given burg based on its size.

Talk about voodoo economics!  That's just plain silly!




> People only get XP for defeating enemies, 95% of the people on the planet never defeat any enemies at all.





What about all those high-level commoners in the RAW?




> The PCs are the rare exception to the rule.





Likewise, PCs are the rare exception to the rule re: item creation feats.  If you are going to claim that the PCs are "rare exceptions" when it otherwise shows up the logical problems of the RAW, then surely you concede that the same applies to any other logical consistencies that might crop up due to the "obvious" abilities of NPCs.

If PCs can reach 10th level in one game year of play, and 20th level within 5 game years, then surely NPCs can do at least a tenth as good as this?  That still leaves a lot of really high-level characters, especially among the longer-lived races.  And when, as in Greyhawk, we are talking aeons of game history, why haven't they wiped out the lower-CR threats by now?  Wouldn't common, reliable magic make larger predators a thing of the past?  This would be similar to the disappearance of wolves or lions as a major problem in Europe.

My point is not that you cannot deal with these problems.  My point is that the RAW bring up larger, more glaring, and sillier inconsistencies than a low-magic world does.  Pointing out that you can "hand-wave" these problems away does not make them any less real.


RC


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Sometimes I do run into people who have a Monopoly House Rule, but very rarely.



You've never played with the Free Parking variant of Monopoly? IME, most people don't play Monopoly by the RAW. Go look at the rules to Monopoly and tell me that you actually play using all the rules exactly as written. Monopoly has lots of common house rules that people use in varying degrees.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> People only get XP for defeating enemies, 95% of the people on the planet never defeat any enemies at all.



What eff'd up version of the rules are you taking that from? Characters (player and non-) gain experience from overcoming challenges - there is absolutely nothing that says that needs to come from solely from defeating enemies.


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> People only get XP for defeating enemies



No, in the RAW, characters (player and non-player) get XP for overcoming challenges. Monsters have challenge ratings. Traps have challenge ratings. Adventures in Dungeon often give role-playing encounters a challenge rating so you can reward role-playing that furthers the story. Presumably commoners and experts above 1st level got those levels by overcoming challenges. Surviving (and keeping your family alive) through winter is a likely challenge faced every year by commoners.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 12, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> You've never played with the Free Parking variant of Monopoly? IME, most people don't play Monopoly by the RAW. Go look at the rules to Monopoly and tell me that you actually play using all the rules exactly as written. Monopoly has lots of common house rules that people use in varying degrees.




I cannot stand that <explative deleted> Free Parking rule. The first thing I do when I play Monopoly with people is to tell them that this is not a rule in the game, and that I would greatly appreciate it if they dropped it just this once.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The Eberron campaign setting book does not change midgame, and it most certainly doesn't say, "Use your common sense when your players want to do something you don't like."





What about "Use your common sense when your players want to do something."?  Why tag on that "you don't like"?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Even with half gp, most 6th level characters could easily afford 1000 gp for a light source that never runs out.






BTW, why is it that you think "low magic" means "next to no magic" but "low wealth" means "1/2 gp"?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I knew I needed a natural 20 to hit the enemy.  Actually, due to the minuses I had to hit, even if I rolled a 19 using your rules, I would have missed everyone and a natural 20 would have hit the enemy.  It just happened that in this situation, I rolled a natural 20 and the DM didn't even ask me to roll to confirm, he decided it was a critical hit, against my friend, the burly dwarf who barely tolerated my presence as is, as he didn't like the fact that I cast magic.





Besides demonstrating that my rules are superior to your DM's rules (for your purposes anyway), your DM obviously suddenly house-ruled more than one rule.  For example, the rule that says a natural 20 always hits, if it is possible to hit your target.  For example, the rule that says criticals need to be confirmed.  

If I was playing, and this was a typical ruling, I would find another game.  Actually, I would just set up and run an alternative, because I have DMing in my blood.  If it was an atypical ruling, though, I would probably voice a short objection, suck it up, and keep playing.  Then, outside of the game, I would try to explain why I thought it was a poor ruling to the DM.  If the DM agreed with me, fine.  If not, also fine -- his game, his rules -- but at least I would be forewarned.

Then again, as a player, I don't typically worry too much about having curves thrown my way.  What I worry about is DMs who won't let me face the consequences of my bad decisions (and I have been known to make some whoppers....too much curiosity!).

RC


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> So Wizards was wrong to create Eberron, right?  It is not a Greyhawk-like world.  Therefore, Eberron is not D&D and they should not use the logo for the setting books.  Also, D&Donline (which uses Eberron) is not D&D either.



The basic D20 rules can be easily modified to fit other settings, yes.

However, the CORE assumptions stay the same in all the D&D campaigns in 3rd Ed.  Eberron is Greyhawk-like in that both settings have wizards who create magic items according to the rules in the PHB, both settings have all of the races from the PHB, they both have all the spells in the PHB, they have a variety of cultures with difference fighting styles, magic styles.  This leaves room for PCs to be anything for any of the books released.  They both have ancient empires who had powerful magic and left ruins all over the place.  They both have magic items for sale for the prices in the DMG.  Both settings also follow the standard assumption that players will play semi-heroic characters who seek out treasure and power.  The players will gain this treasure and power and be significantly more powerful than normal people.

You'll find that with these as the core assumptions, it leaves a lot of room to maneuver and make a lot of different worlds.  Cutural changes, geographical changes, and a lot of other things can fit in without changing the rules.  You need to change the rules only if you change the default level of gold or magic at each level or try to run a campaign where character's don't grow to be much more powerful than a normal person.

I insert these core assumptions into every game I play unless told otherwise.  Greyhawk, previously, used to be more middle magic rather than a high magic world, but it changed with the 3rd Ed rules coming out to better fit D&D.

Eberron was written specifically to make a world where all of the rules were assumed, so that it fit the rules better than any other setting.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2005)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> The only folks I commonly see complain that DMs shouldn't have creative control of their own games are players who do not DM and think that somehow they are getting somehow screwed if they are not granted access to anything and everything in the core books or WoTC sourcebooks or access to rules that would benefit their characters from those books.






Yup.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 12, 2005)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> Nobody's going to win this argument, by the way. How many pages long is it? I think we have a better chance of teaching rocks to sing.





Win?  Argument?  I thought we were *having fun*!    

Seriously, anyone planning on DMing ought to read this thread.  It's got everything.  Stuff to try.  Stuff to avoid.  Examples of good DMing.  Examples of bad DMing.  Monopoly.

What more could you want?    


RC


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2005)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> What strikes me as a bit odd is that those who defend RAW/core assumptions at all costs either must play on the world of Greyhawk or a homebrew exactly like Greyhawk. To play on other settings, even Eberron which has divergences from the standard D&D assumptions, is to break in one way or another with the core rules/core assumptions.
> 
> Midnight
> FR
> ...



You'll find that a lot of these are non WOTC settings, so I can't comment on exactly how they diverge.  A bunch of them don't diverge at all.

Spelljammer uses all the same assumptions as D&D (it IS D&D), it just adds a couple of new magic items (ships that fly through space) and some new places to go (other planets).

Dragonlance is basically standard D&D with more dragons, except for certain time periods which seem to break a lot of the D&D core rules and seemed a little bit hacked together when I read the rules for them.

The Arcana books are changed a LOT from D&D, which is why they need their own PHB to explain the differences.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What about "Use your common sense when your players want to do something."?  Why tag on that "you don't like"?




Because I've never heard of a reactionary DM banning something he wanted to happen?


----------



## Greg K (Sep 12, 2005)

I just find the whole thing regarding the RAW as some "Holy Grail" interesting, because if you go to web sites of  designers such as Sean Reynolds and Monte Cook  you will find that, looking back, they disagree with some of the rules they wrote and suggest changes to the RAW.  Furthermore, if you go to Andy Collins site, you will find house rules that he uses or has used for his own campaigns.  Are those of you advocating the RAW going to tell these designers, whose products you are holding to some sacred level, that they are not playing the game right should they make changes for their own game.


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 12, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I cannot stand that <explative deleted> Free Parking rule. The first thing I do when I play Monopoly with people is to tell them that this is not a rule in the game, and that I would greatly appreciate it if they dropped it just this once.



Arguably, many people learn to hate board games because of the Free Parking rule. Monopoly is supposed to be a short game (under 1 hour) but with Free Parking, it can last many hours. But back on topic, the point is, people apply house rules to other games. In fact, kids do it all the time. If you ever play a game with a child, game a tactical advantage and they will immediately want a rule change that prevents the play you just made so you don't gain that advantage. It is quite instinctual in kids. Perhaps everyone is born a munchkin.  Up until my sister was around 10-11, you could not play chess with her unless you used the "can't take queens" rule. Now, that might be a case of my father being overly indulgent, but I've seen similar actions made by other children in other games as well.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 12, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Perhaps everyone is born a munchkin.




Puns like that should add negative levels to the poster or something...


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 12, 2005)

Too many responses to reply individually...let's make this one message, shall we and a bit more general.

1) The core assumptions allow you to have a lot of wiggle room

2) Some game designers have spent a lot of time and effort to put out books of rules to change the core assumption to a new one to fit different settings.  This is possible, and I have no problem with it, but it really becomes a new game at that point.  Although I haven't played Midnight, it sounds like it has enough rules changes to be called Midnight the RPG rather than a campaign setting for D&D.  Once again, nothing wrong with this.  But there is a difference between D20 and D&D.  Babylon 5 is a D20 game, it isn't D&D.

3) D&D has always been a somewhat competative game.  Gary Gygax has been quoted more than once talking about how to smack down players and how to control people who get too powerful by taking away their stuff.  Players have always been trying to get more gold and more XP than their fellow group members.  People compete for XP rewards and steal gold out of the party treasury.

4) Yes, Monopoly has house rules, but mainly because no one knows they are houserules and have "always played that way".  Similar to the fact that I played with a weird mix of 1st Ed, 2nd Ed and house rules for a couple of years while I thought I was playing 2nd Ed.  The group that taught me to play was running 10 different games of D&D at once.  All with the same house rules.  All the players in my game came from the original group.  I had never actually read the rules as I was taught by them.  It wasn't until a year or 2 later that I realized I had been using house rules without even knowing it.  So, I made it my goal to actually know what I was doing.

5) I choose not to worry about where gold comes from, gods can create it or there can be an elemental plane of gold, or there is just a LOT of it on the planet.  Either way, it is inconcequential to the game.  Also, I assume that most NPC don't get much of any XP at all.  Guards who actually get into fights might get to level 10 in their entire lifetimes.  Commoners rarely, if ever get to above 5th level.  Adventurers get high level quickly due to their profession, that's it.

6) Probably more stuff....I'm off work now, I'm going home.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 12, 2005)

Greg K said:
			
		

> I just find the whole thing regarding the RAW as some "Holy Grail" interesting, because if you go to web sites of  designers such as Sean Reynolds and Monte Cook  you will find that, looking back, they disagree with some of the rules they wrote and suggest changes to the RAW.  Furthermore, if you go to Andy Collins site, you will find house rules that he uses or has used for his own campaigns.  Are those of you advocating the RAW going to tell these designers, whose products you are holding to some sacred level, that they are not playing the game right should they make changes for their own game.




First: Holding the RAW as immutable is different than holding the designers as immutable. 

Second: People arn't saying the RAW is perfect and shouldn't be changed. People are saying it should only be changed outside of a gaming session, not while the session is going on. Decisions made in game are likely to be determined more by emotional feelings toward that particular encounter instead of as an objective look as the rules as they apply to the overall campaign. In my experience, of course.



			
				jmucchiello said:
			
		

> But back on topic, the point is, people apply house rules to other games. In fact, kids do it all the time.




Oh, I know. You just happened to bring up one of my pet peeves. To the contrary, I play Risk 2210 with House Rules when I play with my group of friends. It all depends on the game.



> If you ever play a game with a child, game a tactical advantage and they will immediately want a rule change that prevents the play you just made so you don't gain that advantage. It is quite instinctual in kids. Perhaps everyone is born a munchkin.  Up until my sister was around 10-11, you could not play chess with her unless you used the "can't take queens" rule. Now, that might be a case of my father being overly indulgent, but I've seen similar actions made by other children in other games as well.




I think we all have preconceved notions of how things will play out in game before they actually happen, both the DM and the Players. Sometimes we overlook a rule and don't notice that it will adversely affect our plans. Both players and DMs need to be able to look at this objectively and just accept when this happens.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 13, 2005)

Greg K said:
			
		

> I just find the whole thing regarding the RAW as some "Holy Grail" interesting,...<snip>... that they are not playing the game right should they make changes for their own game.




Okay.. jsut a bit confused. I know 8 pages is alot of posts, but did anyone else see a poster slightly suggest that the RAW is immutable and no deviation from it shall be tolerated lest ye have the wrath of Rules Laywers upon thine head?

 Not me. I have seen posters suggest that the RAW is a good framework and basis from which to present your version {some may say variant} to your players with a strong sense of coherency.

Me, I currently run an Eberron game.. with house rules for Healing, Language, and use the Elements of Magic spell system. Not to mention a variation of the Entangle spell and altered versions of the Monk and Ranger classes. All of which have been presented to my players prior to them having to make an in character decision based on those rules. All of which add to a distinctly different feel to the game.
 I had more.. but conversations on these boards resulted in them being nixed in favor of the RAW.
  I regularly add a point or two to a bad guys HP total in an effort to have him die dramatically in a following action. I often fudge thier to hits, some for misses, some for hits. Never more than a +/- 2 points.
 I have a pile of House Rules for Axis and Allies...{most of which are official in AnA:Europe}
 Does this make me a bad DM? My players don't mind.. of course they don't know either.   

So.. yes. Run your game with the style and flair you want. But in order to provide a better gaming environment, you should examine potential house rules and present them to your players {preferably get your players input on them} prior to using them in play.
 You should understand the 'core assumptions' and how your variation tilts the scale.
 You should ignore economics.. at least until one of your players retires to sell sunrods 

 I have found this approach cuts down on the rules-lawyering.. meaning more in character conversations and faster resolution of any sticky points that come up in play.

YMMV, of course. {as is evident by this thread}



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Both players and DMs need to be able to look at this objectively and just accept when this happens.



Three Cheers for Third Wizard! A hearty 'Me to' on that one!


----------



## Greg K (Sep 13, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> there is a bit by Gygax in which he claims that only games using official TSR rules are really D&D.  In other words, even back then we had the beginning of "Please use the RAW, because it'll put money in our pockets."
> 
> 
> RC




IIRC,  Gary has gone on record as saying that he meant that  to only apply to tournament and organized (i.e., RPGA) play (the latter which he was trying to get started at the time he made the comment).  It is somewhere in one of the Gary Gygax interview threads.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 13, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Okay.. jsut a bit confused. I know 8 pages is alot of posts, but did anyone else see a poster slightly suggest that the RAW is immutable and no deviation from it shall be tolerated lest ye have the wrath of Rules Laywers upon thine head?
> 
> Not me. I have seen posters suggest that the RAW is a good framework and basis from which to present your version {some may say variant} to your players with a strong sense of coherency.




Oops.  I see that I  missed where Majoru qualified the statement regarding his assumption of DND as RAW Greyhawk without houserules as being unless told otherwise.  I suppose unless told otherwise m does change eveything


----------



## Greg K (Sep 13, 2005)

With regards to house rules, I go into new gaming groups expecting  houserules.  As for when I GM, I try to have a list of house rules for the player including acceptable and banned material from non-core sources (in the case of banned material it appears to be the majority of WOTC supplements in their entirety).  I also make it clear upfront that I reserve the right to update the house rules as I deem appropriate, but not in the middle of a session.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 13, 2005)

> Second: People arn't saying the RAW is perfect and shouldn't be changed. People are saying it should only be changed outside of a gaming session, not while the session is going on. Decisions made in game are likely to be determined more by emotional feelings toward that particular encounter instead of as an objective look as the rules as they apply to the overall campaign. In my experience, of course.




Quoted for truth.

I think Greg K brings up a good point though.  Every campaign will have house rules.  That's simply the nature of the game.  The second you deviate in the slightest from the RAW, you are creating house rules.  And, for the most part, that's perfectly acceptable.  Each campaign will always have a different feel and a need for some adjustments to suit the game to the players.  In a game as large as DnD, there's more than enough room for this.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this.

What does need to be examined though, particularly in light of 3e rules, is that house rules have consequences.  3e rules tend to be very interconnected and changes in core assumptions can have far reaching consequences.  Take S'mon's money post from a while back.  XP awards in the game are based on the challenge rating of the creature.  The CR is calculated based on the assumption of a certain level of wealth in the party.  A party that lacks particular items, such as magic weapons, has a much more difficult time defeating creatures than a party which has them.  Therefore, the poorer party should receive more xp for each encounter.

Now, you don't have to do this, but this is one example of how changing rules can have larger implications.


----------



## Berandor (Sep 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> *Between sessions.*
> 
> Not "in the middle of the session, as the player is attempting an action."



Well, I can say that if necessary, I will make up a rule on the fly and review it later on. For example, if a player wants to get an NPC drunk without succumbing to the alcohol himself, I'll have to do _something_ since it's not covered by RAW.

So I might say, "Make a Fortitude save this time, DC 10+number of beers, wine counts double, schnapps triple, whoever fails first is drunk. I'll think about something better till next session."

I'd say that's better than "Sorry, that's not in the rules."


----------



## S'mon (Sep 13, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Take S'mon's money post from a while back.  XP awards in the game are based on the challenge rating of the creature.  The CR is calculated based on the assumption of a certain level of wealth in the party.  A party that lacks particular items, such as magic weapons, has a much more difficult time defeating creatures than a party which has them.  Therefore, the poorer party should receive more xp for each encounter.
> 
> Now, you don't have to do this, but this is one example of how changing rules can have larger implications.




Actually the game balance doesn't require a monetary economy at all, what it does require is a certain amount of combat-related magic items in the possession of the PCs.  There's no need for magc items to be purchasable or sellable for gold.  So a 10th level PC group could have 8gp between them and never purchased a magic item, but if they possess a suitable amount of useful magic items for 10th level they'll be balanced vs CR 10 foes.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 13, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Actually the game balance doesn't require a monetary economy at all, what it does require is a certain amount of combat-related magic items in the possession of the PCs.  There's no need for magc items to be purchasable or sellable for gold.  So a 10th level PC group could have 8gp between them and never purchased a magic item, but if they possess a suitable amount of useful magic items for 10th level they'll be balanced vs CR 10 foes.




Now, back up a second there.  There is absolutely nothing in the RAW that states that a PC's equipment must be purchased.  The wealth by level table says nothing about it actually being cash at any point in time.  The wealth by level table is simply a guideline for how much wealth a character should have at a given time in a baseline game.

If your party possesses X amount of equipment equal to the amount of money in the PC wealth by level table, then you haven't deviated at all from the RAW.  However, in your first post, you mentioned how a party couldn't have the resources to purchase a 1000 gp Continual Light stick at 5th level.  Granted, they may not have straight up cash, but, then again, they could sell part of their equipnment for the cash or trade equipment of equal value.  Whether or not its actual coin is not all that important.  Your previous posts led me to believe that your party was considerably more poor than the guidelines suggested in the RAW.  I know that the other poster (whose name escapes me at the moment) flat out stated that his campaign features a great deal less treasure.

There is one point though about stripping all the cash away from the players.  This results in the DM having pretty much complete control over magic in the game.  If the only way you can get magic items is to take them from other people, then, well, the DM controls everything.  This leads to the old 2e problem where every fighter winds up taking the exact same weapons because the odds of finding a magic bec du corbin are zero to none.  And, if you actually do find one, it's pretty obvious that the DM dropped it there for you.  On a personal level, I dislike the DM being this visible in the game.


----------



## Belen (Sep 13, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> There is one point though about stripping all the cash away from the players.  This results in the DM having pretty much complete control over magic in the game.  If the only way you can get magic items is to take them from other people, then, well, the DM controls everything.  This leads to the old 2e problem where every fighter winds up taking the exact same weapons because the odds of finding a magic bec du corbin are zero to none.  And, if you actually do find one, it's pretty obvious that the DM dropped it there for you.  On a personal level, I dislike the DM being this visible in the game.




Not necessarily.  The player can tell the DM that he wants to find a magical bec du corbin and then do the research to find it.  It is one way for a player to help direct the events of the campaign.  He asks the party to help him find a legendary weapon.


----------



## Belen (Sep 13, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Okay.. jsut a bit confused. I know 8 pages is alot of posts, but did anyone else see a poster slightly suggest that the RAW is immutable and no deviation from it shall be tolerated lest ye have the wrath of Rules Laywers upon thine head?




Majoru said this.  He said that it is not D&D unless you use all of the "core assumptions" of the game and play in a Greyhawk-like world.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 13, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> This leads to the old 2e problem where every fighter winds up taking the exact same weapons because the odds of finding a magic bec du corbin are zero to none.  And, if you actually do find one, it's pretty obvious that the DM dropped it there for you.  On a personal level, I dislike the DM being this visible in the game.



Are you saying that it feels contrived to _find_ a super-rare magic weapon but it doesn't feel contrived to find a marketplace that'll _sell_ you a super-rare magic weapon?

Is this what they mean by voodoo economics?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Because I've never heard of a reactionary DM banning something he wanted to happen?





Why do you need to add the word "reactionary"?  Has anyone, anywhere _*ever*_ banned *anything* they wanted to happen?


Sorry, but the argument that 

a)  Some people abuse right X, therefore
b)  Right X should be abolished​
is a little too...convenient...for me.  And now I will abandon this line of reasoning, because it is impossible to both meet the EnWorld board guidelines and pursue it.

In any event, no matter what the ruleset says, and no matter what any player argues, the game always has and always will rest in the domain of the DM as final arbiter.  Not unlike (though I shudder to say it) the programmers are the final arbiters in a PlayStation game.  Could you imagine having this argument about Silent Hill?  "I didn't know that would happen if I attacked the monster!  What's up with this arbitrary cut scene?  This game totally blows!"

So far as I know, no one has ever been chained to a particular DM's table.  Not having fun?  Get up and go.  Having enough fun that you want to keep playing, but still not getting everything you want?  Grow up.  You don't always get everything you want, even if it is written in a book.  Or start your own game.  There are always more players than DMs, and I am sure someone out there is willing to give you a chance.  Players who bemoan every setback, regardless of its cause, can easily be replaced.  Having a great time?  Then, lucky you, you've got (or are) an excellent DM.  I'll bet dollars to donuts he's not afraid to rule based on the common sense of his campaign world.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> 1) The core assumptions allow you to have a lot of wiggle room
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 5) I choose not to worry about where gold comes from, gods can create it or there can be an elemental plane of gold, or there is just a LOT of it on the planet.  Either way, it is inconcequential to the game.  Also, I assume that most NPC don't get much of any XP at all.  Guards who actually get into fights might get to level 10 in their entire lifetimes.  Commoners rarely, if ever get to above 5th level.  Adventurers get high level quickly due to their profession, that's it.






In other words, one can easily have a low magic, low wealth game without making all of the changes to the RAW that you suggested were "logically" necessary.  

Thank you.

RC


----------



## Henry (Sep 13, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Okay.. jsut a bit confused. I know 8 pages is alot of posts, but did anyone else see a poster slightly suggest that the RAW is immutable and no deviation from it shall be tolerated lest ye have the wrath of Rules Laywers upon thine head?




Actually, I did  when I noted about 6 or 7 pages back the attitudes I've seen being engendered in players whose only FRP experience is Online RPG's and Computer RPG's before they came to tabletop games.

The biggest difference is that unlike a lot of the posters who have replied, I've seen situations (far more often than 1 time in 100) where a DM has to rule on something not explicitly covered in the rules, and come up with a DC for doing so. However, I've also seen players challenge the DM's decision on the DC needed to do something, too, because they disagreed with what circumstances applied and what didn't. That's why I feel DM's need their "final arbiter" status reinforced instead of undermined.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Okay.. jsut a bit confused. I know 8 pages is alot of posts, but did anyone else see a poster slightly suggest that the RAW is immutable and no deviation from it shall be tolerated lest ye have the wrath of Rules Laywers upon thine head?








			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Although I haven't played Midnight, it sounds like it has enough rules changes to be called Midnight the RPG rather than a campaign setting for D&D.





'Nuff said.


RC


----------



## Greg K (Sep 13, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Majoru said this.  He said that it is not D&D unless you use all of the "core assumptions" of the game and play in a Greyhawk-like world.




Lol. now I am confused.  I thought that I saw him write exactly that. However, the only post I found was one where he wrote that, going *into* any DND game, he expected it to be Greyhawk like and RAW *unless he was told otherwise.*


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 13, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Although I haven't played Midnight, it sounds like it has enough rules changes to be called Midnight the RPG rather than a campaign setting for D&D.




 I read this as 'I show up for a DnD game and find out half-way through the first session that we are playing Midnight, I would prefer the DM announce the game as a Midnight game'.

 Personally I announce games as 'Ravenloft', 'Eberron', 'My World',  or 'CP2020'.....
Use of a setting name that helps players undertand that thier is a major shift to different set of assumptions.

 Regardless, with the exception of *Henry's * post that acknowledges that players of that sort do exist.. there has not been any poster on this thread pronoucing beleif in "the RAW is immutable and no deviation from it shall be tolerated"..which was what *Greg K*'s post said. Everyone here, as far as I can tell, understand that every game deviates from the 'core assumptions' in various degrees. The isssue is how to handle players..such as *Henry * has encountered, and ensure that the DM's authority to house rule thier game..and to make off the cuff rulings when a rule is not readily available..is not infringed upon.


*Raven Crowking*.. agreed with the decision to not get into that debate.. I am sure someone would bring up the 2nd amendment  ... but thats even farther derailed than we have gotten this thread...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I know that the other poster (whose name escapes me at the moment) flat out stated that his campaign features a great deal less treasure.
> 
> There is one point though about stripping all the cash away from the players.  This results in the DM having pretty much complete control over magic in the game.  If the only way you can get magic items is to take them from other people, then, well, the DM controls everything.  This leads to the old 2e problem where every fighter winds up taking the exact same weapons because the odds of finding a magic bec du corbin are zero to none.  And, if you actually do find one, it's pretty obvious that the DM dropped it there for you.  On a personal level, I dislike the DM being this visible in the game.





That other poster would be me.    

You are correct in saying that the DM therefore has pretty much complete control over magic in the game.  Of course, "pretty much" allows for some wiggle room.

(1)  You can still make magic items.  Using power components can drop the XP and GP costs considerably.  Just requires research and adventuring.

(2)  Although I give less treasure _overall_, there are some pretty good hauls out there if you are clever enough to get them when you spot them.  Some of them require a good bit of work to remove.

(3)  Coming up, I am developing "legacy" rules that allow you to create new feats, spells, magic items, inventions, etc. (subject to DM input and approval, of course) that affect either your character or change the campaign world in some way.  In other words, players will have some level of direct input on how the campaign world works.

(4)  I also use swashbuckling cards!      That has nothing to do with magic items, but they are cool, and they also allow PCs to do things NPCs cannot.


RC


----------



## FireLance (Sep 13, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Well, I can say that if necessary, I will make up a rule on the fly and review it later on. For example, if a player wants to get an NPC drunk without succumbing to the alcohol himself, I'll have to do _something_ since it's not covered by RAW.
> 
> So I might say, "Make a Fortitude save this time, DC 10+number of beers, wine counts double, schnapps triple, whoever fails first is drunk. I'll think about something better till next session."
> 
> I'd say that's better than "Sorry, that's not in the rules."



I'm perfectly fine with this. After all, the rules don't cover every situation, and can sometimes be interpreted in different ways. In game, you sometimes need to make a ruling and move on.

What I consider to be a poor DM is one who:
1. Is not familiar with the rules.
2. Gets defensive when a player displays better knowledge of the rules than he does, usually by highlighting a rule that applies in the situation.
3. Doesn't bother to understand what the rule actually means or does.
4. Declares what he thinks "should" happen instead.

I'm pretty sure this type of DM was responsible for the "90% chance of hitting a friend" and the "a gnome can't intimidate a dragon" situations that were mentioned earlier.

I'm not saying that you need to know all the rules to be a DM. Rules knowledge is only one of the traits of a good DM (and some might say not even the most important one). I'm not saying that DMs can't make mistakes. We're all human, after all. I'm not saying a DM shouldn't make up rules or interpret them on the fly. You need to keep up the momentum of the game. I'm not saying a DM shouldn't create house rules. You might want a game with a different flavor from the core assumptions, and tweaking and making up new rules, feats, spells, prestige classes, etc. is part of the fun of being a DM. 

I am saying that DMs should recognize their own limitations. If you aren't good at rules, don't feel threatened by a player who knows the rules better than you do, and don't punish him or try to put him in his place by changing the rule on the spot. Do understand the reasons for and effects of an existing rule, and try to anticipate how your proposed changes will affect the game before actually making them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2005)

*Rules That Seldom Come Up*

In some cases, when designing an adventure I find myself using rules that seldom come up.  For example, rules for underwater combat.  In these circumstances, I try to include a bulletin-point summary of the rules in my notes for the encounter in question.  This makes it very easy to use the rules without having to flip through books at the table.  In the case of underwater combat, I am using (as a house rule) material from the _Legends & Lairs Seafarar's Handbook_, so that would otherwise be additional material that I would have to flip through.  Although my adventure notes are longer than average, they are easier to follow this way!    

Earlier, I had mentioned that a PC's background being used as a plot hook might engender the creation of 100+ pages of material.  Unfortunately (perhaps) this is not an exaggeration.  For me, a story arc goes beyond a single adventure.  Something that the PC comes up with may cause me to design a city, a village, a dungeon, a cave system, a ruined town, etc., etc.

One character's story arc affects different stories.  It may even affect different _groups_ playing in the same campaign world.  For example, the events in my current PbP began as a result of two actions in my tabletop game.  This, for me, is normal stuff.

I love DMing.  I doubt I'll ever quit.

For myself, and other DMs like me, the game is a labour of love.  We put in long hours.  We do *way* more work than any player in her right mind would do.  The campaign world is ours, and we are the final arbiters thereof.  After all, we control the gods.    

Unlike some here, the longer I play 3.X, the more I find that I need to tinker with it to get it to do what I want it to do.  Again, the engine is fantastic.  It's just the window dressing (how do you use a gnomish pick, anyway?) that needs serious reworking.

(For me, though, the window dressing is all the races, all the classes, some of the feats [mostly, I need to add some world-specific ones], and some of the spells [not folkloric enough, too video-game-y].)


RC


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 13, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> Well, I can say that if necessary, I will make up a rule on the fly and review it later on.




I was going to respond in more detail to this, but Firelance covered it pretty well here: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2572338&postcount=314

To expand, that's not the kind of house rule I'm talking about.  That's expanding the rules to cover situations that aren't actually covered.

Now, if, instead, you'd announced up front that you'd be using the Alcohol and Drinking rules from, say, Fairs and Taverns, and then changed your mind in-game, we might have a problem.

[Hypothetical example follows, as I don't have F&T.]  Succinctly, I decided, as a player, that it was possible for my character to drink the scrawny guy under the table because the drinking rules in F&T says that each drink has a an Alcohol DC, which you must beat with a Con check.  If you beat it, nothing bad happens.  If you fail, then you get 1 Drunkness point.  When you have Drunkness points >= 1/2 your Con score, you're tipsy (small penalty to Dex and Wisdom), and at Con score or greater, you're drunk (large penalty to Dex and Wis).  At 2x Con score or greater, you pass out.  I've looked at my Con score, looked at the Alcohol DCs for beers, and figure my character knows he can go for about 8-10 beers before he starts having issues.  (He may have issues sooner if someone starts spiking drinks - which is what *I*'d try to do in a drinking contest.   )

However, you've gone and changed the rules on me.  Now I've got less of an idea than before of how many beers my character can drink, on average, before he starts feeling the effects.  My character's knowledge of "The Way the World Works" is no longer applicable.  

*I* know that, generally speaking, normal human Patrick can have two or three beers in a row before he starts feeling tingly, and should probably stop before he hits five or six over the course of a long meal.

My character should have similar self-knowledge.  Announcing the rules up-front (when you know them) allows this to happen.  *Changing* the rules midgame - not merely coming up with an applicable rule for an unforseen situation - prevents this from happening.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 13, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why do you need to add the word "reactionary"?  Has anyone, anywhere _*ever*_ banned *anything* they wanted to happen?




No - but then, that's not the kind of house rules we're dealing with, here.  We're - or, at least, I'm - referring to the numerous examples brought up in this thread and others whereby a DM has decided to pull the proverbial rug out from underneath the characters and the players.

"Yes, I know that there's no chance for you to hit your allies according to what the rules say, and I know that you wouldn't have taken the shot with your bow if you'd known that the only thing you'd be able to hit is your friend, but I've decided that it 'makes more sense' that this happen.  Come on - you should've known this would happen - it's common sense!"

That's the kind of ad hoc house rule that I have problems with.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 13, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Are you saying that it feels contrived to find a super-rare magic weapon but it doesn't feel contrived to find a marketplace that'll sell you a super-rare magic weapon?




Yes. Because if there is a marketplace, I can commission someone to make me the super-rare magic item. Which is generally how people get super-rare items to begin with.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> "Yes, I know that there's no chance for you to hit your allies according to what the rules say, and I know that you wouldn't have taken the shot with your bow if you'd known that the only thing you'd be able to hit is your friend, but I've decided that it 'makes more sense' that this happen.  Come on - you should've known this would happen - it's common sense!"
> 
> That's the kind of ad hoc house rule that I have problems with.



Once again we have house rules being confused with poor GMing.

Telling a player after the shot is made that there is a chance of hitting the other characters is a bad call - a better GM in this circumstance would say to the player, "If you take the shot and miss, there is a chance of hitting one of your friends instead. Do you still want to take that action?"

The GM is empowered by the rules to make those sorts of judgement calls, to bend and twist and break the rules if it serves the style of game the GM wants to run. A prudent GM offers the player options when something like this arises, rather than making a ruling _post hoc_ as described here.

(By the way, in this specific example, the door can definitely swing both ways - in a 1e game that I ran many years ago, an orcish archer took out three of his comrades and wounded two others while trying to shoot the party wizard, and was then slain by one of his injured allies.  )


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> That's the kind of ad hoc house rule that I have problems with.





Which is fair enough.  But it is a far cry from the sort of things that this thread started out discussing:  The idea held by some players that, because it's in the book(s), the DM must use it, and the idea that the DM is not the final arbitrator of the games they are running.

I think we all agree:  finding yourself in the game of a bad DM is an unpleasant experience.  Luckily for most of us, though, we aren't chained to the table.    


RC


----------



## Jackelope King (Sep 13, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Once again we have house rules being confused with poor GMing.



Actually, no. It's an example of a house rule being introduced as part of a bad GMing call, and this sort of thing is encouraged when you tell the GM to make such calls. The more guidance you give GMs in how and when to make such calls, the fewer of these you'll see, even from bad GMs. If the game does ask you to come up with a novel resolution system for every challenge, then this sort of thing runs rampant, and it takes a good GM to keep it under wraps. If the game minimizes the need for novel resolutions, then you'll see fewer bad call house rules. Can you run a game that demands many novel resolutions in the course of the game and have it be great? Absolutely. I've known many GMs who could probably pull an entire game system out on the fly and make the game wonderful. But I've known many, many, many more good GMs who would be hard-pressed to keep things consistent and fun for their players in such a situation.

The problem is that certain styles of play seem to necessitate the abundant use of novel house rules in order to achieve a functional experience, _often with the GM using "common sense" as the yard stick for controversial calls_ (like the aforementioned gnome intimidating a dragon or an archer hitting his allies). For the GM, it's just common sense that a three-foot tall thing can't scare a giant dragon. But the player has seen _Casino_ and _Goodfellas_ and he knows not to judge someone based on their size, because there's a very good possibility that the shrimp is a psychopath who will pop your eyeball out in a vice given half a chance.

"Common sense" is anything but in many cases. Ideally, a game system (or a set of house rules) should put concrete rules in places where there could be a disagreement of "common sense". The intimidate rules are perfect for this... it might be against "common sense" for a gnome to intimidate a dragon, but it already reflects that with the modifiers for the check.

Ideally, a GM should have to rule and adjudicate as little as possible during a game and be given the opportunity to focus mainly on presenting the world of the game to the players. The rules should serve to facilitate the shared experience of that world, so that a player can hear the GM describe an area or situation, size it up, and be able to make the same predictions that we can make in real life because of a consistent ruleset underlying that environment. This is what a ruleset should strive towards.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 13, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> It's an example of a house rule being introduced as part of a bad GMing call, and this sort of thing is encouraged when you tell the GM to make such calls.



While the rules encourage GMs to make house rules to fit their campaign, it doesn't say that they should be implemented unfairly - encouraging the GM to make judgement calls and suggesting that they do it to take away a player's choices after the fact are two different things.







			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The more guidance you give GMs in how and when to make such calls, the fewer of these you'll see, even from bad GMs.



I agree - that's why I think there should be more guidance for GMs on making good rulings, rather than an ever expanding canon of rules.







			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> If the game does ask you to come up with a novel resolution system for every challenge, then this sort of thing runs rampant, and it takes a good GM to keep it under wraps. If the game minimizes the need for novel resolutions, then you'll see fewer bad call house rules.



In the case of this specific example (the archer and the obstructed field of fire), this is ruling that can be made once and applied each time the circumstance arises - it doesn't become a novel ruling each time the circumstance arises, but a consistent aspect of play.

Ideally, as others have noted, it would be best if this sort of thing can be delineated before the game in a house-rules document. However, _ad hoc_ ruling will occur for those of us who simply cannot anticipate every circumstance that may arise during the game - if the ruling is then added to the exisiting list of house rules, it aids consistent application. To suggest that only those rules that are spelled out at the beginning of play handcuffs GMs from exercising the ability to adapt the rules to the game as situations arise that haven't been covered or which take away from the game the GM is attempting to run.

Moreover, I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should be a novel resolution system for every challenge, but that circumstances arise during play that the GM mus adjudicate, or existing rules don't suit the flavor and feel that the GM is trying to create. It's one thing to make a ruling here and there - it's another thing to say, "We're going to use d6 combat for this encounter, then flip coins next time, then...."







			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> The problem is that certain styles of play seem to necessitate the abundant use of novel house rules in order to achieve a functional experience, _often with the GM using "common sense" as the yard stick for controversial calls_ (like the aforementioned gnome intimidating a dragon or an archer hitting his allies). For the GM, it's just common sense that a three-foot tall thing can't scare a giant dragon. But the player has seen _Casino_ and _Goodfellas_ and he knows not to judge someone based on their size, because there's a very good possibility that the shrimp is a psychopath who will pop your eyeball out in a vice given half a chance.



I agree that common sense isn't.

I can't speak for other GMs, but when I make a ruling of this sort, it has everything to do with the feel of the game I want to create, not my own limited "common sense." For example, the 3e design principle that player actions should be as predictable as possible also sanitizes many of the risks that were once part of the game, either as rules or by custom - magic is safe and reliable with few (if any) harmful consequences, shooting into melee makes it more difficult to hit the target but poses no risk to the shooter's allies (or other targets in the field of fire for that matter) - and reduces some of the air of mystery that once surrounded adventuring. IMX it also leads to conflicts when players know the rules so well that they object to a challenge that seems to break those rules - "That's only a DC 20 check, so I should be able to make that by taking 10!" - without regard for the GM's power to change the rules (hopefully in a thoughtful, consistent way) to make the challenge more, well, challenging.

I like games in which the players are faced with risk versus reward choices, and when the rules sanitize some of those risks in the interest of predictability, then I will modify the rule accordingly to restore that feeling of uncertainty.







			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Ideally, a GM should have to rule and adjudicate as little as possible during a game and be given the opportunity to focus mainly on presenting the world of the game to the players. The rules should serve to facilitate the shared experience of that world, so that a player can hear the GM describe an area or situation, size it up, and be able to make the same predictions that we can make in real life because of a consistent ruleset underlying that environment. This is what a ruleset should strive towards.



First, I have yet to encounter the ruleset that can explicitly cover every circumstance that arises in the course of a game - I'm fortunate enough to play with very creative players for the most part. It is the GM's role, in addition to presenting the world, to adjudicate those rules in the course of play. That's straight from the RAW and shouldn't really be a source of contention.

Second, too many rules is cumbersome. Some folks have argued that it "only take a minute" to look up a rule and apply it, but IMX that's not where games bog down - it's how does the core rule interact with the rule from this supplement and that setting book? I'd rather make an _ad hoc_ ruling and keep the game moving than stop play to search though three books to determine how these rules interact.

Third, I think consistency is important - teaching GMs to be consistent in their rulings so that if something does deviate from the RAW the players can reasonably anticipate a similar result in the future is a good idea.

Fourth and last, the rules exist to serve the game. If the RAW doesn't allow me to capture the feel of what I want to convey in presenting the world, then I adapt the rules so that they do.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 13, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes. Because if there is a marketplace, I can commission someone to make me the super-rare magic item. Which is generally how people get super-rare items to begin with.



"How people get super-rare items to begin with" is a product of the setting, and how a given DM runs that setting.

My point was --and it still holds perfectly well-- that its equally contrived for a fighter to encounter a way to _buy outright or commission_ a rare magic weapon than to find one in an opponents stock of treasure.

Unless crafty, crafting wizards are dime and dozen, and always willing to take time off from their study of _How the Whole of Creation Works_ in order to invest a tomato-slicer with some of their precious lifeforce/mana/mojo in exchange for coinage, or a little fair trade...

In either case, the _oppourtunity_ for Player X to acquire the item is a contrivance...


----------



## Jackelope King (Sep 13, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> While the rules encourage GMs to make house rules to fit their campaign, it doesn't say that they should be implemented unfairly - encouraging the GM to make judgement calls and suggesting that they do it to take away a player's choices after the fact are two different things. I agree - that's why I think there should be more guidance for GMs on making good rulings, rather than an ever expanding canon of rules. In the case of this specific example (the archer and the obstructed field of fire), this is ruling that can be made once and applied each time the circumstance arises - it doesn't become a novel ruling each time the circumstance arises, but a consistent aspect of play.



I agree that in principle, making judgement calls is fine. I also don't think the solution is to simply shovel more rules into the game. I do think, however, that the ideal system should minimize the amout of judgement calls a GM has to make, because for every GM making great, consistent calls, there's another half-dozen GMs running the worst sort of GM Fiat games, where the object of a challenge is to, "Figure out how the GM wants this to end."



> Ideally, as others have noted, it would be best if this sort of thing can be delineated before the game in a house-rules document. However, _ad hoc_ ruling will occur for those of us who simply cannot anticipate every circumstance that may arise during the game - if the ruling is then added to the exisiting list of house rules, it aids consistent application. To suggest that only those rules that are spelled out at the beginning of play handcuffs GMs from exercising the ability to adapt the rules to the game as situations arise that haven't been covered or which take away from the game the GM is attempting to run.



And I have no problem with a GM making rulings during play. I expect it. I expect that when I run a game, I will have to invent the mechanics for at least one type of challenge as I go. No problem there. What I dislike is when the system encourages this _as_ the primary resolution system (i.e. one which demands novel solutions to be playable). I greatly prefer it when the GM and the players are on the same page. And I will agree that in many cases ad hoc rulings by GMs I've known are exactly what I would've done, and all we players agreed it was a good call. However, I feel that encouraging GMs to use this _to the exclusion of a codified ruleset_ is to the detriment of the gaming experience. I don't mind if the GM invents rules for braciation on the fly for me when I'm playing at Tarzan chasing a dire ape through the jungle. I do mind if the GM tells me that my gnome can't intimidate a dragon because it's just silly.



> Moreover, I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should be a novel resolution system for every challenge, but that circumstances arise during play that the GM mus adjudicate, or existing rules don't suit the flavor and feel that the GM is trying to create. It's one thing to make a ruling here and there - it's another thing to say, "We're going to use d6 combat for this encounter, then flip coins next time, then...."I agree that common sense isn't.



I agree. However, I think that the ideal system minimizes the need for this adjudication, or simplifies it with definite guidelines.



> I can't speak for other GMs, but when I make a ruling of this sort, it has everything to do with the feel of the game I want to create, not my own limited "common sense." For example, the 3e design principle that player actions should be as predictable as possible also sanitizes many of the risks that were once part of the game, either as rules or by custom - magic is safe and reliable with few (if any) harmful consequences, shooting into melee makes it more difficult to hit the target but poses no risk to the shooter's allies (or other targets in the field of fire for that matter) - and reduces some of the air of mystery that once surrounded adventuring. IMX it also leads to conflicts when players know the rules so well that they object to a challenge that seems to break those rules - "That's only a DC 20 check, so I should be able to make that by taking 10!" - without regard for the GM's power to change the rules (hopefully in a thoughtful, consistent way) to make the challenge more, well, challenging.



I agree with the first part of your statement (how to make ad hoc rulings), but disagree that an "air of mystery" is needed for a game. I've never met players who have done as you described, and I couldn't disagree more that having knowledgable players is a bad thing. To the contrary, I'd love to have more knowledgeable players. When I do play with people who know the rules, I can generally spend more time running the game rather than telling them how to accomplish a given task. I honestly can't fathom why you wouldn't want a cooperative player who knows how the game works to take some of the burden of running the mechanics of the game sitting at your table, and I think this is the big disconnect between our points of view. Much to the contrary, I encourage my players to know exactly how the mechanics of their characters work. Thanks to a severe lack of PHBs from the early 3.0 days of our group, I encouraged players to copy and paste the rules for their feats, class abilities, skills, and racial abilities from the SRD into MS Word and print them out alongside their character sheets. It removes a lot of the burden of running the game for me when a player says, "Alright, I want to climb that wall. You said it's a pretty typical masonry wall? The DC for that should be around 25." Now all I have to do is come back and say, "Right. Since it rained last night, it might be a little trickier," and tack a +2 modifier onto the check. I don't need the mechanics of the game to present and "air of mystery" to my players... I can do that just fine with the world they interact with.



> I like games in which the players are faced with risk versus reward choices, and when the rules sanitize some of those risks in the interest of predictability, then I will modify the rule accordingly to restore that feeling of uncertainty. First, I have yet to encounter the ruleset that can explicitly cover every circumstance that arises in the course of a game - I'm fortunate enough to play with very creative players for the most part. It is the GM's role, in addition to presenting the world, to adjudicate those rules in the course of play. That's straight from the RAW and shouldn't really be a source of contention.



No problem there, but I'll again point out that "ruling to restore a certain feeling of gameplay" can very, very easily silde into "ruling to restore how I feel the game should be". There's a fine line, and it takes a good GM to walk that line. If successful, the results can be marvelous. But I've seen many, many disasterous games where the GM tried to do just this and failed miserably.



> Second, too many rules is cumbersome. Some folks have argued that it "only take a minute" to look up a rule and apply it, but IMX that's not where games bog down - it's how does the core rule interact with the rule from this supplement and that setting book? I'd rather make an _ad hoc_ ruling and keep the game moving than stop play to search though three books to determine how these rules interact.



It'd certainly be helpful if you had a player there who knew the rules and who could tell you what they say in the situation, eh ? But seriously, I agree that too many rules is a bad thing, but I think we have a disagreement as to what constitutes "too many rules". I prefer a system where there is a simple and consistent resolution mechanic (in d20's case, d20 + modifier must beat DC) and a clear set of guidelines for the GM to determine the target (in this case, the DC). The less time I have to spend adjudicating how to climb a wall, the more time I can spend challenging my players with some good encounters.



> Third, I think consistency is important - teaching GMs to be consistent in their rulings so that if something does deviate from the RAW the players can reasonably anticipate a similar result in the future is a good idea.



Absolutely, and that's where I think having a consistent resolution system as part of the system is essential.



> Fourth and last, the rules exist to serve the game. If the RAW doesn't allow me to capture the feel of what I want to convey in presenting the world, then I adapt the rules so that they do.



No problem there either. The only way a problem arrises here is if you as the GM fail to get the players on the same page you're on. If you're seeking a grim & gritty game where even a low-damage attack can spell death for a character and your players think they're playing in a hack-fest where they can take all the hit point damage they want and never come out worse for it, then you've got a disconnect. And this is why a ruleset exists: to provide a shared interface for the world between all the players and the GM. No ruleset I know of can do it perfectly (which is why I refer to it as an "ideal"), but that should be the goal of any ruleset.

To clarify, when you change the rules to serve your game, you are doing do to help your players experience the game world in the same way you do. In the world you envision, let's say you don't see elves as graceful but frail, and instead see them as beautiful and charming but air-headed. You house rule elves to have a +2 charisma/-2 wisdom instead of a +2 dexterity/-2 consitution. A problem will not arrise here if you and the players all understand what elves are like in your game. A problem will rise, however, if you fail to communicate this change to players, or if the players fail to realize that you've changed elves. Now the guy who thought he was playing a nimble rogue finds out he's playing a ditz instead. The problem here is not that a change was made, but that there is a disconnect between how the player and the GM see the game world. As I've said, the ideal system minimizes this disconnect by providing a consistent (not necssarily overwhelming) ruleset. We'll probably never find that ideal system, but it should be the goal designers strive towards.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 13, 2005)

No fair, *Jackelope King*! How are we supposed to have a spirited flame war when we concur on so many points? This is the Internet, dagnabbit - no one is supposed to agree with anyone!  

Here, I'll try picking at this...







			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I've never met players who have done as you described, and I couldn't disagree more that having knowledgable players is a bad thing. To the contrary, I'd love to have more knowledgeable players. When I do play with people who know the rules, I can generally spend more time running the game rather than telling them how to accomplish a given task. I honestly can't fathom why you wouldn't want a cooperative player who knows how the game works to take some of the burden of running the mechanics of the game sitting at your table, and I think this is the big disconnect between our points of view.



*_sigh_*

Actually, I do agree that knowledgeable players are a very good thing, and I didn't mean to imply that they aren't. The problem is that I have encountered players like that, mostly since playing 3e, players who won't allow for the fact that the GM may have changed a critter ability or created a unique challenge of some kind and insist that the DC is _x_, not _y_, because that's what it says on page _abc_. That's the opposite of a cooperative player, as I'm sure you would agree.

I guess the only thing I have to add at this point is that while a good framework is important, I do believe more effort should be invested in teaching GMs to make good calls using that framework. (That there may be a financial incentive not to is an intriguing motive as to why this isn't the case.)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 13, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> The problem is that I have encountered players like that, mostly since playing 3e, players who won't allow for the fact that the GM may have changed a critter ability or created a unique challenge of some kind and insist that the DC is _x_, not _y_, because that's what it says on page _abc_. That's the opposite of a cooperative player, as I'm sure you would agree.




On the other hand, why wasn't the DC X?

To take an example, sure, you can change the DC to climb a normal masonry wall from 25 to arbitrarily large value Z, but what was the rationale behind it?

Is it to make this particular wall unclimbable because you don't have any details about what's at the top?  Is it because you have an encounter planned somewhere down the street where an assassin attacks from the rooftops (and therefore would be spoiled by a character also on the roof)?  Is it because this is the wall of an archmage's lab, and he's magically treated his walls to make them harder to climb (perhaps by placing a wall of force immediately outside the brick wall)?  Is it because you're in a tropical wilderness, and the slimy fungus all over the wall makes it more slippery?

In other words, a PC with a climb bonus of +15 knows that, if he takes his time, he can climb up most brick walls without issue.  In many cases, he should be able to look at a given wall and decide, based on his experiences, whether or not he's got a chance to make it up the wall.  Arbitrarily changing DCs, among other things, means that the player can no longer act and react to the world based on his character's experience of the game world.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 13, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I agree that in principle, making judgement calls is fine. I also don't think the solution is to simply shovel more rules into the game. I do think, however, that the ideal system should minimize the amout of judgement calls a GM has to make, because for every GM making great, consistent calls, there's another half-dozen GMs running the worst sort of GM Fiat games, where the object of a challenge is to, "Figure out how the GM wants this to end."



Yes, this has pretty much been my point.  My problem is that each of those half-dozen GMs believe they are the GM who is making great, consistant calls.  This has jaded me to the point where as soon as a GM starts telling me he has house rules, I worry about having fun at the game.

I think I've lost faith that there IS the one who makes good, consistant rulings.  It's beginning to look to me as if ALL DMs who are coming up with house rules are doing so to cover their lack of knowledge of the rules.  I don't mean to be insulting, I'm sure there ARE DMs out there, I just haven't played with them.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> No problem there either. The only way a problem arrises here is if you as the GM fail to get the players on the same page you're on. If you're seeking a grim & gritty game where even a low-damage attack can spell death for a character and your players think they're playing in a hack-fest where they can take all the hit point damage they want and never come out worse for it, then you've got a disconnect..



Yes, exactly.  And, IMHO, the D&D rules promote one style of play.  DMs need to understand this before choosing it as the ruleset.  You have heavily modify it to promote a different style of play, but I see too many DMs who just expect the ruleset to work for whatever style they want to run without any changes.  Then, when they find rules that don't fit their style, they change them, one by one.

D&D encourages entire role playing sessions to be resolved by a single die roll and each 6 seconds of combat to take 30 minutes of time in real life.  If you want a role playing heavy game, you will likely have to create a lot of house rules.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> On the other hand, why wasn't the DC X?
> 
> To take an example, sure, you can change the DC to climb a normal masonry wall from 25 to arbitrarily large value Z, but what was the rationale behind it?



There could be a number of reasons for it - here are a couple of examples that I would consider for a game that I'm running:







			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Is it because this is the wall of an archmage's lab, and he's magically treated his walls to make them harder to climb (perhaps by placing a wall of force immediately outside the brick wall)?  Is it because you're in a tropical wilderness, and the slimy fungus all over the wall makes it more slippery?



Or because the wall is crumbling from age, or because the wall is rigged to fall, or because the wall is actually a variety of earth elemental that the players haven't encountered before...

And here are a couple that I would never use:







			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Is it to make this particular wall unclimbable because you don't have any details about what's at the top?  Is it because you have an encounter planned somewhere down the street where an assassin attacks from the rooftops (and therefore would be spoiled by a character also on the roof)?



The second set of examples I would consider arbitrary and extremely poor GMing, but not the first. I agree that there are no excuses for arbitrary nerfing of a characters abilities, but not all changes are so - some (all in my games) are introduced to reflect specific circumstances.







			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In other words, a PC with a climb bonus of +15 knows that, if he takes his time, he can climb up most brick walls without issue.  In many cases, he should be able to look at a given wall and decide, based on his experiences, whether or not he's got a chance to make it up the wall.  Arbitrarily changing DCs, among other things, means that the player can no longer act and react to the world based on his character's experience of the game world.



Again, not all changes are arbitrary, nor do the characters necessarily know everything that is going on at the moment.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 13, 2005)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Oops.  I see that I  missed where Majoru qualified the statement regarding his assumption of DND as RAW Greyhawk without houserules as being unless told otherwise.  I suppose unless told otherwise m does change eveything



Yes, I never said it was wrong to change the game...though, as I recently mentioned...I get...bad feelings when it happens.

This has a lot to do with being a rules lawyer.  I admit it.  I know the rules better than anyone else I know.  I correct other DMs on a regular basis and it rubs me the wrong way when DMs forget the rules in exchange for whatever comes to mind.

I'm the one that says "Remember, the enemy gets +4 bonus to his grapple check due to size" and have DMs say "Oh, right...I forgot about that.  You fail to grapple him."  I generally get a sense early on if the DM is in 1 of 3 major categories:

1) Forgetful:  These DMs will thank me for helping them as it's been a while since they've read through the book, they don't DM very often and it's nice to have someone around who remembers small bonuses since they can't.

2) Uncaring:  These DMs never knew the rule to begin with, never actually read the book and are making things up as they go along.  They get angry at me for "undermining their authority" and tend to be the ones that get the most angry at rules lawyers.

3) House Rules DM:  These DMs have read the rules and didn't like something about them.  They didn't think that hit points were realistic enough so they removed the ability to gain more as you go up levels, they think being able to cast defensively is stupid, etc.  They get really mad at me for pointing out that all the problems they've created due to changing the rules until they get angry enough, so I never open my mouth while at the table again.

I'm sure there is a 4th category:

4) People who changed only the bare minimum rules to fit their campaign worlds and thought all the way through their changes so they rebalanced all the classes to make up for power lost due to changes they made.

Of course, I've never met anyone in the 4th category, but I keep reading about them.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 13, 2005)

*Majoru Oakheart*.. I soo much want to be GM Type #4.. but probably end up as a #1 

*TheShaman*..Patryn's point.. and mine.. is that the climbing player can have one of two responses....based on how the GM has ruled on things in the past.

 A> This is strange, I should be able to climb this wall.. but something about it is making it difficult. We should investigate to discover the reason I cannot easily climb this!

 B> Damn. DM doesn't want me on the roof. Guess I will have to go along and get ambushed by his story.

 Obviously, option A is preferable. This option is more likely when you have established that the rules work they way they are expected to under normal circumstances... expected *by the player*. Most of the reasons you mention would be easily detectable by touch or by look.  
  As a player, I would be annoyed if you told me _after_ I failed a climb check that the wall was a higher difficulty because it is made of old, crumbly sandstone.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 13, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> There could be a number of reasons for it - here are a couple of examples that I would consider for a game that I'm running:Or because the wall is crumbling from age, or because the wall is rigged to fall, or because the wall is actually a variety of earth elemental that the players haven't encountered before...



The point is almost every type of modifier can be seen by the player.  They can see that the wall is crumbling, or if its deceptive, you can just apply the modifier and say "The wall crumbles in your hands as you attempt to climb it".

Even magical effect should be somewhat noticeable after they effect you.  "The rock seems to become steeper, the longer you climb, you have no idea why."

But there should be a reason for it.  So, a player can say "Alright, I look at the wall, does it look harder to climb that usual?  Yes...hmm..maybe I won't try."  Either that or "I failed even though I made it?  What happen that made it harder?"

EDIT: Damn, you beat me to it


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 13, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> There could be a number of reasons for it - here are a couple of examples that I would consider for a game that I'm running:
> 
> Or because the wall is crumbling from age, or because the wall is rigged to fall, or because the wall is actually a variety of earth elemental that the players haven't encountered before...




I guess my point is that, of these, one (crumbling from age) should be immediately apparent to the character, one (rigged) seems like it should be a trap rather than a climb check modifier, and the other (elemental) could be discovered through other means (Spot check, perhaps?  Knowledge (The Planes)?).


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> "How people get super-rare items to begin with" is a product of the setting, and how a given DM runs that setting.
> 
> My point was --and it still holds perfectly well-- that its equally contrived for a fighter to encounter a way to _buy outright or commission_ a rare magic weapon than to find one in an opponents stock of treasure.
> 
> ...




I disagree that it is equally contrived.  That it is contrived goes without saying since everything in a game is ultimately contrived by the DM.  However, since the RAW supports the idea that magic items can be created by spellcasters, then, it is not a really long jump to think that someone, somewhere is going to try to make a buck from it.

Now, the more powerful the item, the more difficult it will be to find someone who can make it for you.  Finding a wizzie to craft a +1 sword shouldn't be all that difficult in a city or even a very large town.  It only requires a 5th level caster.  This might take a bit of searching, some gather information checks and whatnot, but, it really shouldn't be all that difficult.  Finding that 20th level caster to craft that +5 Vorpal thingie, is a major quest considering casters of that level aren't even included in the suggested demographics in the DMG.

I'll agree that the magic shop idea, other than for maybe potions, scrolls and alchemical items, is silly.  No one is going to spend that much cash on spec on an item with such a low number of buyers.  Thats silly.  Equally silly is finding a bec du corbin in that hydra's treasure hold that just happens to be of an enhancement suitable to my level.  However, in a fairly large urban center, it isn't so unrealistic that I could saunter over to the local War Gawd's temple, make a whoppingly huge donation and ask them to fashion a lumpy metal thing +2 for me.  

It's not voodoo economics when you start to apply the basic assumptions in the RAW to the campaign setting.

Personally, I've gone the other way from others here.  I started with a number of house rules - combat rules, character generation, supplemental books etc - and, over the years, have pared down to a bare minimum.  Instead of trying to shoehorn the rules into my campaign to generate a particular "feel", now I tweak my campaign a bit to follow the raw and still maintain that particular "feel".  If I want a campaign with very little magic, put the setting where there aren't any large urban centers to support high level casters.  Make travel difficult for one reason or another.  Or, and this one works the best, actually insist on creation times for crafting a masterwork item plus crafting the magic itself.  It's amazing how many players will plunk down thousands of gp on an item but will flat out reject the idea of having to wait three months while that suit of armor is made and then enchanted.

In my own experience, I've found that actually simply using the RAW is a much more effective limitation on PC's than any house rule I could come up with.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, back up a second there.  There is absolutely nothing in the RAW that states that a PC's equipment must be purchased.  The wealth by level table says nothing about it actually being cash at any point in time.  The wealth by level table is simply a guideline for how much wealth a character should have at a given time in a baseline game.




That's exactly what I said.   :\


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If your party possesses X amount of equipment equal to the amount of money in the PC wealth by level table, then you haven't deviated at all from the RAW.  However, in your first post, you mentioned how a party couldn't have the resources to purchase a 1000 gp Continual Light stick at 5th level.  Granted, they may not have straight up cash, but, then again, they could sell part of their equipnment for the cash or trade equipment of equal value.  Whether or not its actual coin is not all that important.  Your previous posts led me to believe that your party was considerably more poor than the guidelines suggested in the RAW.  I know that the other poster (whose name escapes me at the moment) flat out stated that his campaign features a great deal less treasure.
> 
> There is one point though about stripping all the cash away from the players.  This results in the DM having pretty much complete control over magic in the game.  If the only way you can get magic items is to take them from other people, then, well, the DM controls everything.  This leads to the old 2e problem where every fighter winds up taking the exact same weapons because the odds of finding a magic bec du corbin are zero to none.  And, if you actually do find one, it's pretty obvious that the DM dropped it there for you.  On a personal level, I dislike the DM being this visible in the game.




1.  I said I couldn't imagine the party spending 1000gp on an item that just makes light - compare the cost of the "emits light" rings in Neverwinter Nights to the cost of items that actually do stuff.  Last session IMC the party found a large treasure stash and the 5th level Ranger-type later paid 1300gp to buy a +1 shield.
PCs IMC generally have wealth somewhere between the NPC & PC wealth-by-level tables.  I also boost non-spellcaster power in various ways to help even them up with the spellcasters.

2. As GM or player I am happy for the GM to determine what magic items (or spells) are available in the campaign.  As player I don't want my warrior PC overshadowed by the spellcaster PCs, which is a big risk in an item-poor setting, but I don't expect to be able to buy whatever I want unless it's a very high-magic setting.  The GM should always be "visible in the game" IMO, the GM's function necessitates such.  Otherwise it's barely an RPG at all and I might as well play NWN.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 14, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> *TheShaman*..Patryn's point.. and mine.. is that the climbing player can have one of two responses....based on how the GM has ruled on things in the past.
> 
> A> This is strange, I should be able to climb this wall.. but something about it is making it difficult. We should investigate to discover the reason I cannot easily climb this!
> 
> ...





			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The point is almost every type of modifier can be seen by the player.  They can see that the wall is crumbling, or if its deceptive, you can just apply the modifier and say "The wall crumbles in your hands as you attempt to climb it".
> 
> Even magical effect should be somewhat noticeable after they effect you.  "The rock seems to become steeper, the longer you climb, you have no idea why."
> 
> But there should be a reason for it.  So, a player can say "Alright, I look at the wall, does it look harder to climb that usual?  Yes...hmm..maybe I won't try."  Either that or "I failed even though I made it?  What happen that made it harder?"



Well, duh.

I'm talking about changes made based on features of the game-world, yet you both seem to think I'm advocating changes for the sake of making changes or to thwart effective player tactics. That there are GMs out there that do the latter is regrettable, but I don't think any ruleset can compensate for bad GMing. I think the idea that if we just have enough rules we won't have bad GMs is terribly naive.







			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I guess my point is that, of these, one (crumbling from age) should be immediately apparent to the character...



Really? Based on what, exactly? Common sense, perhaps?

In cases where I've used features like this, a Spot check with skill synergy for Climb ranks was permitted to detect loose rock and other hazards that would affect an attempt to scale the wall or cliff. If the character climbs on and misses a check, I describe the reason why the check failed. To expect the character to somehow notice that something's not right out-of-hand is asking a bit much.







			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ...one (rigged) seems like it should be a trap rather than a climb check modifier...



Could be both, actually - if the character fails a Cimb check and decides to do a Search check, it might be detectable as such, and Disarm Device attempt could reduce the Climb DC.







			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ...and the other (elemental) could be discovered through other means (Spot check, perhaps?  Knowledge (The Planes)?).



Perhaps, but even if the Living Wall (a monster I HB'd for a 1e campaign many years ago) remains undetected, the Climb DC will still be higher if the elemental doesn't want you to climb.

I'll leave you with a final thought: in the core rules (3.0 - I don't have the 3.5 books handy) the highest DC shown for a Disable Device check on a "wicked" complex mechanical trap is 25 - does this mean that the rules prohibit non-magical traps with a higher DC to disable, say a 27 or 28?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> D&D encourages entire role playing sessions to be resolved by a single die roll and each 6 seconds of combat to take 30 minutes of time in real life.  If you want a role playing heavy game, you will likely have to create a lot of house rules.




Hm, no - you can (1) play out the character interaction and (2) handwave the combat.  Doesn't actually require any rules.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2005)

One thing I take from Majoru's comments is that it's a good idea for the GM to tell the player what the difficulty (DC etc) of an action will be before they attempt that action, especially if the GM is using a houserule.  The exception would be if an unknown force is affecting the difficulty.

The problem with the "firing through four friends to hit enemy" example IMO is that the WoTC games designers never considered that a player would expect to be able to do such.  There's a reasonable rule for firing past 1 ally - cover bonus +4 AC - but allowing every PC in a 5' wide corridor to fire missile attacks at the foe fighting the lead PC seems like a very bad idea to me.  OTOH this only arose because Majoru was playing a spellcaster in a world where he couldn't risk casting any spells!


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> 2. As GM or player I am happy for the GM to determine what magic items (or spells) are available in the campaign.  As player I don't want my warrior PC overshadowed by the spellcaster PCs, which is a big risk in an item-poor setting, but I don't expect to be able to buy whatever I want unless it's a very high-magic setting.  The GM should always be "visible in the game" IMO, the GM's function necessitates such.  Otherwise it's barely an RPG at all and I might as well play NWN.




Now, as a GM or a player I am not happy to determine what magic items are available in the camp.  I don't want to constantly be bothered with dropping that easter egg specifically for the ranger.  I'd much rather have the bad guy use whatever items I think are coolest for the bad guy and then let the party sell those items (or keep them) and have new items created to suit their own tastes.  It's their characters, I say let them customize them the way they want to, not how I think they should be.  I agree that you shouldn't be able to buy off the shelf, but, then again, I never said that.  The RAW includes item creation feats.  The RAW gives a value for those items.  Those items are useful to many people.  Therefore, to me, by the RAW, it's not a huge stretch of imagination that someone, somewhere is going to agree to fashion an item for enough cash.

Now, on the second point about DM visibility.  Again, this gets back to the idea of DM as Referee.  A good ref should not be very noticeable in the game.  His calls and actions should be as much in the background as possible.  Of course the DM is visible as he plays various NPC's.  But, then again, it's not the DM that's visible, but the NPCs.  When the DM has to blatantly act, such as dropping that magic bec du corbin for the fighter, then he's way too visible in the game.  I would much rather the players drive the game than have me lead them all the way along.  For the players to be in the drivers seat, that means that I have to take a back seat.  I lay the road, I put up some of the roadsigns, but, ultimately, they're driving.  Whether or not they make the destination is beside the point IMO.  It's the drive that's important.


----------



## Belen (Sep 14, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I agree that in principle, making judgement calls is fine. I also don't think the solution is to simply shovel more rules into the game. I do think, however, that the ideal system should minimize the amout of judgement calls a GM has to make, because for every GM making great, consistent calls, there's another half-dozen GMs running the worst sort of GM Fiat games, where the object of a challenge is to, "Figure out how the GM wants this to end."




I call bull here.  While bad DMs do exist, the idea that for every good DM, six horrible DMs exist is farsical.  I think that the idea that has been promoted over the last few years that promotes the RAW as final arbiter has led to an urban legend regarding DMs who make judgement calls or create house rules.

As a player, you want the rules to be final arbiter.  It grants the player power and control over the game.  The problem is that this attitude leads to an adversarial relationship between player and DM and causes arguments over the rules.  Let's face it, the rules are fairly vague and sometimes a decision has to be made.  A player and a DM can interpret things differently and then cause massive problems, unless the player accepts the DM as arbiter.

For all of you who see the DM as a referee, you are discounting the prevailing attitude that the player tries to argue the rules in their favor because they "know" the rules.  The problem here is that players no longer even see a DM as a referee these days.  They see the rules as the referee and that is where things are beginning to break down.


----------



## Belen (Sep 14, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In other words, a PC with a climb bonus of +15 knows that, if he takes his time, he can climb up most brick walls without issue.  In many cases, he should be able to look at a given wall and decide, based on his experiences, whether or not he's got a chance to make it up the wall.  Arbitrarily changing DCs, among other things, means that the player can no longer act and react to the world based on his character's experience of the game world.




No this is just wrong.  A player with a +15 climb has a pretty good idea that he can climb most brick walls without issue.  The player does not know for sure.  No one can know for sure.  If a wall is not stable, a simple climb check will not tell them that it is unstable.  Maybe if that player also had a good spot bonus and knowledge (architure and engineering) he would be able to really see that the wall had problems, but the "climb skill" just means that you're good a climbing, it does not make you the rocket scientist of walls and surfaces everywhere.


----------



## Belen (Sep 14, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The point is almost every type of modifier can be seen by the player.




Why?  What gives a player the ability to see modifiers?  What if you're climbing a wall with slippery mold in the cracks?  I'd give the player a chance to spot the mold, but a climb score will not tell them that it exists.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> But there should be a reason for it.  So, a player can say "Alright, I look at the wall, does it look harder to climb that usual?  Yes...hmm..maybe I won't try."  Either that or "I failed even though I made it?  What happen that made it harder?"




Agreed.  There should be a reason for it, but that reason does not have to be transparent to the players.  Since when do players get to evaluate every challenge by the numbers to see if they will attempt it?

I find it funny in 3e.  A lot of the players who know the DCs will not even try to do things.  That is sad.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> No this is just wrong.  A player with a +15 climb has a pretty good idea that he can climb most brick walls without issue.  The player does not know for sure.  No one can know for sure.  If a wall is not stable, a simple climb check will not tell them that it is unstable.  Maybe if that player also had a good spot bonus and knowledge (architure and engineering) he would be able to really see that the wall had problems, but the "climb skill" just means that you're good a climbing, it does not make you the rocket scientist of walls and surfaces everywhere.




Ok, no, that's just wrong.  If I've spent 10 or 12 ranks in a skill, that means I've probably got at least a little bit of experience doing it.  A climb of +15 most certainly should tell the climber that a wall is more difficult to climb than would normally be the case.  Simple experience should be able to tell him that.

Player:  "Hrm, I've climbed walls exactly like this one a dozen times, but I can't climb this one.  I guess I should ignore the crumbling masonry under my fingertips and oozy slimy stuff that my feet keep slipping on."

 

I'm sorry, but if you have that many ranks in a skill, you likely have a pretty good idea on what that skill is used for.  In the same way an experienced rock climber can judge a rockface from the bottom, a character with a very high climb score should be able to tell right off that something isn't right.



> As a player, you want the rules to be final arbiter. It grants the player power and control over the game. The problem is that this attitude leads to an adversarial relationship between player and DM and causes arguments over the rules. Let's face it, the rules are fairly vague and sometimes a decision has to be made. A player and a DM can interpret things differently and then cause massive problems, unless the player accepts the DM as arbiter.




Again I strongly disagree with this.  I don't want the rules to be the final arbiter since that's just silly.  Rules can't arbitrate.  The adversarial role between players and DM's is cause more by ad hoc rulings than by following the rules.  If a rule exists that works, the player has every right to expect that rule to be followed.  If no rule exists, then, fine, the DM steps in.  To say this has become more of a problem is just silly.  I think the numerous stories in this thread alone, never mind the massive number of "My DM is a poopy head" threads out there shows that there are a shockingly large number of piss poor DM's.

On a side note, there is no problem with a DM being final ARBITER.  Remember, an arbiter only steps in when there are conflicts.  If no conflict exists, then there is no need for an arbiter at all.  Changing rules simply because the DM thinks that something is "stupid" is not a conflict.  It's a powertripping DM who cannot be bothered to figure out how the rules work in the first place.

It's very interesting to me.  I got called a meta-gamer in this thread recently for advocating using a skill precisely as written, without any monkey business, to make a wad of cash for the players or for NPC's because of the house rules of a DM.  Yet, we have a DM dropping easter eggs for his PC's, despite the fact that that's blatant meta-gaming, and he's being applauded.  I'm sorry, but if you are dropping tailor made magic items in your adventures for your PC's, that's about as meta-gaming as you can get.  The entire reason for the existence of the item is to provide for the PC's.  

Why is meta-gaming for a player a bad thing but perfectly acceptable in a DM?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> *snip*
> I find it funny in 3e.  A lot of the players who know the DCs will not even try to do things.  That is sad.




What, it's sad that a person looks at something, says to himself, "Gee, there's no way I could do that because it's way beyond my skill."?  Isn't that realistic?  If someone is a novice rockclimber and is faced with a sheer cliff face 200 meters tall, doesn't it make sense that he's not going to try?

Or is it better that the PC's try things that are completely impossible, fail and give the DM something to giggle about?  That's a little different from the position taken on the intimidating Gnome.  Some DM's would flat out rule that he has no chance, regardless of the rules.  If I'm playing with that kind of DM, why would I bother to find out the DC since it won't matter in the end anyway?


----------



## Belen (Sep 14, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but if you have that many ranks in a skill, you likely have a pretty good idea on what that skill is used for.  In the same way an experienced rock climber can judge a rockface from the bottom, a character with a very high climb score should be able to tell right off that something isn't right.




An experienced rock climber cannot sit at the bottom of a cliff and judge every pitfall or danger that exists on that cliff.  Neither can a PC do that just because they are good at climbing.  



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Why is meta-gaming for a player a bad thing but perfectly acceptable in a DM?




I want some of what you're smoking.  You realize that "meta-game" is something that is required in a DM, right?


----------



## Belen (Sep 14, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> What, it's sad that a person looks at something, says to himself, "Gee, there's no way I could do that because it's way beyond my skill."?  Isn't that realistic?  If someone is a novice rockclimber and is faced with a sheer cliff face 200 meters tall, doesn't it make sense that he's not going to try?
> 
> Or is it better that the PC's try things that are completely impossible, fail and give the DM something to giggle about?  That's a little different from the position taken on the intimidating Gnome.  Some DM's would flat out rule that he has no chance, regardless of the rules.  If I'm playing with that kind of DM, why would I bother to find out the DC since it won't matter in the end anyway?




Ah...you have never watched a player calculate the DCs and determine that they only have a 10% chance of succeeding, so why bother?  I had one guy who cranked the numbers with every challenge and only made an attempt with a 50% chance of success.

He'd even use a tool to calculate CR (based on his limited knowledge of the creature) and would not participate in a fight unless he had a good chance of winning.

I find those attitudes pathetic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> No problem there, but I'll again point out that "ruling to restore a certain feeling of gameplay" can very, very easily silde into "ruling to restore how I feel the game should be". There's a fine line, and it takes a good GM to walk that line. If successful, the results can be marvelous. But I've seen many, many disasterous games where the GM tried to do just this and failed miserably.





I would argue that, not only is there not a problem with "ruling to [make the game] feel how I feel the game should be," but that this is by necessity the operating procedure of every DM out there.  Even following the RAW religiously is ruling to make the game feel how you feel it should be.  When players make characters, they are making that character to make the game feel the way they feel the game should be.

Why "restore a certain feeling of gameplay" if it isn't how you "feel the game should be"?

There isn't a fine line here; there is no line at all.

The only questions are, are you the kind of person who can pull off making the game feel how you feel it should be?, and, are other people interested in the same sort of feel?


RC


----------



## jasper (Sep 14, 2005)

Jackelope….But the player has seen Casino and Goodfellas and he knows not to judge someone based on their size, because there's a very good possibility that the shrimp is a psychopath who will pop your eyeball out in a vice given half a chance. Ohh goody the old, I saw on Tv, so my pc must be able to do to. Works in your intimidate example but what if player been watching Power Rangers or Chinese Hong Kong Fu Saturday karate movies?

Shaman ,,,Second, too many rules is cumbersome. Some folks have argued that it "only take a minute" to look up a rule and apply it.  You need to add. “per book in play” after minute there.

Patryn you talking out both sides of your keyboard. Yes the dm can change the dc for the wall for some of those reasons especially if protecting the lab. But just because your pc with +15 climb knows he can climb a normal brick wall (and may notice the yummy slime mold on it) he does not know Andy Alchemist wall is any but a normal wall until he starts up it. So then you get players (not all) who say “you said was a normal wall! Whine!”. Dm “I said appeared to be a normal wall.” Then KODT “surprise” Stirp the bad players zero on to key words Appears, Maybe etc. 

“Again, not all changes are arbitrary, nor do the characters necessarily know everything that is going on at the moment.” Quoted for truth. And this statement all gamers need to learn and know my heart.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 14, 2005)

> Ah...you have never watched a player calculate the DCs and determine that they only have a 10% chance of succeeding, so why bother? I had one guy who cranked the numbers with every challenge and only made an attempt with a 50% chance of success.
> 
> He'd even use a tool to calculate CR (based on his limited knowledge of the creature) and would not participate in a fight unless he had a good chance of winning.
> 
> I find those attitudes pathetic.




Ok, now that's fair enough.  Although I would hardly say that that's indicative of players in general any more than some of the stories here are indicative of DM's in general.  You already called shenanigans on someone for saying that the majority of DM's are bad, so you don't get to say that these examples are prevalent in players out there.  They most certainly haven't been in the games I've played.

Why is the DM required to meta game?  Well, of course, to a certain extent that's true.  The DM should ensure that challenges are not too difficult or too easy in the campaign and things like that.  That's true.  But, this is beyond the pale though.  Dropping treasure tailor made for your PC's is extremely blatant metagaming.  There are limits.

As far as the rock climber being able to see every pitfall, that's true.  He cannot.  However, he can look at a rockface and say, "Hrm, looks like a 3.9, I should be able to do that.  When he can't and slides back down 10 feet up, it's pretty natural that he's going to think about why.  If his feet slipped on moss, then, he doesn't really need a spot check to notice that.  If the DC of a challenge is much higher than it appears to the PC, then a skilled PC should have a pretty decent chance to guess why.  Or at least have an idea.  If I'm an experienced hunter and I'm in a forest in early fall, I don't think it's a stretch to think that I should be able to hunt and get something.  If I hunt, and fail, even though I should have succeeded, I should at least know that something is up.


----------



## Belen (Sep 14, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> As far as the rock climber being able to see every pitfall, that's true.  He cannot.  However, he can look at a rockface and say, "Hrm, looks like a 3.9, I should be able to do that.  When he can't and slides back down 10 feet up, it's pretty natural that he's going to think about why.  If his feet slipped on moss, then, he doesn't really need a spot check to notice that.  If the DC of a challenge is much higher than it appears to the PC, then a skilled PC should have a pretty decent chance to guess why.  Or at least have an idea.  If I'm an experienced hunter and I'm in a forest in early fall, I don't think it's a stretch to think that I should be able to hunt and get something.  If I hunt, and fail, even though I should have succeeded, I should at least know that something is up.




Now I agree with this one.  If the PC tries and fails, then the character should have a good idea of why he failed.  The implication upthread was that the PC should know the pitfalls before the attempt, which I think is unreasonable.  Some pitfalls, like it rained recently etc, are detectable early, true, but not all DCs or pitfalls can be determined before making an attempt.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 14, 2005)

Very often I have the impression that it is less a matter of rules discrepancies or different common sense being the driving force behind the troubles, but how personally people take it when it happens.

As an example, the priest/alchemist/wizard sitting down to create heaps of _Continual Flame_ carriers to sell them to the rich. The reasons for this can be numerous, and from different points of view, as can be the answers from the DM hosting that game. You could call it metagamey, or an ingenious application of the rules to further the character, a silly quirk or a dozen other things. The DM could answer by simply forbidding it (creating lots of frustration at the table), create adventure hooks that employ or undermine the idea, or simply let the character work to have nobody buy his stuff in the end because the church branded him a heretic, and everybody who buys his creations. The questions is always, how personal do people take it when their decision (or worldview of your campaign world) is nixed by the other side.

Here is where the percieved "empowerment" of the players can go wrong. If I'm accessible to good advertisement, and have a few bucks to spare, and want my character to be more special, and such I buy a supplement, I of course would love to see it used in the game by my DM. If I get told by the game's creators that the rules I just put $30 on the table for are perfectly balanced with the rest of the game, I might even be convinced that there is no real reason why they shouldn't be used in the game my character plays in. Now, depending on how I present my wish to my DM, he might react differently to it, but it might as well go like "nope, sorry, only the core books"...at which point I might as well point out that the new stuff is as good as core...which might annoy my DM a little, because he has less time than I browsing special rules for one character, or simply doesn't want/can't spend the money on the book, or feels like he plays second fiddle to a book...which might make him grumpy, which will make his denial more grumpy, which could easily convince me that he simply wants to take me down personally, etc etc etc..(to quote a famous siamese king  ).

The whole point is that each side, players and DMs, only have as much power over the game as the other side allows them. The DM creates the adventures, sure, and fleshes out the background, the NPCs, the treasure...but the players ultimately provide the motivation for that. No players, no game...no DM, no game. That's where the "equality" sits. So as long as both parts of the game are working together, and can communicate and compromise on their opinions and wishes for the game, nothing should really be a problem.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> 3) House Rules DM:  These DMs have read the rules and didn't like something about them.  They didn't think that hit points were realistic enough so they removed the ability to gain more as you go up levels, they think being able to cast defensively is stupid, etc.  They get really mad at me for pointing out that all the problems they've created due to changing the rules until they get angry enough, so I never open my mouth while at the table again.
> 
> I'm sure there is a 4th category:
> 
> 4) People who changed only the bare minimum rules to fit their campaign worlds and thought all the way through their changes so they rebalanced all the classes to make up for power lost due to changes they made.





Majoru,

One of these two is me.  I have certainly decided to change rules in the game, and am currently compiling a book of new rules so that the players & I will all be on the same page.  I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the new rules are not in effect until the book is done and in everyone's hand....despite the fact that the players really, really like what they've seen of the new rules and are eager to incorporate them.

I've opened EnWorld threads on some of the new rules to solicit input prior to release.  It's awlays good to have a second opinion, and to try to spot the problem areas ahead of time.  Some of the input I've received here has caused me to go back and rewrite sections of the material I've produced.

Some of the material is taken from other supliments (WotC or third party), some nearly wholesale.  Some I have tested through the time-honored method of NPC encounters.  For example, prior to opening up the _Arcana Unearthed_ classes for PC use, I tested the ones I was considering as NPCs to see if they overpowered the standard PC classes.  

In my class rewrites, I find myself mostly adding things to the various classes in order to make them more distinct.  Because I am using reduced XP, I have no problem with giving more per level, so most classes are beefed up somewhat.  Because I am running a game where social interaction is more important than in the core assumptions, some classes gain specific social benefits (i.e., priests can use their level as a bonus on certain skill checks to influence members of their religion).

I wanted to require characters to interact with other people in the world, so I introduced rules to promote this.  Which means, yes, that I added class abilities that require you to have help in order to use them.  Which means, yes, that low- to mid-level characters have to seek out higher-level characters to aid them.  It also means that, as characters grow to mid- and high-levels, they gain influence over lower-level characters of the same class.

Since I want to make combat more risky, I decided to adopt the vitality/wound point system from _Unearthed Arcana_ (and _Star Wars D20_).  Because I wanted to avoid the "golf bag of weapons" that the core assumptions lead to, I decided to make weapon skills, allowing the player to alter his chance to hit and/or damage on a round-by-round basis.  Thus, you could use your 10 ranks of Axe Fighting to add +10 to your attack roll, +10 to your damage, or any combination thereof (announced prior to rolling).  Base (unannounced) assumption is a 50/50 split, with any remainder favoring the attack roll.  There are also some pre-set uses of the skills you can declare and precalculate, including an option to use your weapon ranks to defend.

I have changed races to better reflect the campaign cosmology.  Dwarves become giants.  Elves and gnomes become fey.  Half-orcs and half-elves use templates.  There are several new races generally available, including humanoid animals, awakened animals, giants (from AU, modified for my world), and human sub-types.  Every race and/or subrace can take up to three racial levels (again, per AU).

The Profession and Craft skills are somewhat nerfed, so that you cannot be a master craftsman at 1st level (there is a "best you can do" limitation based on skill ranks).  On the other hand, a really good craftsman can produce better than masterwork items (ala _Advanced Gamemaster's_ and the _Medieval Player's Handbook_).

I could go on, but I feel certain that you get the point.  Lots of changes.  Each one is a change that I feel is necessary, and the players are pretty keen on the stuff they've seen so far.  The players all get a copy of the changes and a chance to study them before they go into effect.  We are, in fact, devoting an entire play session, one week after the players get the new rules, to going over the rules and how they will affect characters in the game.  

Beyond a doubt, some problems will arise due to the rules transition, and holes that require plugging because we failed to see them ahead of time.  But also, beyond a doubt, we'll have a ruleset that strongly matches the campaign world.  

Now, my questions to you are these:

1)  What exactly is "bare minimum"?  Does this qualify?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

2)  When you say you spend time at games "pointing out that all the problems they've created [are] due to changing the rules until they get angry enough," do you mean you offer constructive advice, or that you nitpick the rules?  Are these problems that the DM is experiencing, or are these problems created due to the way the rules interact with what you want?  What is "angry enough"?  What is your motive in your finger-pointing?

Like I said at the beginning of the post, I'm either (3) or (4) of your choices.  I imagine that the difference is largely subjective.

I can tell you this, though:

If you were trying to offer constructive advice that would tighten rules problems while maintaining the campaign feel and structure, your advice would be welcome.  If you were nattering and nitpicking to the detriment of the game, you wouldn't have to worry about me getting "angry enough" for you to "never open [your] mouth while at the table again".  Long, long before things got to that point, you'd be looking for a new DM.  I'd be letting in one of the people who keep asking me to let them know if a spot opens up.  Then we'd both be happy.


RC


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why is the DM required to meta game?  Well, of course, to a certain extent that's true.  The DM should ensure that challenges are not too difficult or too easy in the campaign and things like that.  That's true.  But, this is beyond the pale though.  Dropping treasure tailor made for your PC's is extremely blatant metagaming.  There are limits.




I don't see any difference at all between these two examples of metagaming.  Both are done to create a good play experience.

Edit:  If you prefer: Fate/the gods/Destiny/Chance marks the PCs out as potential heroes, ergo the challenges they face are tough but survivable, and the bardiche-focussed Fighter is destined to find the lost magic bardiche of diddlyumpumpum....


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The implication upthread was that the PC should know the pitfalls before the attempt, which I think is unreasonable.  Some pitfalls, like it rained recently etc, are detectable early, true, but not all DCs or pitfalls can be determined before making an attempt.




Now who's straw-manning?

I never said that *all* DCs or pitfalls can be determined before making the attempt, but some of them (if not most of them) sure as hell can.

Or is a wall that's *falling apart* that hard to distinguish from one that's well-maintained?  Or one that's covered in slippery moss and mold?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Agreed.  There should be a reason for it, but that reason does not have to be transparent to the players.  Since when do players get to evaluate every challenge by the numbers to see if they will attempt it?
> 
> I find it funny in 3e.  A lot of the players who know the DCs will not even try to do things.  That is sad.





Agreed.

Personally, I tell the players what the PCs can see (using Spot, Search, or no skill at all because it's so bloody obvious).  I tell them what they can hear, smell, and taste.  I tell them what they can know due to various skills such as Knowledge and Profession.  *I do not tell them the DC*.  In most cases, the PCs roll the dice, so they can reasonably tell whether the check failed due to poor rolls or a high DC.  Then they can either examine the situation further, give up, or try again.

I also don't tell the players the CRs, ACs, HP, etc., of the creatures they face.  I tell them what the thing looks, smells, and acts like.  Sometimes, tastes like.      Let them figure it out from there.

In my mind, the DM being expected to tell the PCs the DC is equivilent to the DM being expected to tell the PCs a monster's AC prior to combat.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I never said that *all* DCs or pitfalls can be determined before making the attempt, but some of them (if not most of them) sure as hell can.
> 
> Or is a wall that's *falling apart* that hard to distinguish from one that's well-maintained?  Or one that's covered in slippery moss and mold?





Agreed.

If a wall is crumbling, the players certainly would know.  If it was seriously crumbling, that fact would probably be part of the initial description of the area.  If it was only sorta crumbling, when the PC guaged the wall to climb it, she ought to be told.

Then she can think, "Hmmm....probably harder than an ordinary brick wall."  Then she can say, "how badly is it crumbling?" and the DM can say "Not too badly" (in which case she estimates the DC modifier as +2) or "Pretty badly in places" (maybe DC mod +2 to +4) or "It breaks apart in your fingers" (pretty serious modifier).  While she doesn't know the exact DC, she knows enough to proceed.

In another example, the character is climbing a simple wall when she encounters a patch of slimy mold.  Now, this slimy mold isn't obvious, and is effectively a trap, so the DM requires a Spot check.  If the slimy mold is a reasonably common climbing hazard (probably the case), the DM might allow a +2 synergy bonus to Spot if the PC has 5 or more ranks in Climb.

In this particular case, no Disable Device is required; if the PC spots the slime, the DM tells her, and she simply goes around it and continues up the wall.  If she does not spot the slime, she undergoes the effects of the hazard (probably a Climb check of some DC), and the DM tells her that her grip slipped due to some slippery mold....whether or not she succeeeds in the check.  

If she succeeds, great.  Her skill at climbing prevented the unexpected hazard from being critical.  If she fails, also great.  The DM is neither giggling nor crying.  Things happen in the game, for good or ill, and it is not the DM's job to either fudge in order to make the PCs' plans work or fail.


RC


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2005)

Darnit, RC, stop being reasonable and agreeable.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Darnit, RC, stop being reasonable and agreeable.





Obviously, you failed to note where I (a) insist on my right as DM to be final arbiter at my table, (b) make house rules that seem appropriate to me, and (c) apologize for neither.

If despite these things I can still seem reasonable, then perhaps there is hope, eh?    


RC


----------



## Jackelope King (Sep 14, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I call bull here.  While bad DMs do exist, the idea that for every good DM, six horrible DMs exist is farsical.  I think that the idea that has been promoted over the last few years that promotes the RAW as final arbiter has led to an urban legend regarding DMs who make judgement calls or create house rules.
> 
> As a player, you want the rules to be final arbiter.  It grants the player power and control over the game.  The problem is that this attitude leads to an adversarial relationship between player and DM and causes arguments over the rules.  Let's face it, the rules are fairly vague and sometimes a decision has to be made.  A player and a DM can interpret things differently and then cause massive problems, unless the player accepts the DM as arbiter.
> 
> For all of you who see the DM as a referee, you are discounting the prevailing attitude that the player tries to argue the rules in their favor because they "know" the rules.  The problem here is that players no longer even see a DM as a referee these days.  They see the rules as the referee and that is where things are beginning to break down.



So you can make sweeping generalizations that players "these days" try to undermine the DM, while my own experiences with poor DMs are "BS"? Have you ever played with the Psycho Dwarf who quite literally told his players that it's well within the DM's rights to kill off a character he decides he doesn't like without warning, or Steve whose insurance against players getting the advantage in combat was to make them lose their attacks for the round because he said so? I'm glad you never had such experiences, as these put me off D&D altogether until 3E came out and I decided to give it one last shot, but don't tell me that it's "BS" to give an example of what actually happened to me in actual games I've played in and then tell us out the other side of your mouth that 3E has spawned a generation of <insert derogative here>.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> I would argue that, not only is there not a problem with "ruling to [make the game] feel how I feel the game should be," but that this is by necessity the operating procedure of every DM out there. Even following the RAW religiously is ruling to make the game feel how you feel it should be. When players make characters, they are making that character to make the game feel the way they feel the game should be.
> 
> Why "restore a certain feeling of gameplay" if it isn't how you "feel the game should be"?
> 
> ...



There is a fine line between the DM helping the game achieve a playstyle that the group wants and is eager to try and the DM arbitrarily deciding that the tastes and views of the players on gameplay style is unimportant. This is part of the disconnect I've been refering to.



			
				jasper said:
			
		

> Jackelope….But the player has seen Casino and Goodfellas and he knows not to judge someone based on their size, because there's a very good possibility that the shrimp is a psychopath who will pop your eyeball out in a vice given half a chance. Ohh goody the old, I saw on Tv, so my pc must be able to do to. Works in your intimidate example but what if player been watching Power Rangers or Chinese Hong Kong Fu Saturday karate movies?



There's a reason I intenionally picked a reasonable example instead of some slippery slope. I never suggested that a level 3 fighter should be able to summon a dinozord for no good reason (unless he was playing in _Dragonmech_, but that's another story), but I did suggest that a DM's "common sense" shouldn't trump the group's when there's a clear disconnect between what each party believes is "common sense". The rules should serve to minimize such conflicts.


----------



## Belen (Sep 14, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> So you can make sweeping generalizations that players "these days" try to undermine the DM, while my own experiences with poor DMs are "BS"? Have you ever played with the Psycho Dwarf who quite literally told his players that it's well within the DM's rights to kill off a character he decides he doesn't like without warning, or Steve whose insurance against players getting the advantage in combat was to make them lose their attacks for the round because he said so? I'm glad you never had such experiences, as these put me off D&D altogether until 3E came out and I decided to give it one last shot, but don't tell me that it's "BS" to give an example of what actually happened to me in actual games I've played in and then tell us out the other side of your mouth that 3E has spawned a generation of <insert derogative here>.




Nope...you said that for every good DM, 6 bad DMs exist.  Then you only provide 2 examples of bad DMs.  Honestly, if you hated those guys, then you should have either quit the groups or offered to run the game yourself.  I called BS on your statement and not your experience.  2 bad DMs do not equal a half dozen.  You're statement is flawed in that respect.

Also, thise thread started with the idea that a DM can say "no" to a player and not violate any sort of unwritten rule.  3e players tend to expect that the answer to anything is "yes."  I have seen this countless times and seems to be the prevailing attitude with design staff as well.


----------



## Jackelope King (Sep 14, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Nope...you said that for every good DM, 6 bad DMs exist.  Then you only provide 2 examples of bad DMs.  Honestly, if you hated those guys, then you should have either quit the groups or offered to run the game yourself.  I called BS on your statement and not your experience.  2 bad DMs do not equal a half dozen.  You're statement is flawed in that respect.



Would you like me to list the other seven DMs I've played under and then explain to you why only one of them really knew what he was doing? And I would've happily walked out on these guys right away, but in most cases, they had the only game in town at the time. I was fed the line for three years that I couldn't be the DM because I couldn't afford to by the DMG, so I didn't even bother aside from a few on-offs until 3E came out and I organized a group from scratch, which has proven very successful.



> Also, thise thread started with the idea that a DM can say "no" to a player and not violate any sort of unwritten rule.  3e players tend to expect that the answer to anything is "yes."  I have seen this countless times and seems to be the prevailing attitude with design staff as well.



And I call BS on this, because in my experience on different message boards and in playing with different groups at college, I've never met a single such player. Only counting real life experiences just since 3.5 came out, I've probably met about 20 people who have only started playing the game with 3E, and in the games I've played with them, I've never once seen this sort of behavior. I've seen players call their DMs on bad rulings, but even that is really only amplified by the mouthpiece of message boards like these, and I think calling a DM on bad rulings after the session is a _good thing_, since it encourages the DM to improve his/her arbitration abilities and encourages all the players to gain a firmer grasp on how the game plays.

I recognize that coming from a background with lots of good DMs gives you a different view on things. If you've never had a DM whose solution is to point to his hat that says "DM = God" and then repeat that he said you lost your actions for the round so you lost them, then you probably wouldn't understand why the concept of DM Fiat drove players away from the game. Again, I'm glad you never went through this and you've had many more great DMs than bad ones. But lots of folks aren't so lucky. Just because the DMs you've had have usually been able to toe the line between excellent adjudication and horrible DM Fiat doesn't mean that all of them can. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the goal of a ruleset should be to minimize the disconnect in the shared interface between the members of the group so that the scene the GM describes translates easily and believably to the players, allowing the players to easily assess the situation and make realistic assumptions about the situation to minimize the burden on the DM of adjudicating rules. Ideally, a ruleset should handle as much of that mechanical legwork as possible, minimizing DM judgement calls wherever possible, because these judgement calls are invariably the heart of most disputes at the gaming table. A good DM will, nine times out of ten, have sound judgement and make an excellent call that makes the game better for everyone.

But not every group has a good DM.


----------



## Belen (Sep 14, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And I call BS on this, because in my experience on different message boards and in playing with different groups at college, I've never met a single such player. Only counting real life experiences just since 3.5 came out, I've probably met about 20 people who have only started playing the game with 3E, and in the games I've played with them, I've never once seen this sort of behavior.




Well, I can say that I have easily met 10 times that many players in my role as a delegate for Wizards of the Coast.  This player problem does exist and is tied to the marketing of the game.



			
				Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I've said it before and I'll say it again: the goal of a ruleset should be to minimize the disconnect in the shared interface between the members of the group so that the scene the GM describes translates easily and believably to the players, allowing the players to easily assess the situation and make realistic assumptions about the situation to minimize the burden on the DM of adjudicating rules. Ideally, a ruleset should handle as much of that mechanical legwork as possible, minimizing DM judgement calls wherever possible, because these judgement calls are invariably the heart of most disputes at the gaming table. A good DM will, nine times out of ten, have sound judgement and make an excellent call that makes the game better for everyone.




I agree with much of this statement.  However, 3e may have cut down on "common sense" judgement calls, but it has replaced it with an overloaded rules bloat and fueled the problem by "taking the DM out of the equation as much as possible."  The large number of conditional mods have had the effect of increasing the disconnect by bringing the mechanics to the forefront.  Although this may require a separate thread to really discuss.

The best system, would seem, to be a strong rules set and a strong DM.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 14, 2005)

Re: climbing. I climb fairly regularly. I can walk up to the bottem of a cliff, scan it.. and judge a basic 'ya, I can do that' or 'that looks too difficult for me'...and I admit I am not that good. A 5.7 stresses me, a 5.8 I have yet to beat.
 I look for slimy spots, crumbling rock. I know the difference between types of rocks as it applies to climbing quality. I don't know all the pitfalls, nor do I know the rating of the climb... but I know that I should be able to climb your standard medevial brick wall with relative ease.

  I would expect the following discourse:

GM: {description of area}
Me: Okay, I want to climb the Brick wall on the right in order to {goal}
GM: Sure.. as you approach the wall you notice that the combination of crumbling stone, vines, and recent rain will make this more difficult.. about at the limit of your ablities.
Me: Eh.. well, since we are in a hurry and need to get over this fast, Mage.. do a burning Hands on this wall to get rid of those vines and dry it up..!
Mage: {arcane invocation} Burn!!!
Me: I would want to spend a minute searching for the best route, but can't waste the time. here I go! {roll roll roll} got a 27 {IC voice} scamble, pant, puff...{pause}
GM: you fall off, the wall suddenly turned slick beneath your fingers..
Me: {IC voice} Aaarrggh.. thud. Thats weird... the wall is keeping me from climbing it..Mage.. you still got that Fly spell?


As opposed to:

GM: {desciption of area}
Me: Okay, I want to climb the Brick wall on the right in order to {goal}
GM: Roll your skill check
Me: {roll roll roll} got a 27! {IC voice} scamble, pant, puff...{pause}
GM: Missed the DC, you fall off..
Me: WTF over? Its a brick wall! I beat the DC by 12!!!

Players don't need to know exact DC's. They need to know that something tangible IC has affected thier ability to accomplish the skill.
 As DM, I try give estimates of chances based on the characters skills. In a group, I even go so far as 'this would be to difficult for Vellum to pull of, but Gort has a good chance at it'

A DM stating DC's in play, in my opinion, is asking for meta-gaming from the players.

My favorite player falls into one of two categories:
  A> knows the rules and understands the flow of the game is more important that a rules debate
  B> Doesn't know the rules and relies on the DM.

Type B is harder to run as you have to explain why thier character, with no points in balance, really should not try the high-wire act over a stream of molten lava.

 My most hated player/DM type falls into one category:
 C> Beleives they know the rules, or a better rule than the one in the book..when in fact they dont comprehend the rule at all.

These type of players/DM's are the ones that end up in rules debates whenever a ruling is made that inconvienances thier character..and oddly enough never when the ruling is in thier characters favor.

 3E provides more rules to players to weild... and whether that player is a Type A or a Type C will depend on how this impacts your game.

Rules are a tool.. more tools are only bad when the tool box falls off the roof when you are walking underneath  

{edit}


> The best system, would seem, to be a strong rules set and a strong DM.



Heartily agree... and would put forth that 3E *can* be this system.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Would you like me to list the other seven DMs I've played under and then explain to you why only one of them really knew what he was doing? And I would've happily walked out on these guys right away, but in most cases, they had the only game in town at the time.





So you had seven other bad DMs, for a total of nine, one after the other, all of whom had "the only game in town at the time" and you didn't have the cash to pick up a DMG.  Is that about right?

EDIT:  Sorry, only 8 bad DMs and one good one.  My bad.    

I don't know how you feel about Star Trek, but there's a scene in Generations where Data has just has his emotion chip installed and goes down to Ten Forward (a bar).

I paraphrase:

Geordi:  "Data, what is it?"
Data:  "This drink.  I believe it has provoked an emotional response."
Geordi:  "What kind?"
Data:  "I am not sure."
Guinan:  "Well, it looks to me like you hate it."
Data:  "Yes!  I hate this!  I find it totally repulsive!"
Guinan:  "More?"
Data:  "Please."​
I wonder how many of those nine DMs said to their friends, "I organized a group from scratch, which has proven very successful."  After all, no matter how repulsive you found those experiences, you kept going back, didn't you?

Kinda like deciding that a TV show sucks, but you keep tuning in week after week.  Yeah, we all know it happens.  But it also makes us wonder if it sucks as badly as you say.

For example, I use a house rule (announced well before hand) that says, if you don't speak up when it's your initiative (because you're involved in a side conversation, for instance) you lose your action.  Heck, if you've been busy doing something else so that you hesitate overlong, you lose your action.  I am willing to concede that the heroes react faster than the players do within that six-second-per-round framework, but if it clear that you're just now scoping out the situation on the third round on, I won't make everyone else wait for you.

But then, as I am sure anyone can tell you, I am *absolutely the worst* DM there is.    




> And I call BS on this, because in my experience on different message boards and in playing with different groups at college, I've never met a single such player.





There are plenty of examples of the *a DM can say "no" to a player and not violate any sort of unwritten rule. 3e players tend to expect that the answer to anything is "yes."* mentality right here on EnWorld.  If you like, myself and perhaps some others on this thread, could begin quoting specific posts.  However, I doubt that's really necessary, is it?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2005)

*Two More Judegment Calls*

When I was in high school, Lo these many years ago, my friend Keith decided to run White Plume Mountain.  One of the encounters takes place in a room with a perilous way across a chasm from which hot mud (or was it lava?) bursts at (ir)regular intervals.  My idea was to simply go around the burst area by climbing the walls.  Keith said no.  He wasn't used to DMing and there was no provision for that sort of tactic in the module.

Did it make him a bad DM?  In my eyes, no.  I spent about 30 seconds trying to convince him to allow it, then got on with it another way.  He was doing his best to make sure everyone was having as much fun as possible, and he wasn't comfortable with making judgement calls yet.  That makes him a new DM, not yet a great DM, but also not a bad DM.  

Nor was I such a poor player as to suggest that either (a) because of common sense or (b) because of the Climb Walls check on my character sheet that he should change his mind once he'd ruled.  Would I have liked another ruling?  Yes.  Did the rules support another ruling?  Yes.  Would arguing about it help the game, or help him to grow into his role as DM?  No.  

And, later, he did become a much better DM.


Last night, I ran a game.  I had a PC try to use Disable Device to unlock a door by disabling the lock.  I ruled that this would not be the case because Open Locks was a "trained only" skill.  The player insisted that opening the lock (a barred double door) would be as simple as putting a wedge between the doors and lifting the bar.  I told him that, while it might seem obvious _to him_, the skill system described what was obvious _to his character_.

Needless to say, the player wasn't completely happy with this ruling.  Does that make me a bad DM?

EDIT:  Should have mentioned that the player _accepted the ruling nonetheless_.  He also tried to succeed with the action even after knowing my ruling.  It turned out to be entertaining for us all.  More importantly, the player didn't whine about not succeeding.  We have some good players at my table.​
Should I have said, "Hey, there should always be a chance?"

You can easily predict my answer!


RC


----------



## Jackelope King (Sep 14, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Well, I can say that I have easily met 10 times that many players in my role as a delegate for Wizards of the Coast.  This player problem does exist and is tied to the marketing of the game.



I think the only way we could really clarify this would be to get some hard data at this point, since it looks like otherwise the only option is oposing experiences until we're blue in the face.



> I agree with much of this statement.  However, 3e may have cut down on "common sense" judgement calls, but it has replaced it with an overloaded rules bloat and fueled the problem by "taking the DM out of the equation as much as possible."  The large number of conditional mods have had the effect of increasing the disconnect by bringing the mechanics to the forefront.  Although this may require a separate thread to really discuss.



I tend to disagree with this in my experience. A seperate thread for it would probably be most appropriate. And of course, I also don't think 3E is necessarily the ideal system. It is working towards such a system, but certainly isn't there itself.



> The best system, would seem, to be a strong rules set and a strong DM.



Strong ruleset, but _good_ DM, not a _strong_ DM. A strong DM implies that players are comparitively weak and their perspective unimportant.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> So you had seven other bad DMs, for a total of nine, one after the other, all of whom had "the only game in town at the time" and you didn't have the cash to pick up a DMG. Is that about right?
> 
> EDIT: Sorry, only 8 bad DMs and one good one. My bad.



Believe it or not, this was over the stretch of 2-3 years, not all at once. These experiences were largely month-long endeavors every weekend at the comic book store. They might've lasted longer, but they usually ended in either a TPK because the DM got frustrated with the players or a good number of the players walked out on the DM. The only ongoing campaign I was in was with one DM who we played with because he was a friend. And to be perfectly fair, I did lead the last three of those exoduses (exodusi?). I didn't feel comfortable doing so at first because, like I said, it was walking away from the only game in town. We usually went for dry-stretches of some three months looking for other people who were willing to run games at the store and trying to organize a time to get together at the comic book shop. For us, walking away from one of these games would be like walking away from a Hawaiian vacation gone awry... we'd worked so hard to get the game together in the first place that we didn't think we should give up on the game so easily.



> I don't know how you feel about Star Trek...



Well, my roommate last year considered it a fine way to torture me by putting on TNG DVDs, so...  



> I wonder how many of those nine DMs said to their friends, "I organized a group from scratch, which has proven very successful." After all, no matter how repulsive you found those experiences, you kept going back, didn't you?
> 
> Kinda like deciding that a TV show sucks, but you keep tuning in week after week. Yeah, we all know it happens. But it also makes us wonder if it sucks as badly as you say.



It's not like I had much of an alternative. Had I sat in one group while two more were in the area I could've tried, yeah, I'd agree with you. But as I said, I didn't have the luxury.



> For example, I use a house rule (announced well before hand) that says, if you don't speak up when it's your initiative (because you're involved in a side conversation, for instance) you lose your action. Heck, if you've been busy doing something else so that you hesitate overlong, you lose your action. I am willing to concede that the heroes react faster than the players do within that six-second-per-round framework, but if it clear that you're just now scoping out the situation on the third round on, I won't make everyone else wait for you.



And I said I wouldn't have any problem with such a rule. I would have a problem if the DM decided to impliment the rule on me out of the blue after we'd been playing a slower approach to combat, however.



> There are plenty of examples of the a DM can say "no" to a player and not violate any sort of unwritten rule. 3e players tend to expect that the answer to anything is "yes." mentality right here on EnWorld. If you like, myself and perhaps some others on this thread, could begin quoting specific posts. However, I doubt that's really necessary, is it?



I think that in this thread in particular, people have said that they don't think the answer should always be, "Yes," or, "Alright, you do it." It should usually be, "Alright, let's see what the dice say," unless it's totally off the wall (i.e. clearly doesn't fit with the group's play style). Players should, in general, be given the opportunity to try an action. A DM shouldn't live by the rule, "No unless I say otherwise." You seem to suggest that this mentality leads to players thinking they can ignore the DM or trump the DM with the rules in the book, but in most cases the only time such an argument comes up is when the DM clearly and arbitrarily ignores the rules with little or no justification. There's a difference between a player thinking, "I'll just do X and to heck with the DM if he thinks he can stop me," and a player thinking, "I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."

In short, I think a better name for this topic would be "3E and DM Accountability". A consistent ruleset makes a DM accountable to the players for his rulings. Such a thing only exists when a player can compare the DMs ruling to a consistent ruleset.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> I think that in this thread in particular, people have said that they don't think the answer should always be, "Yes," or, "Alright, you do it." It should usually be, "Alright, let's see what the dice say," unless it's totally off the wall (i.e. clearly doesn't fit with the group's play style). Players should, in general, be given the opportunity to try an action. A DM shouldn't live by the rule, "No unless I say otherwise." You seem to suggest that this mentality leads to players thinking they can ignore the DM or trump the DM with the rules in the book, but in most cases the only time such an argument comes up is when the DM clearly and arbitrarily ignores the rules with little or no justification. There's a difference between a player thinking, "I'll just do X and to heck with the DM if he thinks he can stop me," and a player thinking, "I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."





First off, let me commisserate with you on a run of truly bad luck.  Unfortunate that you couldn't just (say) get your own DMG, or go read a book or something.  I haven't been in a situation where I was forced to torture myself weekly in the name of friendship.  (Daily, in the name of relationship, yes, but not in the D&D sense   .)

I agree that the DM shouldn't live by the rule, "No unless I say otherwise" about PC actions.  About PC racial choices, class choices, feat choices, etc., especially when culled from non-Core books, though....."No unless I say otherwise" is the only sane policy.  Every campaign should have an approved "Yes" list, even if only part of the core RAW.  No DM is ever required to allow anything off that "Yes" list without careful review and consideration beforehand.  

I think, actually, that you and I would probably agree on that.  This is no different than the DM introducing a complicated houserule mid-play.  Bad form, you know, simply not done.

(Note, however, that I said "complicated."  I think it's perfectly fair to introduce a house rule mid-play, especially if it's simple and the PCs are allowed to decide their actions with the house rule taken into account.  Note that I do not mean a house rule designed to nerf a PC's ability, or to force the PCs to follow the DM's plan.  I mean a house rule designed to quickly handle a problem that comes up in play, is easy to understand, and moves the game forward.

EDIT:  I have even had players suggest quick, usable house rules to deal with an unusual situation; if they seemed reasonable, we used them.)

Oddly enough, I have encountered "I'll just do X and to heck with the DM if he thinks he can stop me."  Very short lived.  I could, indeed, stop the player.

The problem is actually somewhere in "I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."

First off, let's imagine that X is taking a level in a specific prestige class.  At the end of one session, the PCs gain enough XP to level.  The PC in question decides to take a level in a prestige class from Sandstorm, which the DM does not have, and has not approved.  He doesn't mention it right away.  Halfway through the session, however, he does something that gives the DM pause and suddenly the DM learns that the PC has taken the prestige class.

Suddenly the entire group has to stop while either (a) the PC adjusts his character or (b) the DM reviews the prestige class.  Of course, the DM can just keep going blind, and house rule anything that seems like it needs to be house ruled as it comes up.  "You have *what* ability?  No.  It doesn't function.  Should have talked to me first."

"I'll just do X...."

Now the PC is arguing.  He should be able to do this thing.  It's part of his class.  How dare the DM introduce a rule mid-game that nerfs his ability.  "...and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why...."

The DM says that he hasn't had the opportunity to examine the prestige class, doesn't own the book it comes from, and hasn't approved it.  The player points out that it is a WotC book, and that he meets all the prerequisites.  He spent good money on the book, it's balanced because it's from WotC, and it's not so hard to look up the rules mid-play.  "....even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."

*No one would make this mistake in my game twice.  *  

Now, imagine instead that X is trying to climb a wall.  You have a good Strength and lots of ranks in the skill.  It seems to be a normal wall.  Wondering why you can't at least *try* to climb it seems to be sensible.

"I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."

In one situation, an unreasonable expectation.  In another situation, a perfectly reasonable expectation.

Now, there might be an in-game reason why your character can't make the attempt.  The wall might have some form of _repulsion_ effect that you are being affected by.  That might be a clue that the wall is important, and that you should be trying to _dispel_ the effect.

Or it could just be that the DM is a dink.

Now, DMs are (as you have indicated) a bit harder to find as players.  As a result, they deserve a small amount of additional lenience.  But, if this was the kind of call the DM continually made, and there was no other game in town...

*....I would still politely leave the group.*  

There are too many good books for me to waste my time playing in bad games.    

3.X makes DMs no more or less accountable than they ever were.  Accountability doesn't come from a ruleset.  Accountability is now, as it always was, a vote with the door.


RC


P.S.:  Player accountability is the same.  A vote with the door.  In this case, however, final accountability is the DM showing the player where it is.


----------



## LostSoul (Sep 14, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Last night, I ran a game.  I had a PC try to use Disable Device to unlock a door by disabling the lock.  I ruled that this would not be the case because Open Locks was a "trained only" skill.




You told your character that he had to use Open Locks on a door without a lock?  Or am I just missing it?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 14, 2005)

*Jackelope King*.... you had a group of people looking for a game..and refer to that as a 'dry spell'?

Honestly, if I had the desire to, I would have to work really hard at finding any sympathy for your prediciment.

Eh.. I have had a game looking for people... *that* is a dry spell. The only thing stopping your group from gaming was a lack of someones desire to run the show... and if the group would regularly frustrate DM's.. I can appreciate why that lack of desire is evident.



> A strong DM implies that players are comparitively weak and their perspective unimportant.



 Implies to who?
To me it implies a DM who is confident in his/her rulings and is willing to step on mid-combat rules debates with a sledgehammer in order to keep the game going.
 One who is capable of admitting their lack of knowledge and accepting input from the players.

 Appearances based on your posts look very like antagonistic attitude towards DM/player relationships. Players and DM's need not be 'compared' and rules should not be about 'DM Accountablity'
 They should be cooperative in thier seperate roles of character actor and world creator.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 14, 2005)

I doubt we would find many posters on this board who are actually competative with their DMs. Any style can look competative on the outside looking in. I see DMs overruling the established rules of the game as more competative than DMs and Players both following the rules that they've agreed to beforehand, but that doesn't mean that it is true. You can see Players pointing out the rules to DMs as competative because you do not believe that is the provence of the Player, but that doesnt' make it true either.

I would be _very _surprised if anyone posting in this thread has actually antagonized their Players or DM. Argued, sure. Complained about, yeah. But, I doubt anyone actually sees D&D as any kind of competition between the DM and Players.

So, while people may throw around words like antagonizing, I think what they really mean is "not my style."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 14, 2005)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> You told your character that he had to use Open Locks on a door without a lock?  Or am I just missing it?





Perhaps it is just me, but I consider a bar across the door to be a form of lock.  If you are the other side, you have to have some idea of the best way to remove the bar.  Realistically, almost all such bars use braces that are designed to prevent someone from the other side merely raising the bar with a narrow tool.  Most door locks, going back to ancient times, are forms of dead bolt or bars that prevent the door from opening.

EDIT:  If you look at the lock on your front door, there is a good chance that it is some form of bolt that could be opened from the outside using a narrow tool.  Many doors now have an edge which is designed to prevent this, or use a straight bolt.  They can still be opened.  Not so long ago, I had the opportunity to witness a fireman open a lock using the edge of his fireaxe to _DELETED TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS_.  He tried to block what he was doing with his body so as not to give passersby any ranks in Open Locks.  Were I to allow the PC action in this case, internal logic and consistancy would demand that I allow it in the case of most locked doors.

So, no, you are not missing anything.

And, no, it is not a door without a lock.


RC


----------



## Jackelope King (Sep 14, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> First off, let me commisserate with you on a run of truly bad luck.  Unfortunate that you couldn't just (say) get your own DMG, or go read a book or something.  I haven't been in a situation where I was forced to torture myself weekly in the name of friendship.  (Daily, in the name of relationship, yes, but not in the D&D sense   .)



Much obliged, RC.



> I agree that the DM shouldn't live by the rule, "No unless I say otherwise" about PC actions.  About PC racial choices, class choices, feat choices, etc., especially when culled from non-Core books, though....."No unless I say otherwise" is the only sane policy.  Every campaign should have an approved "Yes" list, even if only part of the core RAW.  No DM is ever required to allow anything off that "Yes" list without careful review and consideration beforehand.
> 
> I think, actually, that you and I would probably agree on that.  This is no different than the DM introducing a complicated houserule mid-play.  Bad form, you know, simply not done.



More or less. I prefer to tell my players that if they want to use a certain character option, all they need to do is talk to me about it. Nothing is allowed outside the core rules without my okay, but I stress that I am definitely open to outside suppliments if they want to make use of them. All I ask is that they work with me to find an appropriate way to work the option into the game.



> The problem is actually somewhere in "I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."
> 
> First off, let's imagine that X is taking a level in a specific prestige class.  At the end of one session, the PCs gain enough XP to level.  The PC in question decides to take a level in a prestige class from Sandstorm, which the DM does not have, and has not approved.  He doesn't mention it right away.  Halfway through the session, however, he does something that gives the DM pause and suddenly the DM learns that the PC has taken the prestige class.
> 
> ...



A fair enough reply. However, seriously, how many people will do something like take levels in a prestige class from a splatbook without at least asking first whether or not you'd aprove taking levels in that class? 

And on a related note, RC, I'm curious: how would you describe your general reaction to requests from players to make use of options from suppliments? Would you say you generally disallow more requests than you allow, or do you allow most of the few requests you get?



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Jackelope King.... you had a group of people looking for a game..and refer to that as a 'dry spell'?
> 
> Honestly, if I had the desire to, I would have to work really hard at finding any sympathy for your prediciment.



If I knew then what I do now, had access to the resources I have now, I'd agree with you. But back then, the people I played with went about as if there was some cult of DMs or something. If you hadn't read the DMG, then you weren't "in the club", so to speak, and I know we've all at least heard of stories from the old days of DMs getting angry at players for trying to sneak a peek at the DMG. During a break I did thumb through someone's 2E DMG, and I was immediately told that I couldn't do that, and that now my character was going to be punished for it.

Sure enough he chopped my ranger's hand off "for touching forbidden lore". Being thirteen at the time, I assumed that one of the rules of the game was that players couldn't read the DMG, because there was special information in there only for the DM (like there was in adventures). When I finally got my hands on an old 1E DMG, I saw that he really _was_ being an unreasonable jerk. Had I been older and wiser at the time, I would've tried to just take over an existing group when it was imploding, or form my own group. When I finally did, I saw that this was what I should've done all along.

In all seriousness, I wish someone had come along and told me eight years ago what you're saying now, Screwhead, because it would've spared me a whole lot of garbage.



> Implies to who?
> To me it implies a DM who is confident in his/her rulings and is willing to step on mid-combat rules debates with a sledgehammer in order to keep the game going.
> One who is capable of admitting their lack of knowledge and accepting input from the players.



And I'd call that a great DM. To me, "strong DM" is often a codeword for "DM who rules via fiat". I'll admit it to be nothing more than a quibble over terminology.



> Appearances based on your posts look very like antagonistic attitude towards DM/player relationships. Players and DM's need not be 'compared' and rules should not be about 'DM Accountablity'
> They should be cooperative in thier seperate roles of character actor and world creator.



And if you'll speak to people I've gamed with (since the early rocky days, anyways), I am a pretty cooperative player. For example, in a PBP game on another board that just started, my character is a scout/barbarian using the whirling frenzy variant from Unearthed Arcana. As the rule was written, my character was getting two skirmish attacks each round. However, my DM thought that this was too powerful, and sent me an email expressing this concern. I clarified that this is what the rule stated, but agreed that it seemed to be much more potent than I'd thought. The DM suggested ruling it to work like flury of blows, and I told him I'd have no problem with such a ruling.

However, away from the gaming table, I recognize that a large number of the problems I had early on could be at least partially attributed to the approach to the ruleset we took (though in large part I'd say that my DMs were suffering from jerkitus). I think that because the ruleset assumed the liberal use of judgement calls, it allowed for (and possibly even encouraged) a style of DMing that I had terrible experiences with. Now my point of view is that the ideal gaming system removes such a stumbling block and minimizes the disjunction between the world the players picture and the one the DM describes. The problem, as I see it, is one of perspective. If a ruleset can encourage a more similar perspective shared by all members of the group on the game being played, then the disjunction between players and DMs can be minimized. Most folks seem to agree that this is something worth aspiring to (if the methods for achieving it are different, obviously). Obviously a ruleset can't make a bad DM into a good one, but if it can encourage behavior that we recognize to be good DMing, then it can minimize experiences like mine.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And on a related note, RC, I'm curious: how would you describe your general reaction to requests from players to make use of options from suppliments? Would you say you generally disallow more requests than you allow, or do you allow most of the few requests you get?





Since you asked, thus far I have generally allowed just about every request that's been made, except when one player wanted to make a half-ogre and when another player wanted to make a dragon.  

The player who wanted to make a half-ogre was allowed to make an anthropomorphic bear instead (his second choice), because the campaign world supported the idea of humanoid animals (part of the cosmology).  

The player who wanted to make a dragon decided previously to give each of his characters a heretofore unknown draconic deity (one outside the campaign workbook, of his own design) who (among other things) the player claimed created the world.  _Hrm._  I didn't disallow what the player thought, but worked it into the world.  The campaign workbook brought racial restrictions on class back into the game.  He wanted to play a vetoed race/class combination as his initial character.  I allowed it (making him the first half-orc chosen by the Gods to be a paladin in the history of the world).  His third character, a barbarian, ended up talking about yet another new dragon deity that had an anti-matter breath weapon.  I had to remind that player that (a) there was no anti-matter within the context of the world (nor cellular biology, nor the germ theory of disease, etc) and (b) his barbarian was not a 21st Century physicist.

When the dragon request came, I pointed out (again) that within the context of the campaign world, dragons were considered to be the embodiement of evil and greed, much as they were in the Western Middle Ages.  He still wanted to play a dragon.  I pointed out that almost everyone he met would flee or try to kill him.  He still wanted to play a dragon.

Eventually, the group got a polymorph wand.  They used all of its few remaining charges....turning him into a dragon.

Thereafter, he was surprised to learn that almost everyone he met fled from him, and a few braver souls fired arrows.  Somehow, in a world where the only dragons anyone had ever met were evil, individual, folkloric dragons, he thought everything would be fine when *he* became a dragon.

Now, you might see this as punishing him for getting what he wanted.  I view it as a roadblock.  Part of the DM's job, in my view, is to make sure that the PCs encounter believable roadblocks.

The PC decided to try to get the polymorph dispelled at a place called Rookhaven.  Heading there, he flew over the (known) lair of a (known) villian who calls himself the Dragon.  The PC was surprised when the villain took this as sort of a challenge.

Currently, he's still a dragon.  With work, he might be able to get what he wants (acceptance in that form), but I am not going to hand it to him on a plate.

Every other request was accepted thus far.

Hope that answers your question.





> If you hadn't read the DMG, then you weren't "in the club", so to speak, and I know we've all at least heard of stories from the old days of DMs getting angry at players for trying to sneak a peek at the DMG.





Did you know that that was actually brought up in the 1st Edition DMG?  The PCs of players found reading the DMG were only worthy of a sudden death, or something like that.  The current version is *much* better in that regard.

Heck, from a ruleset standpoint, or a game design standpoint, it is light years ahead of the old stuff (sorry, Diaglo).  However, to create the type of game I personally prefer, it requires tinkering.  Some of that tinkering is, admittedly, designed to restore elements from previous editions.


RC



EDIT:  Forgot another request that I recently denied:  essentially, "Can't we just say my dead character got out of death for good behaviour?"


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 15, 2005)

Just as a quick reminder, be nice to one another.  Try to think that another's purpose is only to relay their experiences rather than to mislead you.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 15, 2005)

BU said:
			
		

> Ah...you have never watched a player calculate the DCs and determine that they only have a 10% chance of succeeding, so why bother? I had one guy who cranked the numbers with every challenge and only made an attempt with a 50% chance of success.
> 
> He'd even use a tool to calculate CR (based on his limited knowledge of the creature) and would not participate in a fight unless he had a good chance of winning.
> 
> I find those attitudes pathetic.




That's a pretty harsh condemnation of what I feel would be a perfectly reasonable approach for any realistic character in a dangerous fantasy world.

Character knowledge is richer, more varied, and of more immediate use to the character than player knowledge. The player won't know from your description if the wall is climbable (nessecarily). The character would know by looking at the wall and judging from their past experiences if the wall would be climbable. A character with a +15 in Climb obviously knows the ins and outs of climbing stuff, just like a character with a +15 BAB obviously knows the ins and outs of hitting things. 

While someone not taking a risk with a 10% chance of  success is hardly heroic (and thus may not be the kind of character you'd like to encourage), it is a perfectly realistic and logical approach to a dangerous world, and would fit many semi-cowardly or cautious character types perfectly. It could also represent a normal kind of person who *has* to take that kind of wild and crazy risk, with enough character work.

Pathetic? Maybe not what you're looking for, but why insult those who aren't what you're looking for just because they aren't what you're looking for?



			
				RC said:
			
		

> Now, you might see this as punishing him for getting what he wanted. I view it as a roadblock. Part of the DM's job, in my view, is to make sure that the PCs encounter believable roadblocks.




I think it's just a style thing, but this confuses me. IMHO, it's the DM's job first and foremost to make sure everyone at the table has fun. Encountering roadblocks, at least for my group, is only fun if there is a way around them. They are then challenges to overcome. They are not penalties for doing something you want to do.

If I wanted to forbid PC's from being dragons, I'd just *tell* them. Yes, it's arbitrary, yes it's against the RAW...As the DM, sometimes I will need to be arbitrary and weird about things just for my personal tastes, to make the game fun for me. If you *need* to be a dragon to have fun, and I don't like PC dragons, we won't mesh. 

If I'm going to give the PC's a capability, I'm going to allow them to enjoy it and delight in it and use it to overcome more problems. For me, and for many of my players, it's not fun to get a _wish_ spell you never want to use, or to have a goal for your character he will be forever denied of. 

Allowing a PC to get their wish but "at a heavy price" (e.g.: with more trouble than it's worth) just isn't fun for me or my group. I'm reasonably willing to wager that most players (though certainly not all) feel similarly.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2005)

> First off, let's imagine that X is taking a level in a specific prestige class. At the end of one session, the PCs gain enough XP to level. The PC in question decides to take a level in a prestige class from Sandstorm, which the DM does not have, and has not approved. He doesn't mention it right away. Halfway through the session, however, he does something that gives the DM pause and suddenly the DM learns that the PC has taken the prestige class.




Now this is grounds for a flogging with a dead fish IMO.  Players don't get to pick and choose resources for the DM's campaign.  I've never run across anything like this before.  It's always been understood that the DM has control over resources.  While there's nothing wrong with asking, if  player came to the table with something I hadn't approved for the game, I'd be pretty annoyed.

Again, and I hate harping on this, but, that's not limited to any particular DMing style.  Just like a soccer ref isn't going to let you bring a different ball onto the field, a Referee DM won't let you bring in rules that aren't prior approved.  And, really, since the DM does have control over what is brought to the table, there's nothing wrong with bringing in new rules per se.  Whether they be house rules or published, I see no major problems with that.  

Where the disconnect occurs is when the rules CHANGE midgame, without any prior notice.  If the DM is going to change ESTABLISHED rules, it's only fair that he gives notice to the players.  If a rule hasn't been established, then there's no conflict.  For example, when runnign a naval campaign, I had to rework an entire set of naval combat rules.  However, since there are no naval combat rules in the RAW, there's nothing stopping me from doing so.  So long as the players like the rules I'm using, there's no problem.  However, if I suddenly, without warning, change the DC's for climbing a wall, FOR NO REASON, then I'm in the wrong.  Granted, the PC's sometimes have to be content with, "There's a reason, you're character just doesn't know it."  But, if I'm changing the rules just because Bloggins ate the last slice of pizza, then I'm a dink.  (great word btw - thanks RC)

Is there a sense that all printed material should be available to all players?  Maybe.  Then again, that's always been true.  The Complete books for 2e were marketted to players as well as DM's.  Lots of players certainly came to me asking about using material from the latest Dragon or whatever TSR happened to crank out that month.  I haven't noticed any real increase or decrease in whining when I disallow this or that.  

But, as the saying goes, YMMV.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think it's just a style thing, but this confuses me. IMHO, it's the DM's job first and foremost to make sure everyone at the table has fun.






I absolutely, positively disagree with the above statement.

Ensuring that the game is fun is, generally, the job of everybody at the table.  Although the weight of that job falls mainly on the DM ("With great power comes great responsibility" - Spidey's Uncle Ben), the DM has, quite frankly, bigger fish to fry.  The DM has to think in larger terms than "what would be fun for player X _right now_?" if he is going to have a campaign that lasts.

Having your character die?  Not fun.  However, the possibility of death makes accomplishment more sweet.

Encountering roadblocks to what you want?  Not fun.  However, it is impossible to overcome roadblocks that you do not encounter, and overcoming roadblocks is a great deal of fun.

Saying that the DM's primary job is to make sure everyone is having fun right now is equivilent, imho, to saying that the DM should give the players what they want.  Again, imho, the DM should consider the long-term effects on the campaign world as being the foremost consideration (if he intends long-term play).  He should consider foremost what style of play he enjoys (as the single person at the table who put in the most work, and as the single person at the table upon whom the game depends).  Then, and only then, he should consider what the players want.

Harsh?  Sure.  And ymmv, as always, but the DM does not "owe" the players anything.  They are always free to go find another game, or start their own.


EDIT:  After suggesting, again and again, that no player should stay in a game they are not enjoying -- even if no other game is available, no one could possibly imagine that I would suggest that the DM _has a responsibility to do so_.  Clearly, the DM has to be enjoying the game for there to be a game.  Clearly, the DM has done more work than all of the players combined (in most gaming groups) and is more important than any single player at the table in terms of there being a game at all.  If either the DM or Player X has to go, who do you boot?  Saying "it's the DM's job first and foremost to make sure everyone at the table has fun" sounds good, I'll grant you, but is it realistic?




> Allowing a PC to get their wish but "at a heavy price" (e.g.: with more trouble than it's worth) just isn't fun for me or my group. I'm reasonably willing to wager that most players (though certainly not all) feel similarly.





Every player I have ever encountered would agree with you to say it.  Almost every player I have ever encountered, when actually engaged in the game, has ultimately appreciated the double-edged benefits I sometimes present.

I imagine that you don't use cursed magic items in your world?  



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2005)

Kamikaze,

Look again at the sequence of events here:

When the dragon request came, I pointed out (again) that within the context of the campaign world, dragons were considered to be the embodiement of evil and greed, much as they were in the Western Middle Ages. He still wanted to play a dragon. I pointed out that almost everyone he met would flee or try to kill him. He still wanted to play a dragon.

In the post, above, I was describing something where I had said denied a request.  I told the player that he could not make a dragon PC.  The player took this as a roadblock to get around somehow, rather than as a prohibition, and eventually he got around it.

Eventually, the group got a polymorph wand. They used all of its few remaining charges....turning him into a dragon.

Now, Kamikaze, I know that you aren't advocating that I change the rules about how magic works mid-game.  I know that you aren't advocating that I houserule mid-game that the PC simply cannot do this.  And I feel pretty certain (?) that you are not advocating that I alter the known qualities of the campaign world to accomodate a PC action that, _in light of direct warning_, the player should reasonably have known the consequences of.

Thereafter, he was surprised to learn that almost everyone he met fled from him, and a few braver souls fired arrows. Somehow, in a world where the only dragons anyone had ever met were evil, individual, folkloric dragons, he thought everything would be fine when he became a dragon.

After all, if I did any of those things, then either (a) I'd be a "bad DM" for changing how the world works (i.e., rules, house rules, implied rules) mid-game, or (b) I would foster a player belief that, no matter what they did, I would alter things so that everything would be all right in the end.

Curiosity compels me to ask outright, what exactly do you think I should have done when he decided to be polymorphed into a dragon?


RC


----------



## Belen (Sep 15, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Pathetic? Maybe not what you're looking for, but why insult those who aren't what you're looking for just because they aren't what you're looking for?




Do you know how annoying it is to have someone sit in front of a laptop, running calculations, and using those to not participate?  How about having them calculate CR after every encounter and then annouce to everyone how much XP they just received?

Now, I no longer game with the guy, but the first time he started handing out XP, I almost strangled him.  Of course, after that one particular encounter, I allowed everyone to keep the XP that he called out, except him.  He got to take that as a negative number.


----------



## Testament (Sep 15, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ensuring that the game is fun is, generally, the job of everybody at the table.  Although the weight of that job falls mainly on the DM ("With great power comes great responsibility" - Spidey's Uncle Ben), the DM has, quite frankly, bigger fish to fry.  The DM has to think in larger terms than "what would be fun for player X _right now_?" if he is going to have a campaign that lasts.




At what point did KM say that the GM's responsibility is to make sure that their fun is immediate?  I can't speak for KM, but AFAIC, the GM's responsibility (and I use the word deliberately) is to provide fun _in the long term_, in line with all their other responsibilities.



> Having your character die?  Not fun.  However, the possibility of death makes accomplishment more sweet.




No argument here.  My theory is Total Party Kill = Bad, Total Party Trauma = Holy frickin' grail of combat.



> Saying that the DM's primary job is to make sure everyone is having fun right now is equivilent, imho, to saying that the DM should give the players what they want.  Again, imho, the DM should consider the long-term effects on the campaign world as being the foremost consideration (if he intends long-term play).  He should consider foremost what style of play he enjoys (as the single person at the table who put in the most work, and as the single person at the table upon whom the game depends).  Then, and only then, he should consider what the players want.
> 
> EDIT:  After suggesting, again and again, that no player should stay in a game they are not enjoying -- even if no other game is available, no one could possibly imagine that I would suggest that the DM _has a responsibility to do so_.  Clearly, the DM has to be enjoying the game for there to be a game.  Clearly, the DM has done more work than all of the players combined (in most gaming groups) and is more important than any single player at the table in terms of there being a game at all.  If either the DM or Player X has to go, who do you boot?  Saying "it's the DM's job first and foremost to make sure everyone at the table has fun" sounds good, I'll grant you, but is it realistic?



<Red highlighted for emphasis>

I've been biting my proverbial tongue on the following line for a while observing this thread, but now I'm gonna explode and say it.

A whole bunch of DM's here need to get down off their FRELLING CROSSES, BECAUSE SOMEONE NEEDS THE WOOD!

Yes, the DM does a sporkload of work.  Yes, the game can't run without them.  YAY, GOOD FOR US.  Now, your mileage may vary, and RC and BU's mileage I know does, but last time I checked, a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing.  Work with your players to find a frickin' compromise on disagreements people, democracy does in fact work.  We put in the most work of any player, but I don't think that gives us the right to say "my way or the highway!" to the other players!  You've got a PC who wants to be able to use the latest splatbook, then work with them, try and find a way to make something work in your game, at least PRETEND to make an effort before saying no.  People here are talking about a default yes answer being a bad thing, and yet no-one, as far as I can see, has offered a reason _why_ that's the case.



> I imagine that you don't use cursed magic items in your world?




Can't speak for KM, but I know I don't.  Can't see a reason for them existing, who's gonna waste XP making something that screws its user?  Dust of Sneezing and Choking, BTW, isn't a cursed item!

I apologise in advance if I've offended everyone.  Great topic, BTW!

Testament


----------



## Testament (Sep 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Do you know how annoying it is to have someone sit in front of a laptop, running calculations, and using those to not participate?  How about having them calculate CR after every encounter and then annouce to everyone how much XP they just received?
> 
> Now, I no longer game with the guy, but the first time he started handing out XP, I almost strangled him.  Of course, after that one particular encounter, I allowed everyone to keep the XP that he called out, except him.  He got to take that as a negative number.




Well, I'm not you, and I wasn't there, but was that really necessary FIRST TIME ROUND?  You could have just told him you didn't appreciate that sort of usurpation, and asked him to stop, rather than pulling out your DM=God stick and delivering an almighty whack?


----------



## Belen (Sep 15, 2005)

Testament said:
			
		

> A whole bunch of DM's here need to get down off their FRELLING CROSSES, BECAUSE SOMEONE NEEDS THE WOOD!




uh huh, uh huh...you said...frell.



			
				Testament said:
			
		

> Yes, the DM does a sporkload of work.  Yes, the game can't run without them.  YAY, GOOD FOR US.  Now, your mileage may vary, and RC and BU's mileage I know does, but last time I checked, a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing.  Work with your players to find a frickin' compromise on disagreements people, democracy does in fact work.  We put in the most work of any player, but I don't think that gives us the right to say "my way or the highway!" to the other players!  You've got a PC who wants to be able to use the latest splatbook, then work with them, try and find a way to make something work in your game, at least PRETEND to make an effort before saying no.  People here are talking about a default yes answer being a bad thing, and yet no-one, as far as I can see, has offered a reason _why_ that's the case.




Shockingly enough, I agree that it is my job to provide a fun experience for my players.  I just disagree that the players should always get what they want.  Funny enough, when I ran a game with a default of "yes," no one had fun.  The players competed with me, they competed with each other, and they could have cared less about supporting one another.  





			
				Testament said:
			
		

> Can't speak for KM, but I know I don't.  Can't see a reason for them existing, who's gonna waste XP making something that screws its user?  Dust of Sneezing and Choking, BTW, isn't a cursed item!




This one is easy.  The evil wizard who wishes to give the cursed sword to Good King Henry to help destabilize his rule and gain power.  The evil cleric who wishes to spread hate and malice among the countyside and dupe his foes into "finding" powerful weapons to oppose him etc.

An evil person does not make a cursed item for themselves.  They make it in the hope of providing it to the people they dislike.


----------



## Belen (Sep 15, 2005)

Testament said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not you, and I wasn't there, but was that really necessary FIRST TIME ROUND?  You could have just told him you didn't appreciate that sort of usurpation, and asked him to stop, rather than pulling out your DM=God stick and delivering an almighty whack?




Heck yes, it was necessary the first time around, especially considering I had told him that I was not going to use that idiot CR/XP calc tool on all my encounters when he e-mailed me with the XP he "should" have received from the session of the week before.  I do not appreciate telling someone "no" in private, then having someone calculate XP based on his knowledge of the MM and tell the players in the group how much XP they should get.

It was rude, I had spent hours on designing that encounter, including adding class levels and template to the creature and I had already determined the XP of the encounter.  His number was smaller, but that is what everyone received.

It someone is being a jerk, then they deserve the DM stick of wrathful smiting.


----------



## DragonLancer (Sep 15, 2005)

Sorry Testament, but I wouldn't run a game/setting that I don't want to run. I also don't believe that players should be the be all and end all of the situation. As my sig says, the DM is just as if not more so important than the players.

Now I'm not saying that players should play any old tosh just because their resident GM says so, but its up to the GM to decide what is and isn't right with their game. They do the hard work, put the time, blood, sweat and money into the campaign. I would hope players bring a desire to play and a level of commitment.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2005)

Testament said:
			
		

> A whole bunch of DM's here need to get down off their FRELLING CROSSES, BECAUSE SOMEONE NEEDS THE WOOD!
> 
> Yes, the DM does a sporkload of work.  Yes, the game can't run without them.  YAY, GOOD FOR US.  Now, your mileage may vary, and RC and BU's mileage I know does, but last time I checked, a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing.  Work with your players to find a frickin' compromise on disagreements people, democracy does in fact work.  We put in the most work of any player, but I don't think that gives us the right to say "my way or the highway!" to the other players!  You've got a PC who wants to be able to use the latest splatbook, then work with them, try and find a way to make something work in your game, at least PRETEND to make an effort before saying no.  People here are talking about a default yes answer being a bad thing, and yet no-one, as far as I can see, has offered a reason _why_ that's the case.





Testament,

From basic blue-boxed D&D through 3.X, I've never had a problem attracting players.  The problem I have is that there are a lot of people I don't have room for at the table, and I hate to disappoint them.  There are several other people who GM games in our group, and none of them have the same problem.  So, indeed, my mileage does vary.

I didn't mean to suggest that I am "up on a cross".  The statements you quoted were not to be taken as an excuse for poor DMing; the were meant to be a broad statement of gaming philosophy.  And, I suppose, life philosophy.  Simply put, the two cruxes are:  "If you're not having fun, stop doing it" and "Whoever puts in more work has more say".  

Every right has corresponding responsibilities, and every responsibility has corresponding rights.  Neither rights nor responsibilities have meaning without each other.  Because the DM has so many responsibilities, his rights are correspondingly larger.  Because the DM has so many rights, his responsibilities are correspondingly higher.

Time and again, though, I hear the argument on these boards that "a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing" (or words to that effect), nearly always in conjunction with a statement such as yours that claims that the DM does not have the right to say "My way or the highway."

Of course the DM has that right.  No one can be forced to play with people they do not wish to.  You cannot force the DM to run a game.  You cannot force anyone to run a game in a way you prefer.  You may be able to compromise, but your two absolutely always-available choices are "Play in the game I'm running as I am running it" and "Don't play in the game I'm running as I am running it."  This is not only true, it is self-evident.

Sure, if the DM is a dink and runs "Dink way or the highway" games, he's going to spend a lot of time at an empty table.  I've said this (or things like it) numerous times myself.  The qualifier, though, is all-important.

You say, "Now, your mileage may vary, and RC and BU's mileage I know does, but last time I checked, a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing."

I say, "The twin philosophies stated above, combined with not being a dink, are _*why*_ our mileage varies."

I have a huge group of players.  I have another large group of players begging me to DM.  Both groups have others who want in if I am willing to allow it.  I have no concerns at all about not having players.  Honestly, I don't even have concerns about handling problems that arise with players during the game.  Everyone who plays is told, now upfront and in writing, that I am the final arbiter of the game and if they don't want to play under those conditions they can, and should, choose not to play.

And they keep coming.

And, as I said, I'm not the only person in our group(s) who GMs, but I am the only one with too many players.  I am also, oddly enough, the only one who doesn't follow a "democracy gaming" philosophy.  Is it just possible that there is a correspondence between those two facts?

If you're not having fun, stop doing it.  Whoever puts in more work has more say.  

Easy rules to live by.  Easy rules to game by.


RC


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 15, 2005)

*Jackelope King*, Given that background.. I can appreciate where you are coming from!

I was lucky in that my introduction to gaming was from my brother.. at a time that I was deeply into serious reading.. so my take on gaming is more focused on developing characters and multiple plots than it is on the minute details of the system.
  But, being who I am, I also beleive that if you are going to play in a game, you need to understand  {a word that is vastly different than 'know'} the rules of that game.


----------



## jasper (Sep 15, 2005)

(jasper makes sure his two ice cream bar sticks are clean and the rubber band is holding it in cross shape)
Some of DMs like our cross and gotten tired of the train of thought everyone who sits at the table must have fun over the dm's fun. Sorry if the dm is not having fun the game ends quickly. 
I had goobers whom enjoyed killing other PCs for what happen in math class Monday.
I had goobers who thought just because in was published by TSR or in the Dragon I HAD to allow it. Jester anyone, Bounty Hunter anyone, Witch npc as pc class etc.
I had people want to play Drizzit! This is after I stated that Drow were going to be shot on sight. (and some players want to side with Drizzit aka pc /star immunity).
I had people who want to play Jedi with the light saber and plans for x-wing in a Traveller campaign. After I said no light sabers.
So since some goober in gamer clothing sits at my table I must bend over allow their version of the perfect them (with cool powers). Because everyone else's fun is higher priority than mine? Sorry no go at this station. I can/will/have passed the chair to the next dm. Or just quit playing. The only thing I do is generally no be a pain to the next dm. Unless it was Super Goober and I want him to learn a lesson.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 15, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Did you know that that was actually brought up in the 1st Edition DMG?  The PCs of players found reading the DMG were only worthy of a sudden death, or something like that.  The current version is *much* better in that regard.




Quoted for truth.

I have a notebook from circa 1983 wherein I detail a number of elaborate plots and plans to kill a player's paladin character. (Looking back now I realize that he wanted to be a badass and the 1E paladin came as close as he could get. But it was not the right PC for what he wnated to do.) He was routinely reading the DMG and the adventures that I was running. Among the reasons I stopped running published adventures, this comes to mind. But I faithfully followed the instructions in the DMG to "punish" him, setting out a plan to kill him 18 times since he had an 18 Con. For those too new to the hobby to know, that meant he couldn't be resurrected after the 18th death since you lost 1 Con every raise.

Did I ever finish the plan? Nope. I started to grow up. I since learned from that that experience (and others) there is no harm in letting people read the source material because they invest in the game. You just have to make up details that aren't in there to keep the mystery and wonder going. 

There are always going to be arguments, but I'd much rather have an informed argument. My friend wasn't a bad guy. We were all 16. I became a better DM and he became a better player. There have always been player/DM differences of opinion, but rather than try to enforce your throne, try sharing a little of the power.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Do you know how annoying it is to have someone sit in front of a laptop, running calculations, and using those to not participate?  How about having them calculate CR after every encounter and then annouce to everyone how much XP they just received?
> 
> Now, I no longer game with the guy, but the first time he started handing out XP, I almost strangled him.  Of course, after that one particular encounter, I allowed everyone to keep the XP that he called out, except him.  He got to take that as a negative number.




Now, I don't think anyone here is going to say that there are no bad players.  That's certainly true that bad players exist.  Then again, the point of this thread is, are players being empowered by the rules?  Or, at least that's what I thought the point was.  

Now, there's nothing in the RAW that supports what this player is doing.  The xp tables include lots of fudge factor.  The fact that the player doesn't know the CR means that his actions are not supported by the RAW.  I would also point out that doing the same thing in any other edition would be equally simple.  Open up the MM and call out the number.   It would actually be more accurate since xp for kills doesn't change.  This is a case of a bad player, not a case of the rules supporting bad players.

As for calculating the DC's, again, he doesn't have access to all the information, therefore, any calculation he makes is an estimate at best.  To me, that's actually fairly realistic.  If I'm a skilled person at doing X, then I probably have a pretty good idea whether or not I can do something or not.  If I'm a gymnast, I should know if I can do a backflip or not.  If I have X ranks in tumble, I probably have a pretty good idea how hard it is to do something.  Now, if I try to say that my estimate should be taken as fact, regardless of what the DM says, then I should be smacked.  That's a bad player.  But, then again, that is not supported in the RAW either.  Nothing in the RAW states that the DC's cannot be changed by the DM.  In fact the RAW says that the DC's CAN be changed by the DM.

It's funny, I've been collecting Dragon for the past year or so.  In just about every issue, there is a new class or PrC or something for the players.  And, in just about every issue, there is a caveat that anything in the magazine MUST be allowed by the DM before you can take it.  I would say that's a pretty telling arguement that the rules actually support the DM, rather than the player.  When the books flat out state that any material must be approved by the DM, then the player who insists that rule X must be used, has no leg to stand on.


----------



## Testament (Sep 15, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Every right has corresponding responsibilities, and every responsibility has corresponding rights.  Neither rights nor responsibilities have meaning without each other.  Because the DM has so many responsibilities, his rights are correspondingly larger.  Because the DM has so many rights, his responsibilities are correspondingly higher.
> 
> Time and again, though, I hear the argument on these boards that "a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing" (or words to that effect), nearly always in conjunction with a statement such as yours that claims that the DM does not have the right to say "My way or the highway."
> 
> ...




Well, RC gets quoted because he posted second, but this is adressed to BU and RC.

I'm getting the distinct impression that we're functionally saying the same thing in two different languages.  Or more accurately, two different philosophies that lead to the same destination.

At the end of the day, the DM's still in charge, that's an immutable fact, and the position of DM CANNOT exist without that concept.  Where I see us differing is that while I belive firmly in the rights of players to haev some say in the running of the game, others believe that the GM has the right of absolute authority over the direction and style of the game, as a kind of reward for their increased responsibilites. <Sweet drunken ninja jesus, that looks a lot worse in print than it is!>.

DragonLancer, Jasper, I've never advocated the PCs being the sole focuses of enjoyment in the game, but I think (and this is all opinion) that there has to be a give and take structure here.  I try and work with players to maximise their enjoyment, without sacrificing my own.  I still say no, on a regular basis, but only after I've looked at the situation and tried to find a way to make it work.  I reiterate what I said last time, the GM's primary responsibility, the one that ultimately tramples every other one, is to ensure that everyone is having fun.  In terms of the players having fun, that need not be immediate (players hate it when they're about to die, they love it when they survive by the skin of their teeth a round later as a short-burn example), but _long term_, everyone should be having fun.  Rules arbitration, game design, all of that comes AFTER this responsiblity.  That long term, for the record, can be measured in any number of ways, over the session, over multiples, over an hour, whatever, the end result needs to be fun.

Nutshell is, I'm arguing for a level of compromise, RC and BU are saying that compromise is less important.  I'm arguing democracy, they're arguing belevolent dictatorship; its Locke v Hobbes all over again. That's how I'm understanding it, and both of you have the right to correct me if I'm wrong on this.



> And, as I said, I'm not the only person in our group(s) who GMs, but I am the only one with too many players.  I am also, oddly enough, the only one who doesn't follow a "democracy gaming" philosophy.  Is it just possible that there is a correspondence between those two facts?




Correlation does not equal cause.  I'm actively avoiding reading any sort of attack in that last statement too, because I personally believe that neither philosophy is intrinsically superior.  I just find the absolutist style irreconcilable with my own methods.  And I've also got a surplus of players.



> If you're not having fun, stop doing it.  Whoever puts in more work has more say.




First part, damn skippy.  Second part, true to a point.  And I don't think I'm gonna convince you and BU of that, and vice versa, so I'm agreeing with you guys to disagree on that count.


----------



## Testament (Sep 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Heck yes, it was necessary the first time around, especially considering I had told him that I was not going to use that idiot CR/XP calc tool on all my encounters when he e-mailed me with the XP he "should" have received from the session of the week before.  I do not appreciate telling someone "no" in private, then having someone calculate XP based on his knowledge of the MM and tell the players in the group how much XP they should get.
> 
> It was rude, I had spent hours on designing that encounter, including adding class levels and template to the creature and I had already determined the XP of the encounter.  His number was smaller, but that is what everyone received.
> 
> It someone is being a jerk, then they deserve the DM stick of wrathful smiting.




Holy nut monkeys.  It was the first time at a session, but this gimboid git had been at it previously, AFTER you'd already told him no?

OK, at that point he needed to be whacked upside the head.  Your cigar.


----------



## Henry (Sep 15, 2005)

Testament said:
			
		

> Nutshell is, I'm arguing for a level of compromise, RC and BU are saying that compromise is less important.  I'm arguing democracy, they're arguing belevolent dictatorship; its Locke v Hobbes all over again. That's how I'm understanding it, and both of you have the right to correct me if I'm wrong on this.




Actually, it's closer to the debate between a Republic and a Democracy. Just like we elect an official for X years, and they for that time have full authority until their term is up; unless they do something egregiously stupid (like corruption, or murder, etc.) then they keep that position until their time is up. That's the way I feel about the position of DM. A good representative listens to the people he's representing, but the final responsibility is on his shoulders. The problem is, that this representative is hamstrung in his duties in two respects:

1) The code of laws that put him there is so rigid that he has no authority to fix a problem if it arises, and

2) If every decision he makes has to be passed by the elected body to make it happen.

In example 1, if say the code of laws says that something must be done in a certain way, yet that way is very time-consuming or wasteful, then he has no authority to act differently. Instead, if the law says he must simply get the job done, then he can try new innovative ways to accomplish it.

In example 2, no one is satisfied because there's always a disenfranchised group, and to come to a consensus is a long drawn out affair that takes a lot of time.

When it comes time for the Rep's duties to cease, then someone else can step up if they feel they can do better.

That's my take on DM'ing. A final authority says, "this is the rules I prefer, this is the way we'll do it." If someone feels they have a better style, then they're welcome to do so, with my blessing, my deference, and my advice, should they need it.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 15, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> That's my take on DM'ing. A final authority says, "this is the rules I prefer, this is the way we'll do it." If someone feels they have a better style, then they're welcome to do so, with my blessing, my deference, and my advice, should they need it.



I agree. I do my best to spell out in advance what the game will include and what options will be considered (with respect to source books and the like): "This is a d20 _Modern_ game using the core rulebook, _Weapons Locker_, and the _Urban Arcana_ web enhancement. Classes, feats and schools from _Ultramodern Firearms_, _Martial Arts Mayhem_, and _Modern Player's Companion_ will be considred on a case-by-case basis. No other third-party material will be allowed. There is no FX in this game." There it is - those are your parameters for making your character, and the guidelines around which the world functions. A player may certainly ask to include a feat from _Blood and Fists_, or take a talent from _22 Talent Trees_, but the answer quite honestly is most likely to be no.

Why? Why not allow something if it's not obviously broken? A couple of reasons come to mind:
 I don't like the game to become an escalating arms race of "s/he who buys the most books wins"
 I'm not personally familiar with the book the player would like to use
 I am familiar with the book but don't like the content for the game I'm running
 The material that I cited as permissible is what I've used to create the game-world and is the closest thing to the "laws of physics" for how that world works
 The material doesn't fit with the setting
With respect to the first three reasons, I've encountered gamers who would say that I'm not working hard enough to make the game fun for the players, that I'm lazy as a GM, and so on. Perhaps they're right: I don't claim to be a good GM - average is a reach for me on my best days.

I do know that there's an upper limit to the amount of time I can reasonably spend on game prep, and the more material that's introduced the more time I have to spend on mechanics interactions that takes away from adventure and non-player character prep. Given the choice between adding in crunch to satisfy a player's jones for the feat-of-the-month, and working on developing challenging encounters and interesting non-player characters, that's an easy call for me to make.

The fourth and fifth reasons are fundamental for me. I select the rules that reflect both the physical and social/cultural 'reality' of the game-world. The player's character must live within those parameters. If the character does not fit the setting, the player changes the character - full stop.

In preparing for our Modern military game I had a player ask to run a chaplain character. While I liked the concept, it wasn't going to work well with the rest of the characters or the adventures for a number of reasons, so I said no. In another bulletin board thread I was taken to task for saying no, that it was my responsibility as the GM to work the character into the game rather than reject the player's concept. However, to do would involve ignoring important setting considerations while pushing hard against the limits of suspended disbelief. I wasn't prepared to change the fundamental assumptions of the game enough to allow the character.

As a GM, my fun comes from creating a setting and campaigns and sharing them with the players. I invest a lot of time and effort to provide a richly detailed setting and three-dimensional non-player characters with which the adventurers may interact. When I need to change the setting assumptions to fit a character, that takes away from my enjoyment of the game. My response to that is simple: when I'm a player in your game, I will create and run a character that conforms to your setting, and I expect the same from you in mine.

(In the case of the chaplain character, I suggested a couple of alternatives to the player that would work with the game, such as a former or future divinity student - in the end, the player chose not to participate, which was ultimately the best choice for both of us.)

With respect to the workload issue, I do believe the players have the responsibility to bend their expectations, not the GM - there is simply no comparison between players and GMs in terms of what it takes to make the game possible. Players need to understand the setting and conform to the GM's parameters on what is or isn't permitted in terms of character creation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2005)

Consider DMing like a business, if you like.  The DM hangs out a shingle.  The DM specifies exactly what wares are on sale (i.e., DMing style, what the game will be like, etc.).  If you want to buy (i.e., play), that is your choice.  If not, that is also your choice.  This is something sometimes referred to as "Marketplace Democracy".


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 15, 2005)

> Ensuring that the game is fun is, generally, the job of everybody at the table. Although the weight of that job falls mainly on the DM ("With great power comes great responsibility" - Spidey's Uncle Ben), the DM has, quite frankly, bigger fish to fry. The DM has to think in larger terms than "what would be fun for player X right now?" if he is going to have a campaign that lasts.




Is there any bigger fish in the playing of a game than the having fun of playing the game? Put simply, if not everyone is having fun at the table, there's no game. The DM, as the final authority on what is permissible and what isn't at the table, has the power to determine what the players have fun doing. This means that the players' fun is entirely in the DM's hands...the buck stops there. If you have fun doing something, it is the DM's purview to say "OKAY!" or "NO WAY!" Players "these days" are getting used to Okay, because the 3.5 system is good enough that there are many more situations where the DM can say "Okay!" and everyone will have fun. This is in comparison to things like 2e, where if the DM said Okay to certain supplements, fun may be lessened. 

What's the "bigger fish?" Story? Feel? Atmosphere? Challenge? If done right, these things serve the concept of fun and enjoyment, making fun an enjoyment #1 priority.



> Having your character die? Not fun. However, the possibility of death makes accomplishment more sweet.




Having the possibility of *failure* makes accomplishment more sweet. There aren't a lot of accomplishments IRL that risk death...simply because I didn't risk death to, say, write a novel, doesn't make the accomplishment writing of that novel any less sweet. The risk involved is not the risk of death....it is the risk of *failure*. Death is only one kind of failure. The most ultimate kind, but still simply one type. 

It is fun to risk the failure of your characters. It is not fun to have you characters die. There is a compromise that can be reached here: risking failure without the painful risk of death. The idea of permenant PC death could be excluded from the entire game and not make the game any worse. 



> Encountering roadblocks to what you want? Not fun. However, it is impossible to overcome roadblocks that you do not encounter, and overcoming roadblocks is a great deal of fun.




But roadblocks that you cannot overcome? That make what you want not worth the effort? That make you regret ever wanting it in the first place? Where is the fun in crushing someone's desire to be a big strong monster?

It is also true that as a DM challenges players, players should challenge DM's. 



> Saying that the DM's primary job is to make sure everyone is having fun right now is equivilent, imho, to saying that the DM should give the players what they want. Again, imho, the DM should consider the long-term effects on the campaign world as being the foremost consideration (if he intends long-term play). He should consider foremost what style of play he enjoys (as the single person at the table who put in the most work, and as the single person at the table upon whom the game depends). Then, and only then, he should consider what the players want.




What the players want is to play a game, to be challenged, and to enjoy the campaign world. The DM should give them that first and foremost. Sometimes, to give them that, it means saying 'no.' It always means that they will experience some risk of failure, because that's what's fun for everyone.

A DM should only consider campaign world and his own desires if that is what would enhance fun for everyone at the table. Obviously, a coherent campaign world is fun, as is a DM who enjoys what he's doing. However, the DM's desires do not and should not take prescidence over the player's. It's not much fun for anyone except one player when a player is selfish, but it's easy to kick out a player. It's no fun for anyone except one DM when a DM is selfish, and it's much harder to kick out a DM.



> Every player I have ever encountered would agree with you to say it. Almost every player I have ever encountered, when actually engaged in the game, has ultimately appreciated the double-edged benefits I sometimes present.
> 
> I imagine that you don't use cursed magic items in your world?




#1: I do make use of cursed magic items, but only when the party can overcome them. They are challenges, not ways for me to punish them for seeking treasure.

#2: Double-edged benefits aren't the problem. The problem is selfish DM's, just like selfish players can be a problem. And I'm not accusing you of being one, I'm just saying that the 3.x ruleset is the first to consider selfish DMing a bad thing, and part of the way it does that is by balancing the ruleset fairly well and empowering the players to know the system.

A rules-lawyer, a power-gamer, a spotlight hog, a munchkin? The problem with all these players is ultimately that they are selfish. They don't consider the group as much as they consider themselves.

What hasn't recieved much attention is that the DM is just as likely to suffer from these problems. And while a bad player can ruin a night for a group, a bad DM can ruin the entire game for every potential person they play with. A selfish DM is a rules-lawyer who can make up their own rules, they're a power-gamer who can invent new tricks, they're a spotlight hog whose story and world are at the center of the game, they're a munchkin more concerned with their neat-o imagination than the other people that they share a game with.

While a good DM might make turning into a dragon frought with problems, they would also allow him to revel in being a dragon for a time, allow him some use out of his nifty powers, make his draconic form essential to the story. And if that good DM had a problem with dragons, he would let the player know that turning into a dragon is not something he's prepared to let the player do. A selfish DM might instead use the transformation as a way to PUNISH the player for trying to have fun. They might consider their own sacred canon above any petty player's considerations. They might see a player who dares to pursue his own goals (rather than the DM-sanctioned goals that he thought of beforehand) and want such a player to learn a lesson of some sort.

D&D is not for teaching lessons, except in a highly tangential sense. It is about a group of people having fun pretending to be magical gumdrop fairies who kick some ass for a few hours a week. It it's core, any RPG is about people gathering to enjoy imagination's ability for a few hours a week. And a selfish DM, like a selfish player, mistakes that, and puts their own delight above the delight of the four other people around them.

The DM has a powerful ability to determine what the game is like for an entire, and that makes selfish DM's much more insidious and much more harmful than selfish players. Thus, the things in the 3.x ruleset that discourages selfish DMing (including telling you that a DM's #1 duty is to ensure everyone's fun...I can quote, if you need it) are things I adore about it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Why? Why not allow something if it's not obviously broken? A couple of reasons come to mind:
> I don't like the game to become an escalating arms race of "s/he who buys the most books wins"
> I'm not personally familiar with the book the player would like to use
> I am familiar with the book but don't like the content for the game I'm running
> ...






I have read posts on EnWorld wherein players would claim that you're not working hard enough to make the game fun for players based on reasons 4 & 5 as well.  

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 15, 2005)

KM,

First off, let me admit that, in this response, I am going to sound like a bit of an idiot.  Indeed, I am going to split a few hairs here.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Is there any bigger fish in the playing of a game than the having fun of playing the game?
> 
> ...
> 
> What's the "bigger fish?" Story? Feel? Atmosphere? Challenge? If done right, these things serve the concept of fun and enjoyment, making fun an enjoyment #1 priority.





Imagine that a D&D game is a gigantic carnival ride.  Everyone wants to have fun, so they all want to go on the ride.  Now, there's one guy whose job it is to ensure that the ride runs smoothly.  All of the pieces have to be in the right place.  This guy knows that his carnival ride cannot contain everything that every carnival ride does.  Even if can be always the biggest, always the fastest, always the best, it cannot have a portion of the track going both up and down at the same time.  It cannot be all things to all people.

At the same time, the carnival ride needs constant work to keep it operating at peak form.

Some people scream "Go faster!"  Some say "Go slower!"  Some say "Go left!"  Some say "Go right!"  This guy, he has to make the rails ready to go _somewhere_, but can't make them go everywhere all at once.  On top of that, he's got to stay on top of maintenance, or the ride will come to a crashing halt.

He has bigger fish to fry than the individual fun of each person on the ride.  He has to consider the ride as a whole.  He has to consider what will make it the best ride, within the limits of his power, for the largest number of people on the ride.

He has to consider that some of the people saying, "Go slower" really want the ride to go faster.  He has to consider that letting someone stand up on the ride might ruin the experience for everyone else.

All of these little things that make up the ride, these are his province.  So this guy has to deal with that fact.  *The pieces of the ride, and making sure that the ride is working, is more important than the momentary desires of any one person on the ride.*  He has (dare I say) bigger fish to fry.

Of course, if this guy is bad at his job, maybe no one wants to go on his ride.  Maybe his ride isn't fun.  He could be the worst carnival guy ever.

But if the ride is fun, and the guy truly enjoys what he is doing, then that ride will be many times better than anything that doesn't have a cohesive vision, in the same way that a movie made by committee can't hold a candle to a movie that holds true to an individual director's esthetics. 

(In that analogy, too, we grant that if you don't care for Quentin Tarantino's esthetics, you won't like his movies.....but, if you keep going to his movies, knowing what they are like, then that is your fault, not his.)




> It is fun to risk the failure of your characters. It is not fun to have you characters die. There is a compromise that can be reached here: risking failure without the painful risk of death. The idea of permenant PC death could be excluded from the entire game and not make the game any worse.





Let us simply say that we agree to disagree here.

Sure, there are lots of ways the PCs can fail short of death.  But, if risking A is fun, and B is the biggest case of A, then B should provide the most fun.

Failing is not fun.  Not just death, but failing at those risks that are non-lethal, too.  No one likes to fail.  Perhaps we should  eliminate all risk from the game, and have only the _illusion of risk_.    




> Where is the fun in crushing someone's desire to be a big strong monster?





I considered answering this in a way that would get me banned from EnWorld.  Truly I did.  I was merely going to suggest some other, less savoury, character types that perhaps the player might want to play.

All kinds of big, strong monsters out there in the world.




> What the players want is to play a game, to be challenged, and to enjoy the campaign world. The DM should give them that first and foremost. Sometimes, to give them that, it means saying 'no.' It always means that they will experience some risk of failure, because that's what's fun for everyone.





But, the DM shouldn't say "No" to playing a big strong monster?

But the risks shouldn't be very risky?

<shudder>

No desire for that type of game, on either side of the screen.




> A DM should only consider campaign world and his own desires if that is what would enhance fun for everyone at the table. Obviously, a coherent campaign world is fun, as is a DM who enjoys what he's doing. However, the DM's desires do not and should not take prescidence over the player's.





Why not?

If Player A wants to play a dragon, why does Player A's desires override the DM's?  Is Player A playing a dragon going to enhance the fun for everyone at the table?

The reality of the situation is this:

PLAYERS COMPETE AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS.

Every player wants to increase his own fun.  If they are not dinks, then they are not trying to do it at the expense of others, including at the expense of the DM.  Including at the expense of the work put into the setting.

IF THEY ARE DINKS IT IS THE DM'S JOB TO TELL THEM "NO"!

Player A's fun *does not* take precedence over Player B, Player C, Player D, etc., nor does it take precedence over that of the DM.

This is (part of) where the DM and that carnival guy are the same person.  The carnival guy can't let a drunk customer onto the ride.  Even if drunky doesn't vomit all over the rest of the riders, there is a significant chance that he will ruin the ride for everyone.  Drunky's personal fun in this case _*simply cannot matter*_ to the carnival guy.

When Player E comes along with a character that doesn't fit in the campaign world, the DM has to consider him in the same light as the carnival guy does the drunk.  Sure, there's a chance that no one will get vomitted on, but how many times do you have to wash off someone's half-digested pretzels before you are allowed to simply say "No"?


(And yes, I know that you said the DM can say "No".  Yet, here I go, splitting hairs again.  _*When*_ can the DM say "No"?  When he feels it's appropriate?  After taking a democratic vote?  When the players tell him it's okay?  Or does it not really matter because the potential failures are so insignificant that it makes no difference what the PCs are, or what anyone chooses to do anyway?)


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 15, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Where is the fun in crushing someone's desire to be a big strong monster?



Scene from a gaming table...

GM: "Okay, go ahead and create your characters. All characters are 2nd level so you can pick any LA+1 race on your handout..."
Player 1: "I want to play a demilich."
GM: (  ) "Uh, that's not LA+1. All the characters should begin with roughly the same level of ability..."
Player 1: "I want to play a demilich."
GM: (*_sound of fingers drumming on table_*) Uh, no, I'm sorry, you can't play a demilich..."
Player 1: "WHY MUST YOU CRUSH MY DESIRE TO PLAY A BIG STRONG MONSTER?!?"
Player 2: "I want to play a tarrasque."
GM: (_sound of head hitting table followed by sounds of paper tearing for several minutes_*)







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What hasn't recieved much attention is that the DM is just as likely to suffer from these problems. And while a bad player can ruin a night for a group, a bad DM can ruin the entire game for every potential person they play with. A selfish DM is a rules-lawyer who can make up their own rules, they're a power-gamer who can invent new tricks, they're a spotlight hog whose story and world are at the center of the game, they're a munchkin more concerned with their neat-o imagination than the other people that they share a game with.



This presents such an extreme, almost Manichean viewpoint that it's effectively useless as a point of discussion, but I'll give it a try.

With respect to character races, is a GM who restricts characters to playing races in the _PHB_ a selfish GM? What about any LA+0 race from the _MM_? Any LA+0 race from any WotC monster book? What about LA+2? Is there any continuum on this subject, or is it as black-and-white as, "Any GM who limits player choices on character race selection is a selfish GM?"

I'm really trying to understand exactly what the issue is here. Help me out.







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It is fun to risk the failure of your characters. It is not fun to have you characters die. There is a compromise that can be reached here: risking failure without the painful risk of death. The idea of permenant PC death could be excluded from the entire game and not make the game any worse.



First, a character death can be fun. A heroic sacrifice can be fun. A death that hinges on a climactic encounter can be fun. Taking the risk of death out of the game makes dangerous encounters dull and uninteresting.

Second, I enjoy RPGs that emulate a genre of cinema or literature that I enjoy: swords-and-sorcery, modern action-adventure, space opera. The risk of permanent death is present in each of these genres, and a game that did not offer that risk would be repetitious and bland - "Oh, it doesn't matter if we lose the fight with the dragon, we'll just be resurrected later."

Third and last, I feel cheated if my choices as a player had no consequences, with death the ultimate consequence. That last thing I want when I play is to be cheated by the GM. I think only a selfish GM would take that card out of my hand.


----------



## Testament (Sep 16, 2005)

BU, RC, I've gotta ask this, I think I just hit on something:

What's your campaign structure?  Do you have a continuing storyline, or do you do what I do, which is say to the players "here's the world, do what thou wilt"?

Maybe its just me, but I think that one is more supporting of the democratic structure than the other.

Oh, and Henry,  spot on.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 16, 2005)

> All of these little things that make up the ride, these are his province. So this guy has to deal with that fact. The pieces of the ride, and making sure that the ride is working, is more important than the momentary desires of any one person on the ride. He has (dare I say) bigger fish to fry.




The whole ride is more important than instant gratification, but I'm not talking about instant gratification -- I'm talking about the DM serving the player's needs. And that does mean some gratification. Maybe not instant, maybe in the proper context, but gratification nonetheless. And a codified ruleset is an aid to that gratification, because it tells you in which instance and in which context that it can be used. To use the ride analogy, a good ruleset tells a DM where to turn right and where to turn left and where to go faster and where to go slower to make sure that all the people who want to go left, right, slower, and faster all get what they need. It also tells the players that while they might not be able to expect going left right when they want to, that they can expect it to go left at some point, and they can expect it to be everything they want out of a left turn. 

I said that the DM exists for the fun of the players, not as a magical genie. Having a magical genie is only fun once or twice (and it is recommended for a DM to be a magical genie every once in a while), and it gets old fast. Players don't have fun with instant gratification. Players don't want to have their wishes granted right when they demand them. The want to be challenged. So the DM's tactics of delay and challenge and risk of failure can help make the game more fun. However, a DM that only grants wishes in perverted and conflicted ways isn't challenging the players -- he's punishing them for having desires. 

Does the DM have more important things to do than grant everyone's wishes? No. Players *wish* for conflict, for risk of failure, for trials and tribulations. Challenging PC's grants the player's wishes.

Does the DM have to give a PC a Staff of the Archmagi at first level just because they really wanted one? No. Granting that wish would remove conflict, risk of failure, and challenge. A good player will realize this and not really bother with it. However, the ruleset tells us when a Staff of the Archmagi would *not* remove conflict, risk of failure, and challenge. And at that point, you should have a good reason to deny it, because you denial isn't helping you build the ride anymore.



> Failing is not fun. Not just death, but failing at those risks that are non-lethal, too. No one likes to fail. Perhaps we should eliminate all risk from the game, and have only the illusion of risk.




Risk is fun. Players want risk. Giving them risk is giving them exactly what they want. However, there is a point at which the risk becomes too great for the player. Where the effort involved in making a character and becoming invested in the story may be too much time and effort that could go to waste. Roller Coasters are fun preciesly because of that illusion of risk. If 50% of roller coasters ended with smacking headfirst into a brick wall, they'd be a lot less fun, because the risk is too great. 

If, every time that a writer failed to churn out a successful novel, it got ripped in half, that might be too much risk for a lot of people, too. If my hours of character generation, if my investment, depends upon pure luck to be fun, then it may be too much risk. 



> But, the DM shouldn't say "No" to playing a big strong monster?
> 
> But the risks shouldn't be very risky?




The DM should only say "no" when playing a big strong monster would hurt the ride. There are rules that exist that tell you at what point being a big strong monster won't break the ride. And as long as the DM can have fun on the ride, too, then there is no good reason to NOT use those rules. If the DM wouldn't have fun, obviously that's a point of conflict. Normally, compromise can be reached (fer instance, Savage Species' concept of racial levels, or finding a way to make the character strong and scary and legendary without resorting to ECL). If it can't, it can't, and the player and DM can either agree to disagree and suck it up, or go their seperate ways. But an effort should be made to compromise on both sides, not just the DM's, and not just the player's. 

The risks should only be worth it. In a game with a high body count, spending an evening generating a character isn't worth it for a lot of people. In a game where your character can theoretically last an unlimited amount of time, generating a character will always be worth it. Most seek a balance somewhere in between, D&D errs on the side of safety but permits the other side as well. The ride shuoldn't frustrate you at every turn -- turning left like you want only to juke right, or turning left like you want and slamming you into a brick wall. Spending time on the ride is an investment, and that investment has to be worth it. With a selfish DM, it often is not.



> PLAYERS COMPETE AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS.




?

How is this? Players, IMXP, compete against the challenges set before them to reach the goals they want to achieve for their characters, and they do so together, not at odds with each other. Players help other players. The player of the wizard helps explore the cleric's crisis of faith, and the player of the cleric helps the wizard raid the dragon's hoard for his magical whatsis. 



> (And yes, I know that you said the DM can say "No". Yet, here I go, splitting hairs again. When can the DM say "No"? When he feels it's appropriate? After taking a democratic vote? When the players tell him it's okay? Or does it not really matter because the potential failures are so insignificant that it makes no difference what the PCs are, or what anyone chooses to do anyway?)




The DM can san NO whenever saying YES would ruin the ride. In other words, whenever he's *justified*. Players are entirely entitled to a justification for the DM's actions, just like a DM is entitled to a justification for the player's actions. Why do you want to play the big monster? Why don't you have elves in the world? These are fair questions that any DM should be prepared to answer, because there is a set of rules about how to let that drunk guy on the ride and have him have fun too. Got a problem with drunks? Fair enough, he can look for a ride that won't discriminate against him. Know your ride has too many ups and downs for a drunk? Sure, let him know that if he doesn't mind sobering up, he can come back. 



> GM: "Okay, go ahead and create your characters. All characters are 2nd level so you can pick any LA+1 race on your handout..."
> Player 1: "I want to play a demilich."
> GM: ( ) "Uh, that's not LA+1. All the characters should begin with roughly the same level of ability..."
> Player 1: "I want to play a demilich."
> ...




This is an example of how a selfish player won't accept that he could hurt the fun of others.

Here's an exmaple of how a selfish DM won't accept that he could hurt the fun of others:

GM: "Okay, go ahead and create you characters. All characters are 2nd level, so you can pick any LA +1 race on the handout."
Player 1: "Hey, there's only humans on the handout?"
GM (fingers drumming): "King Arthur didn't need elves, why do I?"
Player 1: "But I was thinking of playing a fey-like character with ties to lake maidens and stuff..."
Player 2: "And I wanted to be a wizard, but this handout says they're forbidden?"
GM: "Magic in D&D is too powerful, so I took it out. Deal."



> This presents such an extreme, almost Manichean viewpoint that it's effectively useless as a point of discussion, but I'll give it a try.
> 
> With respect to character races, is a GM who restricts characters to playing races in the PHB a selfish GM? What about any LA+0 race from the MM? Any LA+0 race from any WotC monster book? What about LA+2? Is there any continuum on this subject, or is it as black-and-white as, "Any GM who limits player choices on character race selection is a selfish GM?"
> 
> I'm really trying to understand exactly what the issue is here. Help me out.




A selfish DM is the one who puts his own pleasures in the game first, ahead of the player's, rather than equal to them. Like a rules-lawyer is a selfish player who gets pleasure correcting others and won't stop, a selfish DM can be that DM who gives a player a familiar only so that they can kill it, torture it, and maim it later. Or that DM who has epic-powered NPC's swoop in and rescue the party. Or that DM who drops hints about going into the Forbidden Forest, when you get there, proceeds to TPK the group because "THE FOREST IS FORBIDDEN!" It's the DM that *needlessly* limits player choice. The DM who doesn't consider the ramifications of his changes. The one who fudges for monsters and important events, but fudges against players. The one who removes spells simply because they challenge him. The one who hands out loads of treasure to his girlfriend. The one who insists that he knows the game better than the designers, and who makes arbitrary changes to "use the d12 more often." The one who railroads relentlessly. The one who won't let you act until his villain is finished with his speech. The one who demands two written pages of character history only to give you the prospect of your long-lost sister coming back only to kill her out of some delightful malice. 

A selfish DM isn't interested in making a ride for other people, just in making a ride for himself. 



> First, a character death can be fun. A heroic sacrifice can be fun. A death that hinges on a climactic encounter can be fun. Taking the risk of death out of the game makes dangerous encounters dull and uninteresting.
> 
> Second, I enjoy RPGs that emulate a genre of cinema or literature that I enjoy: swords-and-sorcery, modern action-adventure, space opera. The risk of permanent death is present in each of these genres, and a game that did not offer that risk would be repetitious and bland - "Oh, it doesn't matter if we lose the fight with the dragon, we'll just be resurrected later."
> 
> Third and last, I feel cheated if my choices as a player had no consequences, with death the ultimate consequence. That last thing I want when I play is to be cheated by the GM. I think only a selfish GM would take that card out of my hand.




Right on all points. But a selfish DM who had the same kind of outlook you have taken to a self-centered extreme may be more concerned with "making it feel like a space opera" (for instance) than "making it fun." So death would be an ever-present threat, and PC's would be killed quite often, and then when the players didn't put as much effort into their third or fourth characters, the DM would get mad and the post a thread about how D&D 3e is ruining creativity on ENWorld, because none of his players put any effort into their characters. 

For a selfish DM, their own fun of game feel trumps a player's fun of getting invested in their character. With a good DM, a balance can be found ("character death is rare in PC's because of action points, but the threat is constant" for instance. Or "there isn't a lot of combat anyway, because our group enjoys the storytelling side more" for another instance). But the rules do force a DM to at least explain themselves and consider their changes. "Because I'm the DM!" is not really a good enough answer. "Because I have fun killing characters" is a good answer, albeit not a group whose style I'd like.  "Because I want to evoke a space opera style" is a good answer, and one that I might consider joining as a player. 

For that guy who wants to play a demilich? "Sorry, they're too powerful. But maybe you'd like being a necromancer...if we get high enough level, you may have the opportunity to become a demilich." Or maybe even "Well, it doesn't need to be second level....does everybody think starting at level 22 is a bad idea?" This changes the ride, but keeps fun for everyone intact. Helping the players to have fun is the DM's job. This job includes finding out what they REALLY want, which usually isn't just power, because players don't have fun when they're all powerful unless they're selfish players.

Most people who want to be a demilich or a terrasque or a dragon want to do it for specific reasons -- the breath weapon, the idea of being a floating skull character, intimidating villagers...a DM will build a ride to that does all these things, as much as he can have fun DMing.


----------



## Mark CMG (Sep 16, 2005)

Anyone has the ability to give DMing a try and everyone should, at least a few times, just to get a feel for what it entails.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2005)

KM makes some excellent points.  One of the consequences of having players who know the rules, and having a ruleset that actually functions as a whole, means that there is a much better chance that the players can offer valid, constructive suggestions about the campaign.  In a campaign where rules are created on the fly, it's much more difficult for the players to have any expectations, since the rules can and probably will, be changed frequently.

Just to go back a second about the idea of the DM dropping PC specific items.  The answer I got was that a story could feature the PC finding that legendary lumpy metal thing, therefore specializing in a somewhat strange weapon is ok.  I argued that this is very metagame and ruins verisimilitude.  There's a reason I argued that.  It's very unlikely that a single magic weapon will suffice for the character throughout the entire campaign.  So, the DM is forced to drop legendary weapons three or four times throughout the campaign.  How is this not metagaming above and beyond the call?  

Also, as a player, if I know that I cannot buy a new weapon, why would I specialize in a weapon where I'm entirely held hostage by the DM for when I can get a new one?  The DM is likely going to drop magical weapons of more common types long before he drops one for me, so, if the DM is going to meta game to that level, why is it bad for me?  Never mind that I have to sit around and twiddle my thumbs until the DM condescends to gift me with a new version of my lumpy metal thing.  Meanwhile the other fighter in the party has gone through three magic swords because the critters use magic swords much more often than bec du corbin.

As a DM, I don't feel right holding the players hostage when they want something.  If they want it, it's up to them to get it.  Go around my campaign world, find a finger wiggler willing to give up his time for a large chunk of cash and away you go.  Now I give my players a reason for interacting with the campaign.  They have to travel to a particular place, talk to people, talk to the person crafting, wait until the item is crafted and then get on with their lives.  That's a wealth of rp opportunities.  What else could I ask for as a DM?  If I limit my PC's to easter eggs dropped at my whim, they have absolutely no reason to interact with my setting in this manner.  Granted, there are other reasons to interact with the setting, but, why do I want to limit my choices and their's?  Here's a built-to-spec roleplaying bonanza for every party I game with.  I really can't understand why anyone would intentionally flush this one down the toilet.

The point of having solid rule-sets is to free up the DM from having to constantly tweak rules in order to game.  I'd much rather spend time creating fluff for my campaigns than ponce about rebuilding the wheel.  Given the choice between altering the RAW to fit my campaign or tweaking my campaign, I'll tweak my campaign most of the time.  So long as the tweak does not conflict with established facts of my campaign - such as a Scarred Lands elf having a god - I have no real beefs changing my campaign to fit new ideas.  

Things the players don't know about, they don't care about.  If you have this vast plot going on in the background, but the players haven't had any contact with it and don't know about it, they don't care about it.  Why should they?  It doesn't affect them.  That it might affect them ten levels down the road is fair enough, but, right now, until they have any knowledge of it, it doesn't matter to them.  In my mind, it's much easier to tweak the plot to fit that new character concept than to bar character concepts.  It leads to much happier players.

Granted, I do nowhere near the work that DM's like RC are talking about.  I'm usually only a couple of weeks ahead of the disaster curve in my campaigns.  I can't be asked to come up with more material than that, simply because I lack the time and energy.  Plus, I find if I get farther ahead than that, I tend to start railroading because I don't want the work I did to go t waste.  So, now I just don't bother.  Sure, I might have some ideas percolating in the back of my head, but, as far as writing a hundred pages goes, that's not going to happen.

The really funny thing is, I started 3e with a bunch of house rules.  As I've played 3e and now 3.5, my houserules keep getting pared down further and further.  I find the RAW works so much easier than trying to reinvent the wheel.  Take party wealth for example.  I just created an 8th level fighter for a one shot game.  Wealth for an 8th level character allowed me to buy a +2 lance, +1 suit of mithril fullplate, Gauntlets of ogre power, 5 potions and horseshoes of zephyr.  That's it for an 8th level character.  That's hardly overpowering.  In my mind, compared to what I used to see in earlier editions, that's less magic than what I'd pull out of a single module.  An 8th level character is pretty high level, yet, by using the RAW, I find that the RAW is a more effective limit on character wealth than what I would do myself.  So, if the RAW works better than my own houserules, why wouldn't I go with the RAW?  I've found exactly the same when dealing with many issues like demographics.  If you stick to the RAW for demographics, you suddenly don't have magic shops because most centers cannot possibly support one.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just to go back a second about the idea of the DM dropping PC specific items.  The answer I got was that a story could feature the PC finding that legendary lumpy metal thing, therefore specializing in a somewhat strange weapon is ok.  I argued that this is very metagame and ruins verisimilitude.  There's a reason I argued that.  It's very unlikely that a single magic weapon will suffice for the character throughout the entire campaign.  So, the DM is forced to drop legendary weapons three or four times throughout the campaign.  How is this not metagaming above and beyond the call?




The standard 3e approach per the RAW is that the PC pays to power up the weapon, so they stick with the same weapon throughout the game.  An alternative approach would be for the weapon to spontaneously develop new powers as the PC levels up.  Either works fine.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The standard 3e approach per the RAW is that the PC pays to power up the weapon, so they stick with the same weapon throughout the game.  An alternative approach would be for the weapon to spontaneously develop new powers as the PC levels up.  Either works fine.




Ok, now I'm confused.  It's a bad thing to go out and find a finger wiggler to MAKE me a lumpy metal thing +1, but it's perfectly fine to go find a finger wiggler to UPGRADE a magic weapon.  Am I the only one seeing that as a bit of a conflict?   It's apparently bad to go find someone to make me a magic item, but, its okay for the item to grow entirely on its own.    

It sounds more like the DM doesn't trust his players to make decisions and wants to remain in complete control, rather than simply allowing his players to control their own characters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

Testament said:
			
		

> BU, RC, I've gotta ask this, I think I just hit on something:
> 
> What's your campaign structure?  Do you have a continuing storyline, or do you do what I do, which is say to the players "here's the world, do what thou wilt"?






"Here's the world, do what thou wilt."

And also:


"Here are several dozen plot hooks, follow what thou wilt."


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> KM makes some excellent points.





<shudder>


Sorry, but no.  KM presents "fun" as the be-all and end-all of gaming, but also as a moving target whose definition is whatever is convenient at the moment.

According the KM, the DM's primary concern is to ensure that everyone at the table is having "fun" and will have "fun" in the future.  If one person's idea of "fun" is to play the Tarrasque, the DM should just have to deal with that.  If another person's idea of fun is to play a serial murderer/rapist, then the DM should just have to deal with that.  If Player A wants to kill Player C's character, then the DM should just have to deal with that.

Unless, perhaps, what the player wants will not serve the purpose of "fun" .... He's "talking about the DM serving the player's needs."  




			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> *When* can the DM say "No"? When he feels it's appropriate? After taking a democratic vote? When the players tell him it's okay? Or does it not really matter because the potential failures are so insignificant that it makes no difference what the PCs are, or what anyone chooses to do anyway?





In KM's philosophy, there is no way for the DM to win.  He "serves the player's needs" and is forbidden from putting "his own pleasures in the game first, ahead of the player's, rather than equal to them."  In other words, the DM serves the players by doing 90% or more of the work involved in the game, does not get to experience the game as a player, and if more than half the players say one day "It would be fun if magic items started raining from the sky...and we mean real, long-term fun" the DM is supposed to shrug and start dropping +2 swords.

This isn't an interesting point.

This is a desire to have the DM's work somehow subservient to the player's efforts at rolling up characters.

KM has a point about risk vs. reward ratios.  If the risk is too great, and the reward too little, no one will accept the risk.  Well, duh.  But in a world in which death can occur, it is up to the _players_ to determine what risks are acceptable.  If they think that the reward is worth risking death, so be it.  If not, also so be it.  KM's idea that the risks shouldn't be that great (no death possible), but the rewards should be (DM serving player's fun), is a pure and unadulterated example of Monty Haulism from the 1st Edition DMG.  It is, in fact, a style that I imagine many of us played when we first started gaming, and eventually quit because all reward and no risk is ultimately as boring as all risk and no reward.

In KM's example of a bad DM, the DM sets up a campaign setting in which all of the character types are human and no one can play a wizard.  One player wants to play a fey-type character and another a wizard, and the DM says no to both.  (Apart from deciding to make the DM sound rude when saying no, that's essentially it.  Oh, sure, he has the DM seem to suggest that there are multiple races available, and if that's where this DM is supposed to be "bad" so be it.  That, at least, makes more sense than KM's suggestion that limitations on racial type make one a bad DM.)  There is some idea here that the DM envisions a campaign setting based off of Arthurian mythology and literature.

And why, exactly, is he a bad DM?

Certain character types do not fit the setting.  The DM tells them prior to character generation that these types will not be allowed.  So, presumably nothing hidden here.

KM agrees that the "whole ride" trumps "instant gratification" (though he still seems to believe that it is the DM's holy duty to ensure that _*every player's wish is eventually granted*_, even if mutually contradictory).  Here we have an example where the DM rules that setting excludes certain choices.  Like many DM's, this DM probably believes that a coherent setting is a large contributor to the "fun" everyone is supposed to experience, and the primary contributor to the "fun" of world creation (about 80% of the 90% work that a good DM has to do, on his own, away from the table).

If this is, as KM suggests, an example of a bad DM, then these people are also bad DMs:

*  Person who will not let me play Q in a Star Trek game.
*  Person who will not let me play a klingon in a Star Trek game taking place during the Original Series aboard the USS Enterprise.
*  Person who will not let me play a kender.
*  Person who will not let me play a spellcaster in D&D using the rules in suppliment X.
*  Person who will not let me play a new class from suppliment Y.
*  Person who will not let me play a warforged in a campaign taking place in Medieval Japan.
*  Person who will not let me play a series of characters, all of whom are *designed to not fit* into the campaign world as it is presented.

Either the DM can limit racial choices, and still be considered a good DM, or he can't.

Either the DM can limit class choices, and still be considered a good DM, or he can't. 

The DM saying that D&D magic is too powerful for a particular setting is, imho, perfectly fair.  Perhaps he intends to introduce Call of Cthulhu magic.  Maybe he is really planning a Call of Cthulhu game with D&D characters, and has decided that the players learning this _in game_ is part of the effect that he deems will be fun for everyone.

KM's says he's not talking about instant gratification.  I call bull-hooey.

A player's desire to play Character Type B can always be accomodated by that player in some campaign somewhere.  It does not have to be accomodated in this campaign now.  To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the DM does, in fact, owe the player some form of instant gratification.

"The DM exists for the fun of the players" is not an "excellent point".  It is, rather, a restrictive and self-indulgent view of the game.  


RC


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2005)

Ok, I gotta say RC, you've taken KM's comments completely differently than I did.



> *The whole ride is more important than instant gratification, but I'm not talking about instant gratification -- I'm talking about the DM serving the player's needs. And that does mean some gratification. Maybe not instant, maybe in the proper context, but gratification nonetheless. And a codified ruleset is an aid to that gratification, because it tells you in which instance and in which context that it can be used.* To use the ride analogy, a good ruleset tells a DM where to turn right and where to turn left and where to go faster and where to go slower to make sure that all the people who want to go left, right, slower, and faster all get what they need. It also tells the players that while they might not be able to expect going left right when they want to, that they can expect it to go left at some point, and they can expect it to be everything they want out of a left turn.




At no point is he advocating that the DM is entirely subservient to the player's wishes.  Actually, he advocates that the DM's wishes and the players wishes should be given equal airplay.  I just don't see what you're reading into what he's saying.

In the example of the bad DM, if you care to read it closely, the DM states that the players can take any ECL+1 race on the list and then proceeds to hand out a list that has NO ECL+1 RACES!  I believe that's the point he's trying to make.  A bad DM is one that changes the rules to suit his own whims rather than a DM who takes a balanced approach.  It's not about the list you mentioned.  The fact that the DM actually LIES to the players would make him a bad DM in my books.  Never mind that the ECL rules actually work most of the time, never mind that the DM is actually stating that he's allowing them, only to provide a list which includes none.  



> Here we have an example where the DM rules that setting excludes certain choices.




NO THEY DON'T.  The DM's rules specifically INCLUDE these choices, but he then turns around and changes the rules.  

Excluding certain choices is of course perfectly acceptable for a DM to do.  But, not when he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

In your examples, you've gone far beyond what the DM presumably would allow.  And, your choices are not even remotely supported by the RAW.  The entire point of this thread is that the RAW is not supporting DM's.  Yet, IN EVERY EXAMPLE you just gave, the DM is being supported by the RAW.  Playing Q would be virtually impossible because of ECL.  Playing a Klingon would be impossible due to setting constraints.  As would the Warforged idea.

Essentially, you're arguing that the RAW supports DM's.  Which is what I've been saying all the way along.  There is no need for the DM to go beyond the RAW 99% of the time to say no.  The RAW sides with the DM almost always.  The times that the RAW doesn't support the DM is when the DM decides to ignore the RAW and make his own rules.  Well, if you decide to make your own rules, don't complain when the RULES AS WRITTEN don't support you.  The players want it to rain +2 swords?  Sorry, RAW blocks that.  Player wants to play the Tarrasque?  Sorry, point to the RAW and say no.  

What more could you ask from the RAW?


----------



## Belen (Sep 16, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> KM makes some excellent points.  One of the consequences of having players who know the rules, and having a ruleset that actually functions as a whole, means that there is a much better chance that the players can offer valid, constructive suggestions about the campaign.




No he doesn't it.  He basically says that a DM's primary purpose is to service the players and their needs above all else. In his view, the DM is not even equal to the players.  The DM is a servant.  Not only that, but his argument goes back to the intended purpose of this thread in that a DM is allowed to say "No."  In his view, a DM is not allowed to say no.  The DM must find a way to accomadate the players desires unless it would seriously affect the fun of the other players!  Whether the player's concept fits the world or the campaign does not matter.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Just to go back a second about the idea of the DM dropping PC specific items.  The answer I got was that a story could feature the PC finding that legendary lumpy metal thing, therefore specializing in a somewhat strange weapon is ok.  I argued that this is very metagame and ruins verisimilitude.  There's a reason I argued that.  It's very unlikely that a single magic weapon will suffice for the character throughout the entire campaign.  So, the DM is forced to drop legendary weapons three or four times throughout the campaign.  How is this not metagaming above and beyond the call?




You keep harping on this.  Do you only allow players to buy magic items in your game?  You completely discount the possibility that a player may quest to find any item of value.  Just because someone uses a bec du corbin does not mean that no one ever had a magical one created.  It does not strain belief that a player could go quest for an item rather than pick it up at the local magic mart.

I agree that the option to find a caster to create the item should exist, although I rarely would allow the PCs to get away with simplely paying for an item.  Usually, the players will have to agree to grant some form of service to the caster or quest for the materials he needs to create the item.  I call that flavor.

Also, you imply that any PC should be able to have the specific items they desire.  So, if you want a flaming, thundering mithril bec du corbin of speed and one does not exist in the world, then the player should have the opportunity to have that specific weapon because just any magical bec du corbin will not do.

Sorry, but while the player may be able to get what he wants, the rest of the players better agree to all of the questing time that will be needed to fund one's players item desire. 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Also, as a player, if I know that I cannot buy a new weapon, why would I specialize in a weapon where I'm entirely held hostage by the DM for when I can get a new one?  The DM is likely going to drop magical weapons of more common types long before he drops one for me, so, if the DM is going to meta game to that level, why is it bad for me?  Never mind that I have to sit around and twiddle my thumbs until the DM condescends to gift me with a new version of my lumpy metal thing.  Meanwhile the other fighter in the party has gone through three magic swords because the critters use magic swords much more often than bec du corbin.




Why should a DM "drop" magical equipment?  Most of the enemies in my games are not that well outfitted.  

Of course, we can turn this around.  Why should a DM be held hostage by the player who wants to use such a unique weapon?  Obviously, the player chose a rare weapon knowing that it would be more difficult to find or commission.  If the player has to wait longer for the DM to fit a player choice into the game, then that is the player's fault.  The DM should not be required to stop everything because one person needs to buy a rare item to satisfy their desires on the spot.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> As a DM, I don't feel right holding the players hostage when they want something.  If they want it, it's up to them to get it.




Agreed.  Again, they better hope that every other player wants to stop what they are doing and agree to go chase down something for the one guy who needed something out of the ordinary.  I do love it when someone wants to add flavor to a game, but they are not the only player and if he wants that magic bec du corbin, then he better convince the others that it is a good thing for him to have it.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Granted, I do nowhere near the work that DM's like RC are talking about.  I'm usually only a couple of weeks ahead of the disaster curve in my campaigns.  I can't be asked to come up with more material than that, simply because I lack the time and energy.  Plus, I find if I get farther ahead than that, I tend to start railroading because I don't want the work I did to go t waste.  So, now I just don't bother.  Sure, I might have some ideas percolating in the back of my head, but, as far as writing a hundred pages goes, that's not going to happen.




Uh...I work on adventures in the short term.  The heavy work comes with world creation.  I can have 100 pages of world material while only a few pages of session adventure material.

World creation is not railroading.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The really funny thing is, I started 3e with a bunch of house rules.  As I've played 3e and now 3.5, my houserules keep getting pared down further and further.  I find the RAW works so much easier than trying to reinvent the wheel.




No, the really funny thing is that people equated the DMs ability to say "no" as a house rules discussion.


----------



## Belen (Sep 16, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Essentially, you're arguing that the RAW supports DM's.  Which is what I've been saying all the way along.  There is no need for the DM to go beyond the RAW 99% of the time to say no.  The RAW sides with the DM almost always.  The times that the RAW doesn't support the DM is when the DM decides to ignore the RAW and make his own rules.  Well, if you decide to make your own rules, don't complain when the RULES AS WRITTEN don't support you.




Yet most of us are not talking about the RAW.  We're talking about the perception of the RAW among 3e players and how the RAW is being marketed.

Also, saying "no elves" does not violate the RAW.  "No elves" is simplely a restriction of a racial option.  Violation of the RAW would be changing the underlying rules of the game, such as removing AoOs.

Then again, I have no trouble restricting options on behalf of the players.  I do create rules, such as new races, feats, spells, and classes, but creating things such as this does not violate the RAW.

My "house rules" take the forms of adding or restricting options.  In very few instances do I change the way things work with the game.  When I do change things, it always benefits the player, such as not losing a level if you are raise.  My rule is that the raised or ressurected character gains a negative level.

And I think that most die hard advocates of the RAW seem to be saying that only published rules are viable when there is no difference between a feat in the complete warrior and a feat created by a DM.  They are both optional rules added to the system after the fact.


----------



## Belen (Sep 16, 2005)

Testament said:
			
		

> BU, RC, I've gotta ask this, I think I just hit on something:
> 
> What's your campaign structure?  Do you have a continuing storyline, or do you do what I do, which is say to the players "here's the world, do what thou wilt"?




Both.  I used the character histories provided by my players and crafted adventures that they would be interested in.  They are free to do what they will, although their actions are fueling the story.  I do not have a "story" arc planned out.  However, the players are following a story.

They are like reporters.  They keep trying to undercover a plot that it largely influenced by their in-game decisions and personal histories.  I have added things like a "prophecy" that seems to pertain to them to enhance their experience and support the direction they seemed to be going.

I also have the world and the "core assumptions" found therein.  A lot of the player driven plot has been fueled by their interaction with the world, so it is a symbiotic relationship.  My world reacts to them and they react the events in the world.  It seems to be a fairly dynamic relationship, yet hard to describe in words.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, I gotta say RC, you've taken KM's comments completely differently than I did.





Obviously.  And, equally obviously, I'm splitting hairs.  However, I think that there's a world of difference in those hairs.  

KM giveth and KM taketh away.  On one hand, sure the DM ought to be having fun.  On the other hand, the DM "exists for the fun of the players".  If the DM has spent two weeks designing a starting area intended to provide excellent risks and rewards to a party of 2nd level PCs, but the players wants to play 22nd level characters, the DM should compromise:

"Well, it doesn't need to be second level....does everybody think starting at level 22 is a bad idea?" 

Of course, it is the DM who gets stuck with another X weeks of design work, so everyone is happy, right?

KM presents "fun" as the be-all and end-all of gaming, but also as a moving target whose definition is whatever is convenient at the moment.

How can you equate "Does the DM have more important things to do than grant everyone's wishes? No." with anything other than "the DM is entirely subservient to the player's wishes"?  By throwing in the word "entirely"?  That works if, and only if, you can tell me when KM is saying that the DM is *not* subservient to the player's wishes.  From what I am reading, this is only when the game becomes so un-fun for the DM that he quits.

It should be fairly obvious that *if the DM is not enjoying the game, neither will anyone else*.

This will be the third time I have asked this, and I imagine that it will remain just as unanswered:



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> When can the DM say "No"? When he feels it's appropriate? After taking a democratic vote? When the players tell him it's okay? Or does it not really matter because the potential failures are so insignificant that it makes no difference what the PCs are, or what anyone chooses to do anyway?





You say:




> In the example of the bad DM, if you care to read it closely, the DM states that the players can take any ECL+1 race on the list and then proceeds to hand out a list that has NO ECL+1 RACES!





No, the "bad" DM allows the players to pick any ECL +1 race list on the handout.  There are only humans on the handout.  This does not mean that all of the humans on the handout are PHB vanilla humans.  I have over a dozen human types IMC.  

Even if not, the DM's rules only specifically INCLUDE any ECL +1 race *in the handout* as choices.  If there are no ECL +1 races in the handoug, this is not a change in the rules.  It is perhaps just a pointed way of saying that there are no ECL +1 races allowed.  Perhaps the DM's experience with these players specifically suggests that he not allow ECL +1 races if anyone is to have fun, and perhaps also his experience with these players suggests that he needs to make this a pointed fact or three of them will make troll characters, one will make some sort of fey character, etc., without even looking at the handout.




> In your examples, you've gone far beyond what the DM presumably would allow.  And, your choices are not even remotely supported by the RAW.  The entire point of this thread is that the RAW is not supporting DM's.  Yet, IN EVERY EXAMPLE you just gave, the DM is being supported by the RAW.  Playing Q would be virtually impossible because of ECL.  Playing a Klingon would be impossible due to setting constraints.  As would the Warforged idea.





Which RAW are we discussing here?  The core books?  Expansions?

Playing Q would give a high ECL, sure.  Okay, I never gain levels.  I'm happy with that.  How exactly is disallowing Q different than disallowing that dragon PC?  How much ECL is too much?

I could envision a situation where a klingon could be aboard Kirk's Enterprise.  In fact, I have seen an episode where a Klingon party was aboard Kirk's Enterprise facing a hate-inducing mind parasite.  It could work.  Now you're just being a lazy DM and nerfing my fun character idea.

Playing a kender is in the RAW (DragonLance campaign setting).  Playing a spellcaster in D&D using the rules in suppliment X is in the RAW (suppliment X is Unearthed Arcana).  Playing a new class from suppliment Y is in the RAW (suppliment Y is Sandstorm).  Playing a warforged is in the RAW (Eberron campaign setting), and you are once again being a lazy DM for not finding a way to work my KEWL character concept into your Medieval Japanese campaign setting...Perhaps it does not have to be Medieval Japan?  Notice that only the kender race doesn't come from a WotC product.  I don't have to invent new rules for any of it.  It's all RAW, if not core RAW.

Playing a series of characters, all of whom are designed to *not fit into the campaign world as it is presented* can certainly be done using even the core RAW.  The only ways a DM can prevent it, in fact, is either by having the most generic, plain-vanilla campaign world possible, or by saying "No."

Despite your claims to the contrary, the RAW does not, anywhere, prevent a rain of +2 swords.  Nor does the RAW, anywhere, prevent a player from playing the Tarrasque.  The RAW do not particularly support either idea, but neither do they deny them as possibilities.  Savage Species doesn't limit monster classes only to those monsters that it selects.  The DMG has some suggestions for selecting an appropriate ECL if you're not sure you want to go the monster class route.  As for raining swords, well, the character wealth guidelines are just that....guidelines.  The RAW doesn't state that DM's can't give the PCs more.

Heck, maybe it would even be _fun_.

It amazes me to think that KM could write this:



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If, every time that a writer failed to churn out a successful novel, it got ripped in half, that might be too much risk for a lot of people, too.




when describing risk/reward ratios *for players*, but fails to see the obvious corollary that what the DM does is a lot more like trying to churn out a successful novel than character generation is.

I can't say it any better than I did before, so once more with feeling:

In KM's philosophy, there is no way for the DM to win. He "serves the player's needs" and is forbidden from putting "his own pleasures in the game first, ahead of the player's, rather than equal to them." In other words, the DM serves the players by doing 90% or more of the work involved in the game, does not get to experience the game as a player, and if more than half the players say one day "It would be fun if magic items started raining from the sky...and we mean real, long-term fun" the DM is supposed to shrug and start dropping +2 swords.

This isn't an interesting point.

This is a desire to have the DM's work somehow subservient to the player's efforts at rolling up characters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

Testament said:
			
		

> BU, RC, I've gotta ask this, I think I just hit on something:
> 
> What's your campaign structure?  Do you have a continuing storyline, or do you do what I do, which is say to the players "here's the world, do what thou wilt"?
> 
> ...





Let me be a bit more clear here.

In order to run an interesting game, I feel that it is necessary to do some design work.  I want to know the place where the PCs are starting, who the gods are, what the major players want and why they want it.  I like a sense of history, and uncovering ancient secrets, so I design a cosmology and a rough outline of the world history.  Some idea of what sorts of peoples inhabited this area before the PCs.  I try to consider the sort of things that PCs are usually interested in, and create some ideas for mid-level adventures that they can aspire to.  I consider if any rules changes are needed to do this (for example, no automatic literacy).

Next I make one or more files and make these files available to the players.  You can view some of this content at the begining of this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=110029) for a specific example of what I mean.  I try to be fairly upfront about what I am offering.

When copies of the PC character sheets begin to come in, I look at the various PC backgrounds and try to decide how they fit into the world.  In some few cases, there is overt need for modification, and I'll talk to the player.  In many cases, what the PC believes to be the truth overlays another, much larger, truth.  I also look for things that I can hook into the campaign world, to make the PCs part of the ongoing story.

EXAMPLE:  Prior to begining my current campaign, I created the island of Tal Slathan, including the ruins of Oakhill (sacked by orcs).  One of the initial PCs was a half-orc.  I offered that he was a second-generation half-orc wherein the half-orcish blood ran true.  The PC accepted that idea.  I then determined (unknown to the PC) that his father was conceived in the sack of Oakhill, and seeded clues to this fact where I hoped the player would eventually find them.

The initial adventure for any group is a sort of warm-up.  I try to make it reasonably risky and reasonably rewarding.  I try to seed it with hints of other plots, and hooks that lead into other adventures.  I try to give the PCs contacts as an asset and let them learn more about the campaign world through role-playing encounters and clues seeded into any place I can fit them -- treasures, NPCs, landforms, things they see.

After the warm-up I let them go.  Every time they choose something to pursue, I try to include hooks into at least three more things that they could potentially pursue.  Large storylines continue whether they pursue them or not, but can be drastically altered by PC involvement.  PCs can even begin (or end) major world story arcs by their actions.

Eventually, they realize that there is more to do than they could ever hope to do, and begin to think in terms of "What should we do next?" rather than "What does the DM want us to do next?"

All within the context of a world that is as believable and internally consistant as I can make it.

That's why I do so much work.

That's why I enjoy the game.

That's what makes me sit back and smile.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Sep 16, 2005)

> When can the DM say "No"? When he feels it's appropriate? After taking a democratic vote? When the players tell him it's okay? Or does it not really matter because the potential failures are so insignificant that it makes no difference what the PCs are, or what anyone chooses to do anyway?




I didn't bother answering it because its such a loaded and rhetorical question that it isn't worth it.  Any answer I give is pretty much rendered meaningless by the level of strawman in the question.  Ask a less leading question and I'll answer it.

As to which RAW, I would answer simply - the RAW FOR THAT SETTING.  I would think that that's obvious.  If I'm playing an Eberron game, then Eberron material is likely to be included.  Anything else is purely at the DM's discretion.  Actually, anything is at the DM's discretion, but, at least Eberron material is more likely to be included.  

Maybe I've been lucky.  I've never seen players try anything remotely like this.  In fact, every game I see these days specifies material at the outset.  This would mean to me that the RAW for each particular campaign is set by the DM.  Certainly a player can ask, but, then again, there's nothing wrong with saying no.  Particularly if the RAW for that setting supports that answer.

I think there's a couple of definitions of RAW going on here and that's where the problem lies.  To me, RAW is defined by setting.  That a particlar book has been written does not make it apply to a particular campaign.



> And I think that most die hard advocates of the RAW seem to be saying that only published rules are viable when there is no difference between a feat in the complete warrior and a feat created by a DM. They are both optional rules added to the system after the fact.




I would agree with that except for one very important fact.  A feat that is in the Complete Warrior has the added advantage of peer review.  A homebrew feat does not, unless the DM in question chooses to put it up for review.  This doesn mean that published bits are automatically better, just that published bits get the benefit of a LOT more examination than non-published bits.



> Also, you imply that any PC should be able to have the specific items they desire. So, if you want a flaming, thundering mithril bec du corbin of speed and one does not exist in the world, then the player should have the opportunity to have that specific weapon because just any magical bec du corbin will not do.
> 
> Sorry, but while the player may be able to get what he wants, the rest of the players better agree to all of the questing time that will be needed to fund one's players item desire.




And right there, that's the point I was looking for.  If the DM has complete control over what the party has, then it's a confrontation between the party and the DM.  However, if the DM says that Player X can go get Item A made, then it is up to Player X to convince the party.  The DM can sit back and giggle.  He comes out looking like the good guy because he is allowing the players to do anything they wish.  If the rest of the party nixes Player X's idea, that's their problem, not mine.  Again, it's up to the DM to be neutral.  I'm entirely neutral in the matter.  If they choose to go get item A made, cool, otherwise, cool.  It's a win win situation for me.  

On the other hand, if I flat out rule that the PC cannot possibly get Item X made, then I'm directly opposing the players.  That's something I try to avoid as much as possible.    Why should the players have to "make do" with whatever the DM condescends to gift them?  It's their character concepts, not mine.  If they have the cash to do it, go for it.  If they can convince the rest of the party its a good idea, more power to them.  Why should I, as the DM, possibly stand in the way of that?


----------



## FireLance (Sep 16, 2005)

When can the DM say "No"? Any time he likes, as long as as he recognizes that the players are judging him.

I'm fine with a DM saying, "No elves in my campaign."

However, a DM who says he allows elves and, after my elven ranger rushes to the front lines to battle a couple of ghouls and gets hit, tells me to save against paralysis because he didn't like the fact that elves are immune to ghoul paralysis is bordering on not OK. After all, even though it is RAW, this information is in the MM and he has the right to adapt the monsters in his campaign.

A DM who tells my elven ranger to make his save against the _sleep_ spell cast by the wizard BBEG crosses the line for me. It's right there in the PH and he should have called it out as a house rule when I made my character. I might tolerate such lapses if he manages to convince me that he meant to tell me but forgot, but anything that hints of "I-just-changed-this-rule-because-I-don't-like-it" will be enough to make me walk.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 16, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if I flat out rule that the PC cannot possibly get Item X made, then I'm directly opposing the players.  That's something I try to avoid as much as possible.    Why should the players have to "make do" with whatever the DM condescends to gift them?  It's their character concepts, not mine.  If they have the cash to do it, go for it.  If they can convince the rest of the party its a good idea, more power to them.  Why should I, as the DM, possibly stand in the way of that?



You seem to be saying that a campaign in which a character can _buy_ Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake is inherently better than one where the sword is gotten the traditonal way. Why is that? 

And how on earth does a greater level of DM control over magic items equal condescension? Why so adversarial? Where's the trust?

And its 'their' characters in 'our' shared world. Co-operation is essential. 

Sometimes you just have to say 'no' to a laser-wielding pirate in a world based on Arthurian Romance...


----------



## D'karr (Sep 16, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And right there, that's the point I was looking for.  If the DM has complete control over what the party has, then it's a confrontation between the party and the DM.  However, if the DM says that Player X can go get Item A made, then it is up to Player X to convince the party.  The DM can sit back and giggle.  He comes out looking like the good guy because he is allowing the players to do anything they wish.  If the rest of the party nixes Player X's idea, that's their problem, not mine.  Again, it's up to the DM to be neutral.  I'm entirely neutral in the matter.  If they choose to go get item A made, cool, otherwise, cool.  It's a win win situation for me.




I believe that is the wrong approach.  Why should there be a "confrontational" situation between the party and the DM?

The DM is the eyes, ears, and all senses of the party as long as the party adventures in the DM's world.  In essence the DM IS the world and the party gets to experience the world through the DM's presentation.  If the DM says they encounter a "Displacer Beast" then they encounter a "Displacer Beast."  If a character asks, "Can I buy a Thundering, Hammering, Returning, Glove of invisibility?" It is up to the DM to present the possibility.  Either yes or no.  The No could be an implied "Not in this town or not in this continent or not in this world."  But that is for the PC to determine through his interaction with the game world.

What if nobody in the Game World has the capability to produce such an item?  After all the DM is in control of all the NPCs.  Why does this have to be confrontational?



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if I flat out rule that the PC cannot possibly get Item X made, then I'm directly opposing the players.  That's something I try to avoid as much as possible.    Why should the players have to "make do" with whatever the *DM condescends to gift them?*  It's their character concepts, not mine.  If they have the cash to do it, go for it.  If they can convince the rest of the party its a good idea, more power to them.  Why should I, as the DM, possibly stand in the way of that?




Once again you are viewing this from a "confrontational" perspective.  The emphasized comment speaks to that view.  The DM doesn't condescend to give.  The DM presents the *available* options.  Or is it your opinion that the DM should change the internal consistency of the game world, he is presenting, to satisfy every player whim?  After all the only person that understands the "internal consistency" of this creation is the DM.  In a campaign modeled after "Jason and the Argonauts" should the DM change his presentation because a player wants to get a weapon that might be modeled with the RAW but does not fit the "internal consistency" of the world he is presenting?  And if the PCs quest for such a weapon, who determines whether they will ever find it?  What if the "golden fleece" was just a myth and the Argonauts never find it?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The question is not a straw man.  It is, in fact, the crux of this thread.  When determining when it is appropriate to say "No", whose discretion does the DM rely upon?  If the DM relies upon his own discretion, then he is the ultimate arbitrator of that game.  If the DM does not, then he is not.

KM says that the DM is allowed to say "No" *in general* because to do otherwise would make his position obviously untenable.  However, KM also disallows the DM from saying "No" *in any specific incident* to which that general rule is applied.

What KM gives with one hand, he takes away with the other.

Recognizing that this is, in fact, the case is not setting up a "straw man".  It is, rather, suggesting that KM's position is, itself, self-contradictory.

If I am wrong, all KM has to do is agree that it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to limit races and/or classes based upon the internal logic of the setting.  Without some caveat that the players have to agree (in either an implied or acual sense).  I would be more than happy to come across KM espousing such an opinion without qualifier.

See, like a scientific theorum, my argument is refutable in a practical sense.

In any event, you *do* answer the questions above.    




> As to which RAW, I would answer simply - the RAW FOR THAT SETTING.  I would think that that's obvious.  If I'm playing an Eberron game, then Eberron material is likely to be included.  Anything else is purely at the DM's discretion.  Actually, anything is at the DM's discretion, but, at least Eberron material is more likely to be included.
> 
> Maybe I've been lucky.  I've never seen players try anything remotely like this.  In fact, every game I see these days specifies material at the outset.  This would mean to me that the RAW for each particular campaign is set by the DM.  Certainly a player can ask, but, then again, there's nothing wrong with saying no.  Particularly if the RAW for that setting supports that answer.





You and I agree perfectly on this point.  Where you and I disagree is whether or not this is what KM is saying.  I think, very specifically, that KM is saying that *the DM cannot say no*.  Or, perhaps more accurately, that a *bad* DM can say no, but a *good* DM *will not say no*, whether he can or not.

Using your example of a bec de corbin:

My campaign is low-magic, low-cash.  As a result, there are no magic shops.  There are individuals who can craft items, but they are not common.  To me, this is the difference between "magician as artisan" and "magician as factory worker".  Simply put, it will be more of an effort for you to find someone to make your magic weapon, and relative to what you have, it will cost more.  You have to be more invested in the idea of a magical bec de corbin to make it happen.

EDIT:  Also, assuming that the general feats allowed are given at the beginning of the game, you can easily determine whether or not expecting to craft a magical bec de corbin is reasonable.  If you are given campaign background material, you can also take a reasonable stab at how difficult it will be to find someone else to do the same if you are not able to.  If you know that being able to obtain a magical bec de corbin is extremely unlikely, you are not required to make a character centered around that concept.  I am sure that you agree that applying the "RAW for a specific setting" concept applies to more than just racial/class choices.​
On the other hand, you cannot be a half-ogre.  Period.  There are no half-ogres in the setting.

I am extremely upfront about the core choices offered, about the average level of wealth and magic expected, and about changes in XP that I have made.  I am not so upfront about, say, rules pertaining to the Cult of Mellythese (an evil spider goddess), such as prestige class or classes.  In game, the PCs can research such things, though, and find out about them.

No one can be forced to play with people they do not wish to. You cannot force the DM to run a game. You cannot force anyone to run a game in a way you prefer. You may be able to compromise, but your two absolutely always-available choices are "Play in the game I'm running as I am running it" and "Don't play in the game I'm running as I am running it." This is not only true, it is self-evident.

Sure, if the DM is a dink and runs "Dink way or the highway" games, he's going to spend a lot of time at an empty table. I've said this (or things like it) numerous times myself. The qualifier (if the DM is a dink), though, is all-important.

Every player wants to increase his own fun. If they are not dinks, then they are not trying to do it at the expense of others, including at the expense of the DM. Including at the expense of the work put into the setting.

This is really simple, and it is consistent.

No one has to play in my game if they do not wish to.  No one has the right to tell me how to run my game.  No one has a right to play in my game if I don't want them to.


RC


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I call bull here.  While bad DMs do exist, the idea that for every good DM, six horrible DMs exist is farsical.  I think that the idea that has been promoted over the last few years that promotes the RAW as final arbiter has led to an urban legend regarding DMs who make judgement calls or create house rules.



Honestly, I've played under a lot of DMs.  I can say there are a lot of bad DMs around.  That you've had some good experiences with DMs is good for you.  However, I've played under..let me think....at least 20 different DMs in home games.  I've played easily under another 20 or 30 in Living Greyhawk games.  I'd say there are a lot of bad DMs.  Some of them are made better by the fact that they are following the RAW and it ups the quality of their DMing.  I can tell this because it's been mentioned by DMs at various tables in LG that "if this wasn't LG, he wouldn't be using (insert rule here) because it was stupid".  I, on the other hand, think removing the rule is stupid and would confuse the game too much.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> As a player, you want the rules to be final arbiter.  It grants the player power and control over the game.  The problem is that this attitude leads to an adversarial relationship between player and DM and causes arguments over the rules.  Let's face it, the rules are fairly vague and sometimes a decision has to be made.  A player and a DM can interpret things differently and then cause massive problems, unless the player accepts the DM as arbiter.



My players know that the rules are the primary goto for arbitration in the game.  After that, if there is any dispute on HOW the rules are to be read, the DM decides.  He is the referee after all.

It hasn't created an adversarial relationship at all.  Quite the contrary.  Previously, when I ran 2nd edition D&D, I would be continually questioned on every ruling as the players would question the logic of every decision, they'd argue realism at every turn.  Now, we all understand how to rules work so there is no discussion about it unless a point comes up that isn't covered by the rules or we have 2 different interpretations of a rule.  If it isn't covered by the rules, I make something up and we move on.  If there is two different interpretations then I decide which one I want in my game and everyone agrees that it could be either way, so they accept that one way is as good as the other.

We now feel we are all playing the same game instead of playing the game as defined by the DM.  It isn't Majoru Oakheart's version of D&D.  It is D&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

I think we need to recognize, too, that some DMs (and players) are neither good nor bad.  Perhaps the majority of both.

Simply as an example, if we rate DMs/players on a scale from 1 to 10, we can say that those who are a 1-3 are bad, and are quite possible intentionally bad.  They are the selfish DMs and players we hear about.

Those who are a 4-6 are neither bad nor good.  They are average, and will probably improve over time if given a chance.

Those who are 7-8 are good.

Those who are 9-10 are excellent, and congratulations to those of us lucky to play with them.

DMs in the 7-10 range probably never experience major DM/player problems (except where a player falls into the 1-3 range).  DMs in the 1-3 range are not worth sitting at the table with.

There are a lot of 4-6 DMs out there.  Like students of composition, they need to learn the rules in order to know when it is appropriate to break them.  They also need to learn how to break them to create specific effects that they are trying to create.

If you've never run into a 7-10, you might be a bit leery about allowing the DM the authority to do the job.  However, a 4-6 needs that authority in order to grow into the job.  Players where the DM is a 4-6 know (or will soon learn) that the 4-6 is experimenting, and that some of his stuff is going to go over about as well as teenage high school poetry....

DMs in the 1-3 range should not deviate from the rules.  However, only in the event that such a DM actually wants to improve will the rules be of any help, anyway.

Following the RAW and core assumptions can move any DM 1-2 points toward the 5 position.  This is great if the DM is, say, a 3.  He's just leapt from     to   in one fell swoop.  If the DM was a 7 and she's suddenly a 5, though, her players will be somewhat less happy.

Just MHO.

RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 16, 2005)

> KM giveth and KM taketh away. On one hand, sure the DM ought to be having fun. On the other hand, the DM "exists for the fun of the players". If the DM has spent two weeks designing a starting area intended to provide excellent risks and rewards to a party of 2nd level PCs, but the players wants to play 22nd level characters, the DM should compromise:




You're removing one key element from my argument every time you represent it, and BU is doing the same thing: the DM should be having fun, too. Obviously, rewriting a month's worth of planning ain't much fun, and a DM has a responsibility for her own fun, too. Some DM's can have as much fun at 22nd level as they can at 2nd. Some DM's don't exhaustively detail their worlds, prefering to destcribe them as players explore them. Some DM's only work a week or two in advance. Some DM's have conversations with their players weeks before the game actually starts, or before they write down one word of what the world is going to be like. In these scenarios, the DM could run a 22nd level game as easily as a 2nd level game and have a lot of fun doing it.

A less flexible DM, of course, wouldn't be able to change like that and have fun himself. Which is fine -- D&D is about having fun.



> If I am wrong, all KM has to do is agree that it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to limit races and/or classes based upon the internal logic of the setting. Without some caveat that the players have to agree (in either an implied or acual sense). I would be more than happy to come across KM espousing such an opinion without qualifier.




Have I ever said otherwise? The DM in the (admittedly rather poor) example is selfish because he is not open to conversation about what the setting can be. It doesn't matter to him what his players want, even if what his players want fit the setting (no Merlin in an Arthurian world? No fey?), even when the rules give guidelines on how to do it. He's selfish: What I want is more important than what you want. I have only been saying that a DM should not be selfish, and that they wield more power than any individual player. The rules make it harder for a DM to be selfish now -- they give DM's one thousand good ways in which they can say "yes," so a DM who says "no" has to now be justified.

Continuing with that example, what if the DM didn't care that no one in his group had ever really had much to do with King Arthur? What if he sprung the idea of an Arthurian style D&D session on them when they showed up at the table for the first session? Developing a D&D campaign should be a dialogue, not a monologue. Both sides have their wants and D&D is fun when both sides get what they want.



> KM says that the DM is allowed to say "No" in general because to do otherwise would make his position obviously untenable. However, KM also disallows the DM from saying "No" in any specific incident to which that general rule is applied.




To repeat what I said on page 10: A DM can fairly say no whenever they are *justified*, in the eyes of the players.

World flavor is a fine justification, but only if the players want a world with that flavor, too. Random whim is a fine justification, but only if the players don't mind that whim. A view that the rules are poor and need improving is a fine justification, but only if the players are comfortable with that change. It's not just the players who need to find a new game if they aren't fine with those alterations -- the DM may need to find new players. And not every player is going to be comfortable with those changes. That's not a problem with "players these days." That's a problem with DMs expecting players to just smile and nod and agree because they are the DM. It shouldn't work like that, and it doesn't. Players can choose what they have fun doing. 

The DM can say "No" whenever the players let him. Because this is a group effort, not just one man's creation. And remember, players want to be challenged, and they want to overcome roadblocks. 

And players who know what they want aren't an unfortunate situation of the game today. They are an excellent development, because it will lead to them having as much fun playing D&D as they can.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Why?  What gives a player the ability to see modifiers?  What if you're climbing a wall with slippery mold in the cracks?  I'd give the player a chance to spot the mold, but a climb score will not tell them that it exists.



You are right.  However, most modifiers CAN be spotted, even if they may be difficult.  Yes, some things are hidden.  Basically, I see that there are visible modifiers and invisible modifiers.  Most modifiers are visible and the player will know about them in advance.  Sometimes there are thing hidden or things that change after you start climbing.  This is acceptable.

On the other hand, just making a wall that has a -20 circumstance penalty to climb it because "it's a living wall and doesn't want to be climbed" is kinda silly unless the player after he tries to climb has a good idea that something is horribly wrong.  i.e. "You start climbing the ordinary looking wall, then suddenly, it shifts beneath you, all hand holds vanishing and becoming slick.  You fall to the ground."  No problem with this.  I have a problem when this same situation plays out as "You try to climb.  You fail."  "But, I made a 30 on my climb check and it's an ordinary wall!"  "You don't know why, you just can't climb it."

One method confuses the player, makes them think you are just using DM fiat to prevent them from getting to where they want to go, or worse yet, have no idea how the rules work so are making thing up off the top of their heads.  I know I personally hate it when a DM says "well, it should be hard to climb...he can make DC 30 on a 10...that seems too easy, I'll make it 35."



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Agreed.  There should be a reason for it, but that reason does not have to be transparent to the players.  Since when do players get to evaluate every challenge by the numbers to see if they will attempt it?



They should be able to do it the same way we can do it in real life.  See a hill, you probably know about the chance of you getting over it in your car or whether or not you are too out of shape to walk to the other side of it.  I know there are things I can't climb and likely won't try.  Sometimes things are deceptive in how difficult they are, but we can make a close estimate.

The point is, if a wall should be DC 15 to climb in the PHB, there should be a darn good reason for it to be harder than DC 20.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You're removing one key element from my argument every time you represent it, and BU is doing the same thing: the DM should be having fun, too.





I really do not mean to take away a key element of your agument.  I just don't see where your key element fits into any of the examples that either of us has put forth (either in your initial examples, or in your responses to my examples).  

Are you then saying that the DM can say "No" if not doing so will impede the DM's fun?  Is this a reasonable justification?




> Have I ever said otherwise? The DM in the (admittedly rather poor) example is selfish because he is not open to conversation about what the setting can be. It doesn't matter to him what his players want, even if what his players want fit the setting (no Merlin in an Arthurian world? No fey?), even when the rules give guidelines on how to do it. He's selfish: What I want is more important than what you want.





Might it not be equally fair to say that the DM is saying, "I have created what I think will be a fun setting.  It took me more than three weeks of solid effort to possess.  I am presenting this to you for free, because I really think this'll be fun for everyone willing to try it.  Would you like to try it?"

Follow it with:

Player 1:  "Can I play an elf?"
DM:  "Sorry, no.  I'm going for a really tight Arthurian thing with very, very low magic and an elf would break the feel I am trying to present."
Player 1:  "Oh.  Well, I really only like to play elves.  So, I think I'll pass."
DM:  "That's cool.  I think Bob might be running a more core-assumption game."​
Suddenly, no one is being selfish.

Follow it with:

Player 1:  "Can I play an elf?"
DM:  "Sorry, no.  I'm going for a really tight Arthurian thing with very, very low magic and an elf would break the feel I am trying to present."
Player 1:  "Stop being so lazy.  I'm sure you can fit an elf in there _somehow_."​Suddenly, the player is being selfish.

Follow it with:

Player 1:  "Can I play an elf?"
DM:  "Sorry, no.  I don't like you well enough."​
Suddenly, the DM is a dink.  (Not 100% sure that selfish covers this example well enough.)

Follow it with:

Player 1:  "Can I play an elf?"
DM:  "Sorry, no.  There are no elves in this setting."​
And....what?  Three weeks of work, the DM's enjoyment of the setting, and (perhaps) something hidden about the setting are put up against one player's idea of what would be fun.  Is the DM allowed to say no?  Is the DM required to rethink his setting?  Going back to your "key element" does "the DM should be having fun, too" justify his saying no?  Is anyone actually being selfish in this example (I would argue they are not)?




> Continuing with that example, what if the DM didn't care that no one in his group had ever really had much to do with King Arthur?





Back up a second here.  What made these particular players "his group"?  Why does he have any obligation to them?

Certainly, *if* this DM wants these players to play in his game, *then* he can only get what he wants by presenting something they are interested in.  Conversely, _*if*_ a player wants to play in a game run by this DM, _*then*_ that player has to play in a game that this DM is running.  There is no obligation on either side.

It is only when an obligation is imposed that selfishness enters the equation.

In other words, if I bake chocolate chip cookies, and I offer one to you, I am not selfish because you don't like chocolate chip cookies.  If I bake chocolate chip cookies, and I know you don't like them, so I offer them to someone else, I am still not selfish.  If you, however, demand that I consult you prior to baking cookies, *you are selfish*.

Perhaps I am missing some way in which the cookie example does not apply?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I didn't bother answering it because its such a loaded and rhetorical question that it isn't worth it.  Any answer I give is pretty much rendered meaningless by the level of strawman in the question.  Ask a less leading question and I'll answer it.




Hussar, 

I submit that KM's answer clearly shows that my questions were not a straw man:

*The DM can say "No" whenever the players let him.*


This is very, very different from your reply:

As to which RAW, I would answer simply - the RAW FOR THAT SETTING.  I would think that that's obvious.  If I'm playing an Eberron game, then Eberron material is likely to be included.  Anything else is purely at the DM's discretion.  Actually, anything is at the DM's discretion, but, at least Eberron material is more likely to be included.  

Maybe I've been lucky.  I've never seen players try anything remotely like this.  In fact, every game I see these days specifies material at the outset.  This would mean to me that the RAW for each particular campaign is set by the DM.  Certainly a player can ask, but, then again, there's nothing wrong with saying no.  Particularly if the RAW for that setting supports that answer.

I think there's a couple of definitions of RAW going on here and that's where the problem lies.  To me, RAW is defined by setting.  That a particlar book has been written does not make it apply to a particular campaign.​


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> You are right.  However, most modifiers CAN be spotted, even if they may be difficult.  Yes, some things are hidden.  Basically, I see that there are visible modifiers and invisible modifiers.  Most modifiers are visible and the player will know about them in advance.  Sometimes there are thing hidden or things that change after you start climbing.  This is acceptable.
> 
> On the other hand, just making a wall that has a -20 circumstance penalty to climb it because "it's a living wall and doesn't want to be climbed" is kinda silly unless the player after he tries to climb has a good idea that something is horribly wrong.  i.e. "You start climbing the ordinary looking wall, then suddenly, it shifts beneath you, all hand holds vanishing and becoming slick.  You fall to the ground."  No problem with this.  I have a problem when this same situation plays out as "You try to climb.  You fail."  "But, I made a 30 on my climb check and it's an ordinary wall!"  "You don't know why, you just can't climb it."





I agree with Majoru here completely.  The DM is the eyes, ears, and all senses that the PCs have.  He needs to provide them with appropriate sensory clues/cues.  The DM is the repository of what the PCs should reasonably know about the world based on their skills, background, etc.  He needs to provide them with appropriate information.  If information should be obvious, the DM should provide it *even if it is not asked for*.

This is NOT an example of good DMing:

DM:  "You see a largish room, some thirty feet wide and twice as long.  The floor is tiled in a mosaic of blue and green flagstones and the ceiling is held aloft, some thirty feet high, by thick arches crossing the walls and ceiling from east to west."

Player:  "I enter the room."

DM:  "The dragon attacks you.  Roll initiative."

Player:  "Whoa there!  What dragon?  You didn't say anything about a dragon!"

DM:  "You didn't ask...."​


RC


----------



## D'karr (Sep 16, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is NOT an example of good DMing:
> 
> DM:  "You see a largish room, some thirty feet wide and twice as long.  The floor is tiled in a mosaic of blue and green flagstones and the ceiling is held aloft, some thirty feet high, by thick arches crossing the walls and ceiling from east to west."
> 
> ...




It might not be an example of Good DMing, but man it did feel good...    

You just cracked me up.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 16, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> GM: "Okay, go ahead and create you characters. All characters are 2nd level, so you can pick any LA +1 race on the handout."
> Player 1: "Hey, there's only humans on the handout?"
> GM (fingers drumming): "King Arthur didn't need elves, why do I?"
> Player 1: "But I was thinking of playing a fey-like character with ties to lake maidens and stuff..."
> ...



I'm not sure if this is what you intended to say or not, but what I'm reading here is that the GM created an Arthurian romance game with setting-consistent limits on classes and races, and you think that's an example of selfishness and poor GMing.

I can understand a player not necessarily wanting to play in a game where the PCs all play knights and squires and (non-spellcasting) priests and such, but that doesn't make it a bad setting or the GM a poor GM - it simply means that what the GM created is not to the players' tastes in this instance.

Presumably no one is holding a gun to the players' heads in this example, so they can say that they're more interested in playing a more traditional D&D game - either the GM will compromise or s/he won't, and the gamers involved can either play or not. In any case I don't see how the GM is obligated to create something for the players. I think the example of the GM-as-shopkeeper example is apt in this case: the GM offers a game, the players can choose to accept or not - if the GM won't compromise s/he has no players, if the players won't compromise they have no game.

In this instance I think it would be best for both sides to look for a middle ground, such as permitting clerics and perhaps druids but keeping wizards as NPC 'monsters' in the setting. However, if the GM is not willing to compromise the setting, the players are not injured in any sense: they simply vote with their feet, and the both the GM and the players can look for more compatible folks with whom to play.

(Personally I'd enjoy an Arthurian romance like the one you described...)







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A selfish DM is the one who puts his own pleasures in the game first, ahead of the player's, rather than equal to them. Like a rules-lawyer is a selfish player who gets pleasure correcting others and won't stop, a selfish DM can be that DM who gives a player a familiar only so that they can kill it, torture it, and maim it later. Or that DM who has epic-powered NPC's swoop in and rescue the party. Or that DM who drops hints about going into the Forbidden Forest, when you get there, proceeds to TPK the group because "THE FOREST IS FORBIDDEN!" It's the DM that *needlessly* limits player choice. The DM who doesn't consider the ramifications of his changes. The one who fudges for monsters and important events, but fudges against players. The one who removes spells simply because they challenge him. The one who hands out loads of treasure to his girlfriend. The one who insists that he knows the game better than the designers, and who makes arbitrary changes to "use the d12 more often." The one who railroads relentlessly. The one who won't let you act until his villain is finished with his speech. The one who demands two written pages of character history only to give you the prospect of your long-lost sister coming back only to kill her out of some delightful malice.



Yes, immature GMs are bad, raildroading GMs are bad, killer GMs are bad, but is this really a newsflash for gamers?

What you're describing is really the most extreme examples of poor GMing, and IMX (and of course my experience may be different from yours) they are really a small proportion of the overall pool of gamers - some GMs are mediocre, a few are really great, but the juvenile behavior you describe above is usually self-correcting: either the GM matures or s/he can't find anyone to play with after awhile.

Talking about the most extreme behavior doesn't really answer the questions that have been asked several times on this board already, such as...







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Hussar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So far all of the examples that have been presented have been the most extreme examples of poor GMing, IMX gaming skills reside along a continuum, and for me that's what's really at the heart of this thread: where is the balance point? So far the rules-lawyers haven' answered that question to my satisfaction, nor apparently to *Raven Crowking*'s.

I'll repeat my earlier example, and hopefully *Kamikaze Midget* or *Majoru Oakheart* or *Patryn of Elvenshae* will reply: *The PHB and the DMG (both 3.0 - my 3.5 books are in a box in the garage) indicate that the most complex mechanical trap is DC 25 to disable - does this preclude the GM from creating a DC 27 or 28 trap? What about DC 30?*

Let's be clear about something here as well - I'm not talking about upping the DC just to beat the party rogue's stats, or changing it on the fly to hose a character who made a good roll. Those would be extreme examples of poor GMing. I'd like to hear a response from the perspective addresses whether or not you consider creating something like this to reasonably challenge the party in the normal course of adventure writing is "breaking the rules."







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> For that guy who wants to play a demilich? "Sorry, they're too powerful. But maybe you'd like being a necromancer...if we get high enough level, you may have the opportunity to become a demilich."



I agree with this - players should have goals.







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> For that guy who wants to play a demilich? "Sorry, they're too powerful. But maybe you'd like being a necromancer...if we get high enough level, you may have the opportunity to become a demilich." Or maybe even "Well, it doesn't need to be second level....does everybody think starting at level 22 is a bad idea?" This changes the ride, but keeps fun for everyone intact. Helping the players to have fun is the DM's job. This job includes finding out what they REALLY want, which usually isn't just power, because players don't have fun when they're all powerful unless they're selfish players.



And this I can't agree with at all.

Let's be clear on something:

*GMing is not my job.*

It's something I do for recreation, to exercise my imagination, to enjoy time with friends.

When I sit down to homebrew a setting, my first question is, "What kinds of adventures do I want to run?" This determines many of the setting details, influencing races (both character and non-), classes, geography, transportation, economics, political institutions and so on. The setting is built to accommodate the adventures - it's also designed to be internally consistent so that enhances the suspension of disbelief for the players, to give the setting verisimilitude and offer a more immersive gaming experience for everyone.

My second question is, "What options are available to the players?" As a GM I *want* to give the players a range of options - it's in my best interest as a GM to offer a goodly number of races and class choices so that the players have interesting choices to make with respect to their characters, in the same way that it's in my best interest to create exciting adventures set in an engaging game-world. That's not the same as giving them unlimited options, however: if I choose to remove outsiders and core-class paladins from the setting, then no, you can't play an aasimar paladin.

I imagine that right there I've raised the hackles of some gamers: "Why ban outsiders? Why ban paladins? That's not D&D!" If my goal is to run swords-and-sorcery adventures with a dark ages feel, if I want to create a cosmology in which there are no other planes, if I want to make the paladin a prestige class (or even exclude it altogether), that is my perogative as a GM. If I wanted to run the setting by the straight core rules, I could, but those same core rules give me the liberty to make those choices, to offer the players other options instead. Anyone who claims that the core rules preclude these sorts of choices is ignoring the core rules...







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> On the other hand, just making a wall that has a -20 circumstance penalty to climb it because "it's a living wall and doesn't want to be climbed" is kinda silly unless the player after he tries to climb has a good idea that something is horribly wrong.  i.e. "You start climbing the ordinary looking wall, then suddenly, it shifts beneath you, all hand holds vanishing and becoming slick.  You fall to the ground."  No problem with this.  I have a problem when this same situation plays out as "You try to climb.  You fail."  "But, I made a 30 on my climb check and it's an ordinary wall!"  "You don't know why, you just can't climb it."
> 
> One method confuses the player, makes them think you are just using DM fiat to prevent them from getting to where they want to go, or worse yet, have no idea how the rules work so are making thing up off the top of their heads.  I know I personally hate it when a DM says "well, it should be hard to climb...he can make DC 30 on a 10...that seems too easy, I'll make it 35."



Again, we're talking about the extreme of poor GMing here, which doesn't get us anywere toward finding the middle ground where most gamers play.

In the example of my living wall earth elemental, I described it to the players roughly like this: "About thirty feet off the ground you suddenly feel the rough surface of the wall grow smooth as a river-polished stone. The rock itself seems to shift under your grip, your hand and toe holds feel as if they are receding into the wall, and you fall to the ground...taking eleven hit points damage." (No, I didn't just decide the thief fell - she failed her skill check.)

Again, I think we all agree that saying, "You just can't climb it," or, "You fall regardless of what you roll," is just poor GMing. For me at least there remains the larger question, based on the following:







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The point is, if a wall should be DC 15 to climb in the PHB, there should be a darn good reason for it to be harder than DC 20.



Here's another question that I hope someone will answer for me: *Who decides what the "darn good reason" is, the GM or the players?*


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 16, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why "restore a certain feeling of gameplay" if it isn't how you "feel the game should be"?



To me, it isn't about making the game feel the way it should be.  Instead it is about making the game feel like it should be.  Not how I feel it should be.

For example, you could run a Babylon 5 RPG and make it a laugh fest with 2 dimensional characters because you feel B5 should be played like that.  It won't be B5, but it might be fun.  If I ran a B5 game, I'd try (the best I could) to get the same feeling as the show across.

When I run D&D, I try to make it feel like D&D.  Wonderous magic everywhere you go, ancient ruins filled with artifacts from empires long dead, evil gods and their minions plotting the destruction of everyone, evil creatures who want to rule the world.

It also means other expectations.  An average person can climb a rope taking 10 as long as they aren't wearing armor.  A 1st level wizard can cast magic missile.

Just like when I run Rifts, I try to have a feeling of being in an infinite universe filled with alien creatures and devices and a sense that you are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.  That is the feeling of that game.

How *I* feel either of those games SHOULD work is fairly insignificant.  I don't feel it's my place to go changing around the world to the way I want it to work.  My players may not want that change, it may cause problems I haven't forseen, and most of all it causes work for me.  I'm inherently lazy.  I want to run the game with minimal changes because I don't have all week long to spend thinking over the implications of any changes I make.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 16, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Player 1:  "Can I play an elf?"
> DM:  "Sorry, no.  I'm going for a really tight Arthurian thing with very, very low magic and an elf would break the feel I am trying to present."
> Player 1:  "Oh.  Well, I really only like to play elves.  So, I think I'll pass."
> DM:  "That's cool.  I think Bob might be running a more core-assumption game."​




I would like to point out that a lot of people play with friends. When I run a game, I have the same players and if I were to play in a game, it would be because one of said players wants to try to run a game. Now, I'm not alone in this. There is no, "go play with Bob," available. There is my game, or nothing. And there is one of my friends games, or nothing.

In these cases, the DM must learn to be flexible, as must the players. If I wanted to run an Arthurian game, the first thin I would do is ask my players if it is what they want. If one really wants to play an elf, I would alter my idea to make it possible, so that fun could be had by all. Telling my player to find another game would be telling them that the game is more important to me than our friendship. Not something I would ever do.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> To me, it isn't about making the game feel the way it should be.  Instead it is about making the game feel like it should be.  Not how I feel it should be.




Majoru,

What is the difference?

How something should feel is a subjective decision.  There is no objective statement one can make about how a game should feel.  Even "a game should feel fun" is a subjective statement, allbeit one which is widely held.  Obviously, one would want to create a feel for a game which is "the way it should be".  But, how do you decide what way it should be, and why bother to make it that way if you feel it should be different?

I know you gave some examples, but, seriously, there is nothing objective that says that a Babylon 5 game should not be a laugh fest with 2 dimensional characters, nor is your interpretation of the same feeling as the show necessarily the feeling that I got from the show.

You say, "When I run D&D, I try to make it feel like D&D.  Wonderous magic everywhere you go, ancient ruins filled with artifacts from empires long dead, evil gods and their minions plotting the destruction of everyone, evil creatures who want to rule the world."

Isn't this because you believe that the game should feel that way?

Conversely, if how you feel either of those games SHOULD work is fairly insignificant, and if you don't feel it's your place to go changing around the world to the way you want it to work, wouldn't that imply that your players should respect your homebrew world in exactly the same way?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I would like to point out that a lot of people play with friends. When I run a game, I have the same players and if I were to play in a game, it would be because one of said players wants to try to run a game.





Me too, and I covered this:

Certainly, if this DM wants these players to play in his game, then he can only get what he wants by presenting something they are interested in. Conversely, if a player wants to play in a game run by this DM, then that player has to play in a game that this DM is running. There is no obligation on either side.​
Certainly, you don't imagine that your friends have an obligation to entertain you.  Nor do you have an obligation to entertain your friends.  If a game isn't fun, don't play it.  Go camping or something instead.

It is only when an obligation is imposed that selfishness enters the equation.

In other words, if I bake chocolate chip cookies, and I offer one to you, I am not selfish because you don't like chocolate chip cookies. If I bake chocolate chip cookies, and I know you don't like them, so I offer them to someone else, I am still not selfish. If you, however, demand that I consult you prior to baking cookies, you are selfish.​
You can make a game world that is entirely co-operative, with no DM at all if you like.  Vote what the scenery is.  Vote what kind of monsters you encounter.  Or make up some kind of random system to determine these things.  When a question comes up, vote.

What you do not have is the ability to obligate someone else to participate in a game in a way which makes them unhappy.  Your friends will forgive you for voting with your feet, if they are your friends.


RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 16, 2005)

You make it sound so... formal. The cookie example is flawed, in my eye, because the baker is really making the cookies for himself and inviting people to eat them if they wish. D&D is a shared experience, not one in which you invite people to join you, but in which you work together as a group to enjoy. The baker should be making a variety of cookies which he knows the others will enjoy.


----------



## Azul (Sep 16, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> So the Eberron setting book tells us the basic house rules, and further supplements (like "Explorer's Handbook" or "Races of Eberron") give more house rules.
> 
> How is that different from me giving a house rule document up front and later, when necessity presents itself, bringing new rules into the game between sessions?




Or doing what our gaming group has done, which is to evolve a set of house rules in response to 1) dealing with issues that arose in game and 2) fitting new material (e.g. new WotC books) into the existing campaign.  Sure, each campaign gets a set of house rules designed to fit that campaign's particular flavour and those rules are presented up front.  

However, many more of our house rules come from times when a player asks "How could I do this?" or "How would that action be resolved?" or "Why is this (insert nonsensical gamist element)  this way?  We could do it that way (insert interest and simple alternative) instead?".  They evolve to meet the needs of the players, the DM and the group's playing style.  In my group's case, most of our house rules are the result of five years of slowly learning what particular elements in the d20 rules we found unsatisfying, objectionable or otherwise in need of change.

All that being said, while the DM is indeed the final arbiter of his or her game, that isn't a licence to be a capricious sod who doesn't know the rules.  The DM should be well versed in the rules and only change those rules in ways he feels are necessary.  Those changes should be discussed up front with players so as to avoid unnecessary surprises and arguments.

Sure, an unexpected and unusual event might force you to ad lib a mechanic to resolve it but if you already have decent tools to resolve a problem, it only makes sense to use them.  If you have to drive a nail in, you use the hammer you've got.  It's only when you realize that what you really have is a screw that you need to start rummaging for a screwdriver instead of using your trusty hammer.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 16, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What is the difference?
> 
> Isn't this because you believe that the game should feel that way?



Actually, I see this more as the feeling that comes natually out of the rules.  The game can lean in certain way, but I generally assume a world where all the options in all the books exist in some way, shape or form and try to imagine what that looks like, what that feels like.

Rather than try to come up with a world and then force the rules to adhere to what that world might be like, I let the rules decide the feeling and tone of the setting.  What is possible in this world?  Just look at the options.

Thus, I don't feel it's my place to try to force the rules into a different tone or setting when they create their own so nicely.

Honestly, I've looked at changing the rules so they fit different types of fantasy settings before.  I realized how much work it would take and thought better of it.  If I was going to try to run one of these settings, as I've said before, I'd choose a system more capable of being changed easily or more generic, like GURPS or HERO or even BESM.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> You make it sound so... formal. The cookie example is flawed, in my eye, because the baker is really making the cookies for himself and inviting people to eat them if they wish. D&D is a shared experience, not one in which you invite people to join you, but in which you work together as a group to enjoy. The baker should be making a variety of cookies which he knows the others will enjoy.





The baker makes cookies because he enjoys making cookies and he enjoys sharing those cookies.  He enjoys the conversation and fun with friends who eat the cookies.  But, if the baker likes to make chocolate chip cookies, and you like to eat oatmeal cookies, the baker is not obligated to bake oatmeal, nor are you obligated to eat chocolate chip.

If I make it sound formal, it's because I am trying to cut right down to the basics of social interaction within the concept of a free society.  If you entice the baker to bake you oatmeal cookies, well that's called commerce.  Money is an abstract unit representing any benefit accruing from an action.  If you can obligate the baker to bake you oatmeal cookies, however, that is called slavery.

Likewise, if the baker can entice you into eating his chocolate chip cookies, that is also commerce.  If the baker somehow obligates you to eat cookies, that's a form of slavery, too.

Obviously, you can entice the baker to agree to an obligation, which is contractual law.  Likewise, the baker can entice you to agree to an obligation.  There are all sorts of rules in a free society that delimit what sort of obligations you can be enticed into, though, because the idea itself is contrary to the general rule of free society.

There are few places outside the D&D table that anyone in a free society would even consider imposing such an obligation on another person.  This is what the baker analogy was designed to show.  And the previous novelist, TV show, shopkeeper and film director analogies were also designed to show (at least in part).

The baker, certainly, can choose to bake a variety of cookies.  But the baker is unlikely to do so unless he has some motive to do so.  Why should he?  I will agree that, if he does so, he is being extremely altruistic.  What I will not accept is that the baker is selfish if he is not extremely altruistic.

D&D is a shared experience, yes, but one in which one individual does a disproportionate amount of work, has a disproportionate amount of responsibility, and has a disproportionate amount of control even in the most democratic of groups simply due to the creation of encounters (if nothing else).  This person then invites people to share in the enjoyment of that disproportionate effort, at which time (and only at which time) those people contribute a modest amount of work each toward the first individual's enjoyment.  During this shared experience, the first individual continues to do more work than any of the others (and, quite probably, than all of the others combined).  When the shared experience is done, the first individual has additional work to perform that the others do not.  Moreover, as the experience progresses, the amount of work for that individual tends to rise exponentially.

(Note that I am using work here to denote effort, not to indicate whether or not the effort itself is enjoyable.)

If the group of people thinks that the first individual is obligated to serve their needs before his own, they are looking for a slave.


RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 16, 2005)

So if the first individual thinks the others are obligated to enjoy his game, he is looking for slaves.

But, neither of those statements make any difference whatsoever. All you seem to be doing is making an emotional plea to show that the DM's job is so hard and the players are lucky to have someone willing to do all this for them that they should agree to play by his rules.

I disagree, and I'm a DM. I DM because I enjoy it. I don't DM because I want to control the game, or because I think its the only way to play the game the way I see fit. If someone else runs a game, they will ask me what I want, I will give input, and we will find a compromise.

Disproportionate amount of work makes no difference. One member of the group has more work because he chooses to. If he doesn't want the extra work, then he shouldn't DM, and I have no sympathy for him if he feels that he is being wronged because the players won't do as he wants.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 16, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So if the first individual thinks the others are obligated to enjoy his game, he is looking for slaves.
> 
> But, neither of those statements make any difference whatsoever. All you seem to be doing is making an emotional plea to show that the DM's job is so hard and the players are lucky to have someone willing to do all this for them that they should agree to play by his rules.
> 
> ...




I think you missed the point.  He is not complaining about the effort.  He is explaining the analogy of the baker.

The first individual is providing a service, he is a service provider.  He can provide whatever service he wants.  The others are consumers of that service.  They can consume whatever service they choose.  If they want a different service than the service provider provides, then they can ask for it.  But the first individual is in no way "obligated" to provide such a service.

It's a simple analogy and one that fits well the role of DM.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 16, 2005)

Wait, I thought he was saying that was _not_ like the game.

Since, you know, the DM isn't providing a service.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 16, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Wait, I thought he was saying that was _not_ like the game.
> 
> Since, you know, the DM isn't providing a service.




What?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 16, 2005)

Playing a game is not providing a service.

EDIT: When you charge your players then you can declare that you are providing a service.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 16, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Playing a game is not providing a service.




You're right playing a game is not.  DMing a game is quite like providing a service.


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 16, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Playing a game is not providing a service.
> 
> EDIT: When you charge your players then you can declare that you are providing a service.




I do charge my players.  In return for running a game and trying to make sure they all have fun, my fee is a liberal dose of fun for me.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 16, 2005)

D'karr said:
			
		

> You're right playing a game is not.  DMing a game is quite like providing a service.




The DM is not playing the game? Dang...



			
				IcyCool said:
			
		

> I do charge my players.  In return for running a game and trying to make sure they all have fun, my fee is a liberal dose of fun for me.




So the player could easily make the claim that he is providing a service: a fun experience for the DM and other players.


----------



## Henry (Sep 16, 2005)

I'm reading the posts on this last page, and I'm feeling some hostility rising a bit. Let's please think how what we're posting is going to come off to the people we're talking to, because it doesn't help anything if your point doesn't come across because it was made in an agressive manner. Thanks all.


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 16, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So the player could easily make the claim that he is providing a service: a fun experience for the DM.




Not unless the player is foolish, to put it bluntly.  If I go to a movie at the theater, I did not provide the theater with a service, I paid the fee for the theater to provide me with a service.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 16, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The DM is not playing the game? Dang...




He is the quintessential "NON-PLAYER", so in strict terminology he would be non-playing...


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 16, 2005)

D'karr said:
			
		

> He is the quintessential "NON-PLAYER", so in strict terminology he would be non-playing...




Well, he's no more a player than the referee at a ball game.


----------



## Henry (Sep 16, 2005)

I can see Thirdwizard's concern, though. I do game with my friends, and I try to accomodate them whenever I can, rather than suggesting another game, because they're my friends, there IS no other game; we don't have so many gaming friends that we associate in several rings or circles - there's just the one, with about 8 people give or take.

However, I still maintain that a DM (whoever that is) needs final say-so, not only in rules disputes but character concepts, because there has to be someone the buck stops with, and it takes a tenth of the time for one person to make a decision than it does five people. The rules can't always be final arbiter, because rules don't account for every situation, as we well know. In my experience, it doesn't totally account for 1 out of ten!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So if the first individual thinks the others are obligated to enjoy his game, he is looking for slaves.




Absolutely.  Is there any doubt?

Certainly, *if* this DM wants these players to play in his game, *then* he can only get what he wants by presenting something they are interested in. Conversely, *if* a player wants to play in a game run by this DM, *then* that player has to play in a game that this DM is running. There is no obligation on either side.

It is only when an obligation is imposed that selfishness enters the equation.

This is not "an emotional plea to show that the DM's job is so hard and the players are lucky to have someone willing to do all this for them".  It is certainly not a plea "that they should agree to play by his rules."  

*Your friends do not have an obligation to entertain you. Nor do you have an obligation to entertain your friends. If a game isn't fun, don't play it. Go camping or something instead.*

Playing D&D is not the be-all end-all of existence, it is not the only thing you can do for fun, and it is not the only entertainment out there.

Players should play in a game only if they are having fun.  The DM, like the baker in my example, is involved in a form of commerce.  I entertain you, and in turn you entertain me.  What the DM is offering is up to the DM.  What the DM accepts in return as entertainment is also up to the DM.  This is no different than, say, setting a price to sell a bicycle.  The DM can also (and is likely to) auction off the bicycle for the price that is closest to what he is looking for.

Players likewise are involved in commerce for the entertainment they provide.  They say, in effect, "I will play in your game provided it is a game that gives me at a certain degree of satisfaction."  If they are not satisfied, they do not have to play.  In fact, if they are not satisfied, *they should not play, even if there is no other game in town*.

In the old days, DMs were rare.  Nowadays, 3.X has made it a lot easier to be at least a passable DM.  There are lots of options out there.  There was never a reason that someone should be playing in a D&D game that they don't enjoy.  Today, it is easier than ever to *make* a game that you will enjoy if you cannot otherwise find one.

I also DM because I enjoy it.  And I agree that if you don't want the extra work, then you shouldn't DM.  However, I disagree with your contention that cookie example is flawed, and to that degree the disproportionate amount of work is an entirely valid observation.  

The DM _*does*_ invite other people to join him.  He undertakes that work because he wants to, not because he is obligated to.  Gameplay is a "shared experience"; game preperation is not.  In this sense, RPGS are  more than simply cooperative games.  This is a simple statement of objective fact.

Because something is enjoyable, and a hobby, does not mean that there is less work involved. The term "work" does not mean simply "unpleasant work".  I even went out of my way to clarify that again.

Call it a "shared world" if you will, but if the group breaks up, who has all the notes and maps of that "shared" world?

My position is, I think, pretty consistent:

1)  The DM is entitled to unlimited authority because they DM (within the context of the game).

2)  If a player is unwilling to accept the conditions of a particular game, he is under no obligation to play.  A player can quit a game at any time if the DM abuses his authority in that player's eyes.  A DM is entitled to authority, but is not automatically entitled to *players*.

3)  Making the game fun is everyone's responsibility, and as the players gain more power to determine what is likely in 3.X, they also gain more responsibility to make it fun for all involved, including the DM. *Get up or game on.* Don't waste everyone's time whining at the table.

If I have varied from this position anywhere, please let me know!

Again, you said it yourself.  You DM because *you want to*.  I'll bet dollars to donuts that, when you allow player input, you do this because *you want to* as well.  And, when you say "no" to a player, you do this because *you want to*.

When your players play in your game, they do so because *they want to*.

The idea that either players or DM is somehow obligated to the other is abhorrent.  As in "Jeez this game sucks, but I guess I gotta go or Jim won't be my friend any more."  Or just as bad, "Guess I gotta let him play an elf or Jim won't be my friend."  I imagine that nothing like this ever happens in your group, Third Wizard, nor should it ever.

In short,

If you are not having fun, do not play.

(But don't imagine that your choosing to play obligates the DM to do things your way.)​

RC


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 16, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Plus, I find if I get farther ahead than that, I tend to start railroading because I don't want the work I did to go t waste.



Actually, this is a really good point.  I had a friends who DMed a game I was never in, but he kept coming to work (we worked together) and telling me what he had planed and what was going on in his game.  I kept thinking "poor them".

This DM had pages after pages written about his homebrew setting.  He had been planning it for years.  Everytime he had free time, he'd write more about his homebrew world.  He knew almost everything about his world, including a timeline backwards and forwards.  He gave one of the characters in his game a weapon that grew in power as it killed certain types of creatures.  He knew what powers it would get when the character became level 20.  He gave this to a character who was 2nd level.  He also knew the weapon would have to do with his plot later in the campaign.  I warned him it was a bad idea as he had no idea if the player would ever discover its powers and even if he did, how was he to discover what triggers the increase in power?  Even at that, who says the chracter won't pawn it the first chance he gets because he doesn't want it or the character dies?

He was convinced though.  He knew what city they'd be in at each level because he was going to steer them there.  He had planned to turn them all into goblins at level 6 no matter what they did or what race they were originally.  He HAD to because his plot demanded that it happen.

It smacked too much to me of walking through a novel without being able to change anything.  It might have been interesting, it certainly had a lot more story and plot than most of my games because he spent a lot more time thinking about it.  However, the game seemed to exist to allow the DM to tell a story to a bunch of players.  The players didn't matter to the story in the slightest.

This is the reason I see most DMs changing the rules for:  "If I use the rules as written in the book, they might kill my bad guy too early and ruin the plot" or "If I allow this power as written, he can easily save this town without having to go through my plot".

I can tell you that the above mentioned DM used a LOT of DM fiat to change things so that it fit the way he wanted his game to work.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> If you stick to the RAW for demographics, you suddenly don't have magic shops because most centers cannot possibly support one.



Well, I use the RAW for demographics as well.  Basically, I handwave exactly how it happens, maybe they search town endlessly asking everyone if they know someone who has a magic item or they walk into Magic Items R Us and buy something, however if the GP limit of a town is high enough to support buying a magic item, they can find it.  Since I run a game in Greyhawk, the demographics of Greyhawk city allow nearly any item of magic you want to be found there.  After all, it is the dumping ground for items that Mordenkainen and Rary want to get rid of.

Still, even if they go to some "smaller" cities, basic magic items are available.  Also, I rule they can't find a buyer for any magic items that are worth more than the GP value of the city.  It's nice, it's simple and it gets up back to what the fun part of the game is: exploring dungeons and killing enemies.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

D'karr said:
			
		

> It's a simple analogy and one that fits well the role of DM.





Thanks, D'karr.  You brought a tear to my eye....


RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 16, 2005)

I agree that a DM's duty is to be the final arbiter in all situations concerning the game.

I don't think, however, that the DM should put his desires above the rest of the group's. If the group wants to play an all dwarven party in the service of Moradin, and the DM wants to run a Arthurian game with no demi-humans or magic, then I don't think the DM should step in and say he will be running the Arthurian game. Then you have a bunch of dissatisfied players who are playing in a game they don't want to be playing.

The DM doesn't have to run the all dwarven party, either. He doesn't have to run a game he doesn't want to. If one of the players wants to step in and run the game, he's welcome as a player, however.

The best solution, in my eyes, is to compromise. Find a middle ground that everyone will enjoy. There are so many different kinds of games and options for games that I've always found something everyone wanted to play. Usually, I ask them what kinds of characters they are interested in and we go from there. That can define a campaign in and of itself, sometimes. So long as the players are all on the same page in this regard, things have always worked out.

For example, I really want to run an Iron Heroes game. However, two of my players don't. So, no Iron Heroes game. Instead I'm trying out on in PbP. I'll tell you how it goes in five years. 

EDIT: RC could you please please please stop using alternate fonts.

EDIT2: Players and DMs are not involved in commerce. Repeatedly saying it doesn't make it true. This is a game.

EDIT3: And, a DM is entitled to nothing. Nothing at all, in my eyes.

I think we are disagreeing on a very basic level. There is only one "currency" at the gaming table, and that is fun. I don't think the DM deserves to have more fun than the rest of his players.


----------



## jasper (Sep 16, 2005)

No third wizard the baker is making cookies for the people who want to show up. They know he makes chocolate chip cookies regularly. RC appears to saying that since Pirate cat tags along, the baker must make chocolate chip and oatmeal cookies. Or the whole group will not show up. A real example is one of my friends has a food allergy when suits him, after a few months of me dropping the ingredient out of the spaghetti sauce, and then a few times of cooking a small portion for the special person, I gave up. Now that person either eats the spaghetti sauce as I make it (I remind him what is in the sauce) or he eats the noodles plain. In others words if 90% of gamers are enjoying the game why do I the dm have to bend over backward to get 100% satisfaction rating.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 16, 2005)

RC is saying that the baker should only make chocolate chip cookies if he wants to only make chocolate chip cookies, and only those who enjoy chocolate chip cookies should show up. Those who don't should go find another baker.

But, in my case, there is no other baker in the lands. So, the baker should make an effort to try and please those who he considers his friends when he bakes them cookies instead of sending them away, unable to eat any cookies.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 16, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> This is the reason I see most DMs changing the rules for:  "If I use the rules as written in the book, they might kill my bad guy too early and ruin the plot" or "If I allow this power as written, he can easily save this town without having to go through my plot".



First, in my experience, the rules will not stop a gamemaster from attempting to railroad the players - a clever gamemaster will simply use the rules to achieve the same end, or fudge the dice outside of the players' view to force a particular outcome.

Second, again in my experience, while I've played with a few poor gamers over the years, most of the gamemasters I know that diverge from the rules do it for setting flavor, not to railroad or otherwise dominate the players. The changes are there to make the game distinctive, and more often than not, I've found the changes added to my gaming experience.

*Majoru Oakheart*, I agree that railroading GMs suck. However, I don't think that all GMs who use houserules are intent to railroad their players. That's too broad a generalization for me to accept from my own experience.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 16, 2005)

I agree with ThirdWizard.  The game is about getting together with friends and having fun.

I've wanted to PLAY in a D20 Modern game for a while, no one will run one though.  I'm thinking of just running one myself, but after asking around, no one wants to play one.

One of my friends suggested running a game starting at level 20 in Forgotten Realms.  We were all up for trying that, so it happened.

Another one of my friends said he'd like to run a game using the World of Warcraft RPG rules.  A bunch of people said they'd like to try that and so we've been playing that for a short while.

A lot of the same people cross over to all my groups because we are all friends and like to play D&D.  Most of our games use the same rules.  The RAW.  We know the WoW game won't allow us to be a lot of things from expansion D&D books, because it is a different setting from most D&D books.  None of us have asked if we could be a Nightsong Enforcer or Mage of the Arcane Order, because we aren't sure it will fit in.  Even at that, I know the DM well enough that he'd try to find a way to include them because he'd prefer we played characters we were happy with.

My game takes place in Greyhawk and uses adventures written by other people, the 20th level game takes place in FR.  Both of us use the RAW as written and allow pretty much anything in any of the WOTC books.

We all agreed to play in each campaign knowing what they were in advance.  We haven't yet had anyone try to run a game without magic or in some world too far away from the assumptions in the RAW.  We like the game in which you kill enemies, get XP for which enemies you kill, get gold and go back to town and buy new magic items for your character so you can test your skills against new, more powerful creatures.  That's the game described in the books.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 16, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> *Majoru Oakheart*, I agree that railroading GMs suck. However, I don't think that all GMs who use houserules are intent to railroad their players. That's too broad a generalization for me to accept from my own experience.



I'm glad...mostly for you...that our experiences have been different.

All the DMs I know who actually know the rules well don't vary more from the RAW other than slightly, the ones I know who have a list of house rules don't know the original rules well or are trying to railroad.

Then again, I have yet to meet someone who had an idea about D&D that couldn't fit into the RAW.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 16, 2005)

I'm still hoping one of the rules-lawyerly folks will tackle my highlighted questions in post 426 - I really would like to hear your opinions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> EDIT2: Players and DMs are not involved in commerce. Repeatedly saying it doesn't make it true. This is a game.
> 
> EDIT3: And, a DM is entitled to nothing. Nothing at all, in my eyes.
> 
> I think we are disagreeing on a very basic level. There is only one "currency" at the gaming table, and that is fun. I don't think the DM deserves to have more fun than the rest of his players.





Third Wizard,

An alternative fonts have been used for clarity, to highlight specific things, or to indicate that a particular section of text is all part of the same idea.  Because it can be harder to be clear in longer posts, as my post length climbs I often find myself trying to find ways to subsection what I am doing.  If you find them offensive, I can certainly stop.    

1)  RE:  What the DM is entitled to:

I did not say at any point that the DM is entitled to more fun than the players.  What I said was that the DM was entitled to consider what would be fun for him first.  Just as each player is entitled to consider what would be fun for him first.

I did say that the DM was entitled to unlimited authority within the context of the game.  But also, again and again, I pointed out that said authority exists both for tautological reasons (the players cannot obligate the DM to do anything, or obligate the DM to alter the campaign world in any way, or obligate the DM to allow them to do anything [including play]) and for game reasons (the DM has greater responsibilities and much more knowlege of what is going on behind the scenes than the players do).  

I also agreed, repeatedly, that the DM who wishes to have players has to share some (but not all) of that authority with them.  Being a DM does not give you a right to have players.  A selfish DM is a lonely DM.

I also said that, if the DM had something they wanted to try, and the players didn't want to try it, he was still allowed to get new players and try it.

You want to try Iron Heroes. Your players do not want to try Iron Heroes.  You get a new set of (PbP) players to try Iron Heroes.  That sounds exactly like what I was talking about.

2.  RE:  Commerce:

I agree that the only currency at the game is fun.  The DM offers fun for the players.  The players offer fun for the DM.  Honestly, the DM offers himself fun because he enjoys DMing.  The players offer themselves fun because they enjoy playing.

No one is obligated to play.  No one is obligated to DM.

If everyone is getting what they want, then everyone is happy.

Now, I am pretty sure that we both agree on the above, and the only thing we are disagreeing on here is the terminology.  It may seem problematically to some to consider something enjoyable in terms of a transaction.  However, within the standard sociological model, this is indeed a form of commerce.  And, despite the objections of some, it is perfectly valid to say that the players are providing the DM with fun when they play...and as much (or more) as the DM is providing to the players.  DMing is a lot of work, but DMing is fun.  If this wasn't the case, no one would DM.  They would write novels instead.

It is also perfectly valid to claim that the players barter their contribution in exchange for modifications to the game to increase their own fun.  You can couch it in other terms if you don't like the commerce analogy.  I am sure that there are better analogies out there; I am just not clever enough to think of them.

3)  The Net Effect of These Two Points:

The DM is not obligated to change the campaign world to accomodate the players.  However, the players will frequently convince the DM to do so because the DM has fun playing with these particular players, and increasing the players' enjoyment will increase his enjoyment.  

Where the change is minor, the DM might make it before even asked, or immediately when asked.  Where the change requested is larger, the DM might take longer to consider it before agreeing, or might not be willing to agree because he forsees effects of the change that would adversely affect the game.

4)  How this differs from Kamikaze Midget's Theorum (as I understand it)

The DM does not need the permission of players to say "No".

The DM must often rely upon his own judgement as to whether a change is a minor one or a major one.

The DM often has hidden information (including adventure sites) that can be affected negatively by a proposed change.  The DM has to weight the rewards of allowing a change against the additional work he must do to accomodate that change.  The DM must also weigh whether or not the short-term player fun gained by allowing the change will be greater than the long-term fun potentially lost by some of the consequences of those changes.  Because these choices may be based upon hidden information, the DM has to decide whether or not to explain his reasoning to the players or ask them to merely accept the decision.

Intergroup dynamic and lack of obligation means that the players can (and sometimes should) say "we do not accept that" and stop playing.  The DM can then either decide to alter his position or seek new players.  Or someone else can take a turn DMing.

IMHO, friends will not stop being your friends because a campaign fails.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 16, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> RC is saying that the baker should only make chocolate chip cookies if he wants to only make chocolate chip cookies, and only those who enjoy chocolate chip cookies should show up. Those who don't should go find another baker.
> 
> But, in my case, there is no other baker in the lands. So, the baker should make an effort to try and please those who he considers his friends when he bakes them cookies instead of sending them away, unable to eat any cookies.





Which might be a reaon why you want to make other types of cookies, right?

You are not suggesting that you _have to_ make other cookies.

RC is also suggesting that, if these people are really your friends, they might say, "Why don't you just make those chocolate chip cookies you love to bake?  We'll eat them this week."


RC


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 16, 2005)

I like Raven Crowkings Baker analogy..

  If you only make chocolate chip cookies.. and the clients go elsewhere you will either learn to bake something else or clients who want chocolate chip will show up.

 I game with freinds. I offered to provide entertainment in the form of a RPing game. 
As the GM, I must see to it that most of my freinds are mostly happy with the outcome. 
Its not an absolute 100% of everything to everyone.. in this DnD is a shared experience.. more akin to a play with a director who lost the script than it is to anything else.


In my years of being a GM, I have realized that I must provide the group with what they are looking for. This mean my brand new Paranoia XP books {replacements of my old ones that got destroyed in a flood} will probably never get to see game time soon. Same with my Black Company book, which I bought mainly to read but would love to run.
 Ditto: SW WEG, ST:LUG, Aliens {by Fasa}, etc.. etc..
Give me a group of players who want to play game X {and a copy of the books} and I will gladly do the work it takes to make the setting as entertaining for my freinds as I can.

 Of course.. give me a GM willing to run game X and some freinds to join in with..forget running it! 

Right now I am the only one in my group that has the time to prep for games. The two others willing to run are busy with work/life {new kid.. new job} and rarely make it to our sessions in the first place.

IMHO, what it boils down to is this:
  If you wish to participate in a game, realize that your 'fun' is not of paramount importance, and that when you do not have 'fun', don't be an ___ and spoil it for the ones that are.
 Doesn't matter which side of the screen you are on.

 That being said.. continued lack of 'fun' is worth leaving the game for. A recent experience in Georgia reminded me how annoying some gamers can be to a new-comer. Left that game, started my own with the other new-comers...

anywho...


----------



## Greg K (Sep 16, 2005)

My feeling, I would rather not DM than DM a campaign that I did not consider fun.  Similarly, I would rather not play than participate in a game in which I was not having fun.

Now my style of DMing, when I create a campaign world, I determine what core rules are tweaked including the availability of races, classes, spells, items, the ready availability of magic items etc..  I also determine what content,if  any, is available from which supplements.  The players have no say in those matters, because I created the setting and  I know the feel I want to invoke (or is it evoke) as well as background that they do not have.  The players are free to take part or not take park. it is their choice. It comes down to RC's excellent cookie analogy

However, the above aside, once play starts, it is about my players.  They are free to give me ideas or take the campaign in directions that I had not planned once play starts.
Edit. That is provided what the setting allows.  Just because, a player wants the character to meet an elf,  itjust isn't going to happen if elfs do not exist in the world.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 17, 2005)

RC, I think I understand you much better now. 

On the subject of entitlement:

I think I'm beginning to see this as more of a semantic difference. The DM should start plans by looking at what he would perceve as fun as should the players. I don't see this as an entitlement issue, but simply as people approaching the same situation from their own perspective. When the DM is having fun, the Players will get a more enjoyable game. When the Players are having fun, the DM will have fun and gain a tremendous sense of accomplishment.

You have to start off with your own feeling of what should constitute the game. I origionally thought you meant that the DM was entitled to more than the Players because of the extra work he was putting in. I think now you are saying that the DM should have a larger degree of freedom because that will allow him to be a better DM. If I'm wrong in this, be sure to correct me. 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You want to try Iron Heroes. Your players do not want to try Iron Heroes. You get a new set of (PbP) players to try Iron Heroes. That sounds exactly like what I was talking about.




Touche (<-- pretend the little thingy is there)

However, I still do play with my group, and I wouldn't let another game interfere with the games that we play together.

On the topic of commerce:

Again, I think this is more a semantics issue. If you were trying to model social interaction, say with a computer model, you might be able to work it like that. Noone at the table is probably thinking in those terms, and I think that's what it is lacking by way of analogy.

I don't see the DM as offering a service to the players. Perhaps I'm taking a more egalitarian approach.

What happens when not everyone is getting what they want? Over the years, I've accomplished everyone getting 90% of what they want. I don't really think DMing is all that difficult if you know your players. Knowing your players is very important, and the DM who does has a far easier time. So, the Arthurian example would not happen to me, because I would know if my players would be up for something like that (they wouldn't), and I would alter my plans accordingly. So, while I'm not obligated to do so, I think it is not only in my best intersts to do so, but in the best interests of the game itself.

Do I have to? No, I don't. Do I want to? Yes. Because I want us all to enjoy ourselves.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Intergroup dynamic and lack of obligation means that the players can (and sometimes should) say "we do not accept that" and stop playing. The DM can then either decide to alter his position or seek new players. Or someone else can take a turn DMing.




Hmm... In some (many?) groups, yes. We don't have that kind of relationship in our group, however, and I would venture to say that at least some others share this in common with me.

If it were to the point where anyone in the group was not enjoying themselves enough that they were considering leaving the group, the game would change. So, we skip to the DM altering the position or someone else DMing without considering the leaving part. We're flexible enough with the game that leaving due to an in game issue is almost inconcevable. I've never had it happen.

I've disallowed things, but never something someone really wanted. Campaigns are equally likely to start based on a Player's idea as a DM's in our cases as well. It's all very... communist.  Issues about what the campaign is supposed to be is agreed upon by all before the campaign begins. After that, the Players know where the game stands well enough that they won't try to break it. Before it begins, however, it is fairly malleable.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Which might be a reaon why you want to make other types of cookies, right?
> 
> You are not suggesting that you have to make other cookies.
> 
> RC is also suggesting that, if these people are really your friends, they might say, "Why don't you just make those chocolate chip cookies you love to bake? We'll eat them this week."




*whew* For a while there I was thinking you didn't think the DM should compromise. I was, gladly, mistaken. My bad. 

I can see where I come off as a bit too compromisy, maybe, to some? I enjoy a more "anything goes" game than most people do, and so I'm going to be influenced by that. We all have our limits, and mine are perhaps further out than most people's.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2005)

Heh, ok, toning down the rhetoric a tad.  My bad.  At least people have proven that they are pretty passionate about their hobby though eh?

I'll take a stab at The Shaman's questions.  Although, allow me to pare them down a touch from a rather lengthy post.  I think I've got them.

The questions are:

1)The PHB and the DMG (both 3.0 - my 3.5 books are in a box in the garage) indicate that the most complex mechanical trap is DC 25 to disable - does this preclude the GM from creating a DC 27 or 28 trap? What about DC 30?

2) Who decides what the "darn good reason" is, the GM or the players?

I'm going to answer those in reverse order.  Mostly because I'm lazy and I don't want to look up the rules yet.  

A "darn good reason" will ultimately be decided by both.  A DM who changes rules on a whim will face resistence from the players.  And he should.  The players have a fairly realistic expectation that rules will be followed.  That's not an unreasonable expectation IMO.  Also, I think that the players should be able to expect that major rule changes will be discussed, rather than simply handed down from on high.  Granted, as I write that, I realize that campaign specific rules, such as race and class selection likely will be handed down from on high, but, I'm more thinking about in game mechanics rather than campaign creation.  During campaign creation, the DM has a fair bit more latitude to fashion whatever ruleset he wishes to use.  Certainly players should be encouraged to ask if this or that could be used, but, I don't think that they should be able to presume that something will be in use.  For example, if I'm running a Scarred Lands game, the players could reasonably assume that the Relics and Rituals spells will be used, but, not spells from Forgotten Realms.  Granted, they can always ask if they could use something, that's fine.  But, again, the RAW for that setting 100% supports the DM in saying no.  Conversely, I don't think that a player asking to play a Warforged in an oriental game really has much of a leg to stand on.  Again, the RAW for the setting completely supports the DM and not the player.

During gameplay though, things get a little stickier.  The players will generally assume that rules will remain fixed throughout the session.  And, I don't see that as a problem.   If a conflict in interpretation comes up, obviously the DM is going to have to have final say, if just to get the game going again.  The issue could be shelved until after gameplay and then hashed out later.  That's how it's done in many campaigns anyway.  

However, if the DM decides to change rules in the middle of the game, without warning, I think the players have every right to challenge the DM.  And, no, the RAW will not support the DM in this case.  The DM has chosen to move away from the RAW in any form and cannot expect the RAW to support his decision.  That's just silly to expect the rules as written to support unwritten rules.  In another thread, someone mentioned a DM who nerfed the flat-footed rules in the middle of the game.  Now, the RAW does not support that decision, of course.  A great deal of the game is built around the existence of being flat footed.  If the DM decides to do away with this rule, then he sets up a situation where it is completely his opinion vs the players and the players have the benefit of the RAW to support their viewpoint.  Should a DM be allowed to do this?  I'm not so sure.  I think that major changes in rules should be done outside of game with a great deal of deliberation between the DM and the players.  Simply imposing new rules without any feedback is a bad idea, IMO.

Ok, I've strayed a bit from the question.  Sue me.  

The point of the thread has been, does the RAW support DM abilities to say no.  I think it does.  Certainly, books are being targetted towards DM's and players.  Of course they are, WOTC and others want to sell more books.  If they flat out state that Book X is for DM's only, then they can't sell as many books.  However, just because the books are being marketted to players in no way removes the support the DM's get from the RAW.  Once the DM, usually with the input from players, has decided what constitutes RAW for that game, those RAW support anyone who supports those rules.  They only fail to support those who deviate from those rules.  Well, isn't that precisely what RAW should do?  Support those who follow the rules and not support those who don't?

Ok, back to question 1.

I'm going to slip into 3.5 answers for this, because I'm not sure how to answer in 3.0, those books aren't here.  

I see nothing in the RAW which precludes a higher than DC 25 mechanical trap.  Granted, the highest listed is 25, and, really, with the technological level of most campaigns, you won't see much higher than that, but, there's nothing stopping a DM from having one.  As I was told earlier about the wealth guidelines, they are guidelines, not hard and fast rules.  3e has always included the base concept that anything not specifically outlined should not be added in.  Since there is no specific prohibition from creating a DC 30 mechanical trap, then none exists.  Any DM or player who insisted that there was such a prohibition would actually be deviating from the RAW.

Thus speaks an inveterate rules lawyer.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 17, 2005)

Oh happy day.  Heh.  The international post finally pulled through and I just received Dragon 335 in the mail.  Yay.  Now, I don't buy that many supplements actually, but, I have been subscribing to Dragon for the past year.  So, opening it up, I leafed through the mag and I realized that there was a nifty little point that is very salient to this thread.  The basic premise to this thread as I understand it, is that supplemental rules favour the players and take away authority from the DM.

So, leafing through Dragon, I got to the Class Acts section. Now, here's a section of Dragon that's pretty much straight up targetting players.  While DM's might find the odd goodie in here, it's players that this is for.  Now, what did my eyes behold but a variant monk class- Chaos Monks.  Essentially a chaotic monk.  Cool idea, not bad execution.  Certainly the framework for creating a unique character.  The reason I bring this up, is the first section, third paragraph, jumped off the page and bit me on the nose.



> From Dragon 335, page 89:
> 
> *Note*  The chaos monk is an optional rule that might seriously alter your game.  A DM should be comfortable with the concept before allowing it into his campaign.




Here we have a rules supplement that specifically puts the power to veto an idea squarely in the hands of the DM.  Looking back at past issues of Dragon over the last year, I see this same thing repeated time and again.  "This is a rule variant- ask your DM if he wants to use it" or something to that effect.

I would say that, at least Dragon, certainly isn't taking any power away from the DM.  When the rules specifically state that the DM must approve something before it can be used, you cannot really ask for more support than that.


----------



## fusangite (Sep 17, 2005)

I really don't understand where Third Wizard is coming from here. 

Why do you assume "the players" is a fixed group? I decide what game I want to run and then I find players who want to be in it. If I have friends who play RPGs but want to be in a different kind of game, 
(a) someone else runs a game they would like and I join them as a player in that game
(b) we hang out in other ways like going out for drinks or meals or whatever, at which we may or may not talk about our respective games
Just because you have friends who are gamers does not mean that your gaming tastes overlap sufficiently for it to be fun to play RPGs together. But, no worries, you can, as RC suggests, go camping or something.

Now, if for some reason, like living in a small community or being a little short on social skills, you can only put together a gaming group with fairly disparate tastes in gaming, you have to ask yourself the question: can both the GM and the players have fun with a compromise play style. If, for the GM, the amount of fun he gets out of a campaign that's not really to his tastes is not worth the time he puts into writing the game, he shouldn't do it. And if none of the other people in the group think they will either, then the game just isn't going to happen. And that's probably good. 

To use music as an example, there might be a group of friends who all went to music school together. They might like talking about music together and share an expertise and an engagement with it but if one is a classical harpist and another is a rock 'n roll drummer, forming a band together isn't such a great idea.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> However, if the DM decides to change rules in the middle of the game, without warning, I think the players have every right to challenge the DM.



This is a good point -- but ultimately, if they can't persuade the DM he's wrong, all they can do is vote with their feet.


----------



## Nighthawk (Sep 17, 2005)

I think part of the issue lies in the area in which some playing groups are comprised of friends and others are not (or a mixture thereof). This will greatly influence how people interact in the playing group.


----------



## fusangite (Sep 17, 2005)

Nighthawk said:
			
		

> I think part of the issue lies in the area in which some playing groups are comprised of friends and others are not (or a mixture thereof). This will greatly influence how people interact in the playing group.



I don't see it that way. I only play with friends. I only run games to my personal taste; if some my friends aren't into my tastes, we can go for a beer or to a movie instead. 

If you find that you need to significantly amend your GMing style to make your players happy, this indicates you don't have enough friends.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 17, 2005)

> Why do you assume "the players" is a fixed group? I decide what game I want to run and then I find players who want to be in it.




And I have friends that want to play D&D and I run a game for them.



> But, no worries, you can, as RC suggests, go camping or something.




They want to play D&D. I'm not going to force them to accept my way or the highway when it's not nessecary. My game isn't sacred and unchangable; they can tell me what they want and I'll do what I can (what we can all still have fun playing) to accomodate them. And really, that's what I'm seeing as my main disconnect from RC and BU -- where the origins of the game come from. RC may do a lot of work designing a campaign setting because people want to play D&D and then propose it; he wouldn't have fun rewriting all of that material just because one person wanted a race that didn't fit comfortably. I more start as ThirdWizard does in maybe having a general idea, asking the group if it sounds like fun, and running with it. Or in having the players design characters before I do any sort of campaign work. I don't HAVE to run my particular campaign to have fun, so it is much less important to me to preserve this sacred ideal of my authority over it. 



> They might like talking about music together and share an expertise and an engagement with it but if one is a classical harpist and another is a rock 'n roll drummer, forming a band together isn't such a great idea.




Speak for yourself, man! That synthesis sounds awesome. Almost as sweet as the hardcordian!


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If you find that you need to significantly amend your GMing style to make your players happy, this indicates you don't have enough friends.




-or- this means that your freinds gaming background is different than yours

-or- this means your freinds dont play DnD and you game at a store, trying to find some freinds that play..

-or- ...  the list goes on. Its not like my entire world revolves around roleplaying.

gee. perhaps this assumption of the extreme could be a bit offensive and not really needed here?


----------



## Thotas (Sep 17, 2005)

I've been checking this thread frequently, haven't posted to it in a while ... let's just say Raven CrowKing has saved me a great deal of typing.   (Incidentally, RC, your "baker analogy" is called "Social Exchange Theory" by sociologists.  It has a long and well respected history.  In this instance, it basiclly says time is money, and how we spend our time and who we spend it with is governed by the same rules economists apply to capitol.  Except you used cookies instead of time.)  

One small point from a while back I do want to bring up ... someone was differentiating between a strong DM and a good DM.  Now, it's true, I've run into the strong DM who wasn't a good DM and yes, they fuel many nightmare scenarios referred to on this thread and others.  But I've never met a good DM who wasn't a strong DM.  Because any good DM must convey the atmosphere of the world he's running, be it home-brew or store-bought, and to convey it, he has to know it and enforce it.  

The other thing I want to bring up is that I see more and more agreement with DM empowerment.  Various specific points that we pro-DM-Str types make keep getting "Well, yeah, that's obviously the DM's place ... but I knew _this one guy_ ..."   or in the case of some unlucky types, I knew these eight guys.  Those guys aren't relevant.  I quote Shaman from pages past: "Bad DMing trancends rule systems", or some such.  I'll add that Good DMing does, too.  There's a fellow on these boards who calls himself Diaglo who will be more than happy to tell you how few rules you need if your DM is good.  I know, you've said it before --  "Those guys are rare, we need rules to keep the crappy DMs from making a mess of things."  I repeat, Bad DM is stronger than rules.  

The word that it all comes down too, I think, is _trust_.  If you can trust your DM, it'll probably be a good game.  If not, it's a waste of everyone's time.  I suppose letting the players push the DM around is one way to simulate trust, but it'll never work as a substitute for the real thing.


----------



## Nighthawk (Sep 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I don't see it that way. I only play with friends. I only run games to my personal taste; if some my friends aren't into my tastes, we can go for a beer or to a movie instead.
> 
> If you find that you need to significantly amend your GMing style to make your players happy, this indicates you don't have enough friends.




If there was a consistent behavior across the board for how people interact with their friends, I could see your point. IME, different people treat their friends in different ways, especially with regards to expectations. Many people are willing to do things for friends that they would not do for non-friends. 

I am not saying this is true of everyone. It has been something I have noted over the years, and it applies to non-gaming friends as well.

I would also add that there are many people who game who are not friends, thus the dynamic.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I don't see it that way. I only play with friends. I only run games to my personal taste; if some my friends aren't into my tastes, we can go for a beer or to a movie instead.
> 
> If you find that you need to significantly amend your GMing style to make your players happy, this indicates you don't have enough friends.





Good thread, interesting responses....some of which I agree with and some I do not. I think, for me, it boils down to what fusangite said above. I run games that are to my personal taste because what is required of me is a great deal of time and energy. I only set up campaigns that capture my imagination because this is my HOBBY, I am not under contract with my players, I am not getting paid to put in countless hours running something that I personally find a bore. It isn't just an issue of me not liking a certain type of game, but if my heart isn't in it, I will not be a good DM and I will burn out and I will eventually quit to run something else anyway.

If I was a professional ie. paid DM or in other words a designer with certain projects and deadlines I would create and run what you want when you want it, because you have paid me to do so.

This is where the final power of the DM comes into play...the power to run or not run a game. That is the final power and the greatest power. No matter what RAW says, I don't have to run a game I find to be an unenjoyable waste of my limited time. Do players have the power not to play....well yes of course, but the fact remains that good DMs are rather rare and it takes years to become one. Being a player is far, far easier and there are many more good players than good DMs...mediocre players can be coached into being good ones by a good DM. Good DMs are rarely, if ever coached by players into anything. Some of us don't even loike being advised by other DMs.   

So what it bols down to is this. I am a good DM, I create good settings, good plots, believable situations and exciting adventures with memorable NPC and monsters. My players know this to be true. I choose to run the game the manner in which I get to run it period. I take feedback from the players and if possible incorporate good ideas into the game while ignoring what doesn't fit. My players know that this has been the way it has been for 15yrs and it isn't about to change.

If my players what to run a long term evil-aligned campaign they can find another DM. I have tried it and hate running it. If they want to have half-dragon, ninja incantatrix paladins or some other crap in the Dragonlance setting or my own homebrew they can forget it, pick a different character concept. If they want a game where most of there time is spent wandering in dungeons filled with crap that doesn't make any sense, find another DM. You get my meaning. I could just as easily go to a local club and meet a lady to spend some time with as opposed to play a hobby where my job is to serve the whims of my players and I am no longer enjoying myself.

If my players want a campaign that has a strong sense of story, lots of role-playing, good challenging battles, memorable lands and people and tons of internal consistancy and believability (within a fantasy millieu), come and play my game with me. You will have a great time. Within the parmeters of my DMing style and the setting, I guarantee you a good time. If you aren't having a good time I will do anything that does not violate the integrity of my campaign to make sure you have the best time possible.


Chris


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 17, 2005)

> Do players have the power not to play....well yes of course, but the fact remains that good DMs are rather rare and it takes years to become one....Being a player is far, far easier and there are many more good players than good DMs...mediocre players can be coached into being good ones by a good DM. Good DMs are rarely, if ever coached by players into anything. Some of us don't even loike being advised by other DMs.




IMAO, this isn't true. If you DM because you have fun doing it (and I'd encourage those not having fun to stop.  ), then it doesn't matter how much work or not work you put into your campaign, as long as it's fun. You can spend hours a day working up complex mechanisms, or you can think about it for thirty seconds at the game table and as long as eveyrone keeps enjoying themselves, it doesn't matter. Furthermore, working that extra bit doesn't give the DM any special right to inflict his desires on everyone regardless of what they desire. Working that extra bit is a choice, not a chore, and so I don't think that choosing to do something that I have fun doing entitles me to be able to rank my fun as higher than anyone else's. 

Good DM's need good players to be good DM's. The best DM in the world won't run a good game if it's filled with selfish players. The best group of players in the world may suffer under a selfish DM (and then stop involving themselves in the hobby at all because of it). 

Good DM's also need advice, flexibility, and natural leadership qualities, but that's not really here or there.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 17, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Furthermore, working that extra bit doesn't give the DM any special right to inflict his desires on everyone regardless of what they desire. Working that extra bit is a choice, not a chore, and so I don't think that choosing to do something that I have fun doing entitles me to be able to rank my fun as higher than anyone else's.
> 
> Good DM's need good players to be good DM's. The best DM in the world won't run a good game if it's filled with selfish players. The best group of players in the world may suffer under a selfish DM (and then stop involving themselves in the hobby at all because of it).
> 
> Good DM's also need advice, flexibility, and natural leadership qualities, but that's not really here or there.




Well, I think every player has an inner-DM and if a player believes I am inflicing something I him when I am merely a stickler for certain things within the games I run, then he is free to either discover that part of himself and run a game any way he wants or find another DM. You can't inflict anything on anyone that is willingly where they are. If after the first time you don't like it because your expectations are outside the scope of a given millieu, change gamemasters  or DM yourself.

The last paragraph of my post indicates my style of DMing and that isn't going to change. If that is "inflicting" something on someone then they need to get a life where they learn what real challenges are and save the victimization words for a more legitimate set of circumstances.

My fun isn't ranked higher than anyone else's but I guarantee that if I am not having fun there is NO game to be played. The players understand that my campaigns are, within their own parameters, the way they are and certain expectations are a given. If the DM is asked to run a game he doesn't enjoy there is no campaign at all period. I have yet to meet players who thought that I didn't have the right to run the type of games I wish to run. With that power comes the responsibility for their enjoyment which I take seriously but there are types of games that I will not run just like there are game systems I am uninterested in.


Chris


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 17, 2005)

The DMs I play with have no trouble drawing the line.

In my gaming group, we as players do not make any assumptions about any materials outside the Core books.  It is understood that the DM needs time to look over other materials before allowing it into their campaign.


----------



## fusangite (Sep 17, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> fusangite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No... the majority of my RPG-playing friends have a different gaming background than I do and don't especially like my style. That's why I game with a minority of my RPG-playing friends. By the same token, some of the people who play in my game don't normally enjoy RPGs but joined because of the unique style of the game. I have a good-sized, diverse group of friends; many of them have a different gaming background than I do. But I solve this problem not by changing my GMing style but by having more friends and gaming with different friends.







> -or- this means your freinds dont play DnD and you game at a store, trying to find some freinds that play..



If you need to game at a store, you need more friends.







> -or- ... the list goes on. Its not like my entire world revolves around roleplaying.



Neither does mine. If it did, I would have fewer friends and I would not have met/been able to recruit the English literature doctoral candidate or the magazine typesetter who are now two of the most important members of my group.







> gee. perhaps this assumption of the extreme could be a bit offensive and not really needed here?



People are describing a social problem and, in typical ENWorld style, trying to come up with in-game solutions for it. If you have a group of people who are insufficiently compatible with your GMing style, there is nothing you can do to solve the problem other than make more friends.







			
				Nighthawk said:
			
		

> If there was a consistent behavior across the board for how people interact with their friends, I could see your point. IME, different people treat their friends in different ways, especially with regards to expectations. Many people are willing to do things for friends that they would not do for non-friends.



Not to sound like a Savage Love column but isn't it easier to find people with genuinely compatible tastes than to have a relationship based on putting up with things you're not really into for the good of the relationship?







> I would also add that there are many people who game who are not friends, thus the dynamic.



These people need more friends.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If you need to game at a store, you need more friends.



Generalizations of extremes.. and still offensive.

I played at a game store in So. Cal for 5 years.. because my freinds tended to hang out in the area and it was a convienant place to meet at. Met lots of peolpe I would not normally have met and stay in touch with most of them even tho a decade has passed since I left the area.

Anyway.. back to the thread topic:

 Fun, Power, entitlement, .. etc..  Its a game. 

If you enjoy the game, then participate.
If you participate, and its not a solo adventure, understand that you will not have the limelight and the group may not go in the direction you desire.
When this happens, play nice.. be freindly..and enjoy participating when someone else has the spotlight. Don't be selfish.

 And that is mainly what it boils down to. DMs and players who are being selfish. I have played/run in many games where it wasn't quite what I wanted.. kinda like everyone headed out to a movie together. 

 A short example: a Star Wars game where my character became the 'acquisitions expert' and was often off on side treks doing 'business' for the group. Since the DM didn't hand-wave the time.. this meant I was often wandering into the next room and reading/play Magic the Gathering until my character returned from whatever errand he had gone on. Missed alot of play time that way... but became known for returning at the crucial moment with just the right equipment. Had I chosen to pursue a more prominent role in that group of 8 to 13 players....? Who knows. Often times my characters return was pivotal in keeping the group alive and uncaptured...mostly  

Sometimes the needs of the many take precedence over the needs of the few 


That being said.. when I run a game, it will tend to be dangerous and have a depth of plotlines.. some of which become tangled webs of deceits and subterfuge. It doesn't matter what rules I am using, nor does it matter what cool ablities the characters have acquired. The obvous BBEG may not actually be...he could be good, misguided, or a puppet for a bigger BBEG. 
 Regardless.. the adventure will be challenging and.. hopefuly, enjoyable.

YMMV


----------



## The Lost Muse (Sep 17, 2005)

To avoid any questioning of sources outside of the books I have, I make a pdf with all the classes/feats/prestige classes allowed ahead of time.  If people want other feats I consider them.  THank goodness for the open game licence.

Edit: Because the pdf is available for download from my website and I don't want to be sued.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> *whew* For a while there I was thinking you didn't think the DM should compromise. I was, gladly, mistaken. My bad.





I am saying that the DM is not obligated to compromise.  The DM can make any campaign setting he likes, with the intent to run it in any way that he likes.

The players are not obligated to compromise.  The players can create any type of characters they like, with the intent to play them in any way that they like.

However, the DM may wish to compromise if he is trying to create a game for a particular group of players.  Likewise, the players may wish to compromise if they want to play in the campaign world of any particular DM.

Neither side is obligated to the other.  Neither side serves the other.

The degree of compromise is largely an artifact of intergroup dynamic.  Certainly the degree of investment any individual has to a particular idea is going to affect how much they are willing to compromise.  This is actually one of the reasons that tournament modules come with pregenerated characters.  

If the DM discusses campaign set-up with the players prior to starting work, then he is more likely to compromise on larger issues because he has not yet made any huge investment of time or effort.  Similarly, the baker could ask you what type of cookies you want before he starts baking.

Others invest more heavily in their campaign worlds, using them for multiple groups, multiple stories, and multiple characters.  If you asked WotC politely to make major changes to Eberron or the Forgotten Realms, I doubt they would be willing to do so.  They have too much invested in the setting.

Most DMs fall somewhere between those two extremes.  That said, it should be remembered that both the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk began their lives as someone's homebrew campaign world.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> They want to play D&D. I'm not going to force them to accept my way or the highway when it's not nessecary. My game isn't sacred and unchangable; they can tell me what they want and I'll do what I can (what we can all still have fun playing) to accomodate them.





Which is great, if that is what you want to do.

It has nothing to do with sacredness, it has to do with investment.  I do a lot of work designing a campaign setting because I enjoy it.  I want to share my work because I enjoy that, too.  I want to share my work particularly with people who will enjoy the work that I have done, who will add to it and build on it rather than attempting to tear it apart.

Because of this, I can and will say "No".  I can and will say "My game, my rules."  I don't mean that all of D&D is my game; I mean my campaign is my game.  

The thing is, my contention that you have the right to say "No" does not mean that you have an obligation to say "No".  My contention allows us both to play our games in our styles.  We both get to have fun.

Conversely, your contention that the DM can only say "No" when the players let him is not only obviously untrue (You can vote with your feet, but you can't force me to let you play a warforged samurai with the Hand of Vecna), but it also says, in essence, that my saying "No" to protect the intergrety of my investment is wrong.  In other words, it is wrong of me to create something that I enjoy and then seek to share it with others who will also enjoy it rather than find out what a particular group would enjoy and then bend all of my efforts to that end.

Under that arrangement, you get to have fun and I don't.

Politely, I suggest that mine is the superior contention.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2005)

Thotas said:
			
		

> I've been checking this thread frequently, haven't posted to it in a while ... let's just say Raven CrowKing has saved me a great deal of typing.   (Incidentally, RC, your "baker analogy" is called "Social Exchange Theory" by sociologists.  It has a long and well respected history.  In this instance, it basiclly says time is money, and how we spend our time and who we spend it with is governed by the same rules economists apply to capitol.  Except you used cookies instead of time.)





Yup.  I just thought that everyone understood cookies.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If you DM because you have fun doing it (and I'd encourage those not having fun to stop.  ), then it doesn't matter how much work or not work you put into your campaign, as long as it's fun. You can spend hours a day working up complex mechanisms, or you can think about it for thirty seconds at the game table and as long as eveyrone keeps enjoying themselves, it doesn't matter. Furthermore, working that extra bit doesn't give the DM any special right to inflict his desires on everyone regardless of what they desire. Working that extra bit is a choice, not a chore, and so I don't think that choosing to do something that I have fun doing entitles me to be able to rank my fun as higher than anyone else's.





Again, if the DM actually were inflicting his desires upon anyone else, you would have a point.  However, playing is a choice, not a chore.  You choose to play or you choose not to play.  Your choosing to play does not entitle you to rank your fun as higher than anyone else's.


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 18, 2005)

Chris said:
			
		

> My fun isn't ranked higher than anyone else's but I guarantee that if I am not having fun there is NO game to be played.




This seems instinctively odd to me. What's wrong with someone else picking up and running the game? Are you the only person willing to DM in your circle of gamers? If you aren't having fun DMing, don't DM. If no one at the table would have fun with an Arthurian Fantasy except you, don't do it. Similarly, if everyone else is having fun in the dungeon crawl, but you aren't, ask for a change of the game. Or a change of DM. You don't have to run a game you don't enjoy, but that doesn't mean you should tell players who wouldn't have fun playing your kind of game to either acquiesce to you or get lost. This is compromise, which I think a DM has as much to do as any player. You find something that you can all enjoy. Thus, everyone gets to play D&D and have fun, which is the entire point of playing D&D. 

If everyone does have fun playing your way, there isn't really a problem. But that doesn't mean that 3e is wrong for telling players that they can and should have it their way, too. Players have just as  much right to fun as a DM does. No more. No less.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> The degree of compromise is largely an artifact of intergroup dynamic. Certainly the degree of investment any individual has to a particular idea is going to affect how much they are willing to compromise. This is actually one of the reasons that tournament modules come with pregenerated characters.
> 
> If the DM discusses campaign set-up with the players prior to starting work, then he is more likely to compromise on larger issues because he has not yet made any huge investment of time or effort. Similarly, the baker could ask you what type of cookies you want before he starts baking.
> 
> Others invest more heavily in their campaign worlds, using them for multiple groups, multiple stories, and multiple characters. If you asked WotC politely to make major changes to Eberron or the Forgotten Realms, I doubt they would be willing to do so. They have too much invested in the setting.




Nothing at all to disagree with here. And what's not here sounds more like a semantics argument than a substantial one.   



> I do a lot of work designing a campaign setting because I enjoy it. I want to share my work because I enjoy that, too. I want to share my work particularly with people who will enjoy the work that I have done, who will add to it and build on it rather than attempting to tear it apart




That's fine. You don't HAVE to do that work, you know, but as long as you enjoy it, no problem. However, you seem paranoid at the end, there. Affraid that players who aren't particularly thrilled with your work will want to destroy it. This isn't true. Players only want to add to it, to make it something more fun for them. And an inflexible world deprives them of that ability. If the world doesn't please them, and they can't change it so it will please them, they won't be having much fun. This means that whenever a DM delivers his commandments from on high, there is a solid chance, especially with new players or people new to the hobby, that someone won't have fun with it. 

And then, I would say, it is the DM's job to correct that, and help the player to have fun. Just like it is the player's job to make a character who actually wants to go on adventures for the fun of the group. Do you have to? Of course not. It might not be very open minded, but that's not always a big deal. 

If everyone has fun in the closed circuit, it's not a problem. If someone doesn't have fun -- if someone really wants something that you've absolutely disallowed -- it is a problem. And it's not a problem with the PLAYER, who just wants to enjoy the game. It's a problem with the DM, who, quite simply, *won't let them*.

I base this on the idea that bad (selfish) players are just as rare as bad (selfish) DM's. I don't think I've met...any....people who fall into either of those categories in my years of gaming. Maybe one or two, but I can't even be sure about that.

Again, there's no issue if everyone's happy. Be as authoritarian as you like, as long as there's smiles.  But if someone is not happy, it's not because THEY have a problem, it's not because THEY are out to get you, it's not because THEY want to destroy something with some perverse glee, it's not because the rules don't respect you, it's not because DM's are being removed from the game. It is simply because some people want different things. You can't really say that 3e undermines strong DMing just because you've met more players unhappy with inflexible DM's since 2000. It's a false conclusion. It takes a lot of trust and a special kind of personality to be okay with a "strong" DM. Not having that trust and not having that personality is not 3e's fault. You want to bemoan kids these days and their rebellious tendancies, that's a new thread, gramps.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 18, 2005)

Kamikaze,

I am sensing a bit of an entitlement attitude from you and a couple of others posting on this subject. It's strange to see folks who are players and not DMs making claims that somehow the DM is obligated to so as they wish and serve their fun as if the role of DM is entertainment director as opposed to arbiter, setting engineer, storyteller and all around setting management technician. The DM is not obligated to give the players anything that will violate the integrity of the campaign, the story, or the setting. The DM, do to his unique position as holder of the keys to the entire multiverse in which the players are acting, has final say and absolute veto authority regarding anything and everything in his setting. Even the core rules can be challenged and altered if the campaign and the setting require it. PrCs and Core classes can be changed and/or removed as necessary to facilitate the nature of the reality the DM is attempting to convey.

If you played...

Ravenloft
Dark Sun
Dragonlance
Testament
Midnight
Dawnforge
etc.

You have played games where some DMs got together, and having a firm grasp of the basic rules altered them to create a new setting with totally new assumptions regarding what is acceptable in those settings. If a player wants a half fiendish earth elemental ganasi in the Midnight setting the DM should veto this character concept. If a player wants a traditional cleric of Pelor in the Dawnforge setting then the DM should explain why this is inappropriate and veto the character concept.

You get my meaning. Each and every DMs campaign is the same as these published settings in that they are as sacrosanct as the DM decides they are. The players, in agreeing to play a certain setting, whether published or homebrew, they tacitly agree to the overarching assumptions within that millieu. All such assumptions cannot be demonstrated upfront in all cases though the most obvious can and should be made known to the players upfront.

I guess folks who believe that DM is entertainment director for passive players whose only job is to "have fun" should try it sometimes and then tell me that your singular greatest concern is the fun of the players even if said fun undermines countless hours of investment you have put into creating an internally consistant setting. No, folks who DM anything more rigorous and complex than CORE generic will not feel this way if they are being honest.


Chris


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 18, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> This seems instinctively odd to me. What's wrong with someone else picking up and running the game? Are you the only person willing to DM in your circle of gamers? If you aren't having fun DMing, don't DM.




This is instinctively silly.

The fact is that DMs are DMs because we enjoy it and we also DM the kinds of game we enjoy. No DM is going to invest hours and hours into making a setting come alive if he isn't emotionally attached to it. No one in my group wants to DM in my circle because after doing it for 19yrs they respect my rulings and my concepts. None of the others in my circle have any real DMing experience and they keep coming back because they like my style. Even though I am strict in regards to internal consistancy they always have a good time. However, what they can go to have a "good time" is within the firm boundaries of the setting I am running.

Players can "vote with their feet" if they want to run dungeon crawls and create their own campaigns. I am not holding anyone through eldritch magic to my table. No one leaves because they know me and trust me implicitly regarding the game because I have proven myself over the years to be fair whether they disagree with me or not.


Chris


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 18, 2005)

> am sensing a bit of an entitlement attitude from you and a couple of others posting on this subject. It's strange to see folks who are players and not DMs making claims that somehow the DM is obligated to so as they wish and serve their fun as if the role of DM is entertainment director as opposed to arbiter, setting engineer, storyteller and all around setting management technician.




It's strange to see people telling me that I'm not entitled to have fun when playing a game of D&D. That my fun as a player is contingent on the DM's fun. That I am not allowed input into the world despite playing one of it's heroes and/or adventurers. That the DM is entitled to my acquiescence.  



> If a player wants a half fiendish earth elemental ganasi in the Midnight setting the DM should veto this character concept. If a player wants a traditional cleric of Pelor in the Dawnforge setting then the DM should explain why this is inappropriate and veto the character concept....Each and every DMs campaign is the same as these published settings in that they are as sacrosanct as the DM decides they are.




OR....
The DM should run a campaign where the half-fiendish earth elemental genasi or traditional cleric of Pelor is permissable.

Both are valid and I think there should be compromise. If the players want traditional D&D, the DM shouldn't be trying to run a Dawnforge game. Or, if it's just one player, the DM should try to inject a feel that the player is looking for into his Dawnforge game. 

Those campaign settings are NOT sacrosanct, any more than the RAW is. Just as a DM shouldn't throw high AC monsters against a party that doesn't have a fighter, A DM should change his setting or a published setting based on what they'd have fun doing. 



> I guess folks who believe that DM is entertainment director for passive players whose only job is to "have fun" should try it sometimes and then tell me that your singular greatest concern is the fun of the players even if said fun undermines countless hours of investment you have put into creating an internally consistant setting. No, folks who DM anything more rigorous and complex than CORE generic will not feel this way if they are being honest.





For the record, I am a DM 99% of the time. And I think my own role is as the DMGII says: 



			
				The DMG II said:
			
		

> Your job as a DM is simple: to make the game fun for the players and for yourself.
> No other goal takes priority over this one.




FYI, the first thing the original DMG3.5 says about my job as a DM is to provide adventures for the PC's. 

A player has a right to expect a game to be fun. 



> Players can "vote with their feet" if they want to run dungeon crawls and create their own campaigns. I am not holding anyone through eldritch magic to my table. No one leaves because they know me and trust me implicitly regarding the game because I have proven myself over the years to be fair whether they disagree with me or not.




Right. They don't leave because they're having fun. They don't run their own game because they're happy where they are. And some won't be. Some won't have fun with this kind of authority. And they should, I think, be able to have a dialogue with a DM without being told to go fish if they don't like it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Similarly, if everyone else is having fun in the dungeon crawl, but you aren't, ask for a change of the game. Or a change of DM.





In other words, decide that your fun is more important than everyone else's?

KM, you seem to believe that the meaning of the word "selfish" as you apply it to DMs somehow does not apply when you say it here.

You can talk around it in thousands of ways, I feel sure, but at the end of the day intergroup dynamics always come down to one essential fact:  sometimes you have to give a little to get a little.

If you don't want to get a little, fine.  You are not obligated to give a little.

You, however, seem to have some expectation that it is your "right" to get a little without giving anything.  Expecting everyone else to give over their fun game to meet your needs is more than a little selfish.  It is quintessentially childish behaviour.

Whether or not one has to cede a degree of their own "fun" for the benefit of the group is more than a semantics argument.  As much as I enjoy the game, I don't enjoy all of the work all of the time, nor do I enjoy having to tell a player that no, his character cannot begin play with six adamantium swords and a minor artifact that he didn't pay for (happened today).   However, that is part of the job.  Because I want something from someone who is not obligated to give it to me (my players are not obligated to play), I sometimes have to do things that interfere with my personal "fun".  

That is a substantial difference between our positions.

BTW, I am curious whether anyone except KM still believes that this distinction is a "straw man"?




> That's fine. You don't HAVE to do that work, you know, but as long as you enjoy it, no problem. However, you seem paranoid at the end, there. Affraid that players who aren't particularly thrilled with your work will want to destroy it.





Paranoid how?

I stated from the beginning that I have the absolute authority to veto anything within the context of a game that I am running.  Even if a player truly wanted to destroy my work, they do not have the ability to do so.

However, if I am presenting chocolate chip cookies, I prefer that the players I present them to are the kind of players who like chocolate chip cookies.  I am not the slave of the players.  I do not have to DM for anyone.  I choose to DM for people who increase my enjoyment of the game.

It isn't my job to ensure that every potential player has fun.  It is only my job to ensure that those players whom I choose to DM for have fun.  Period.  Whether or not "there is a solid chance, especially with new players or people new to the hobby, that someone won't have fun with it" is immaterial.  Moreover, ensuring that anyone has fun at all is only my job insofar as I decide it is.

Nor does it have to do with kids and their rebellious tendencies.  I do admit that what you are presenting does give the impression that you are either rather young, or rather naive.  

If I offer a game that you want to play in, I am not being selfish.  There is no obligation, and it is an altruistic action on my part.

If I offer a game that you do not want to play in, I am not being selfish.  There is no obligation, and it is an altruistic action on my part.

If I demand that you play in a game that you do not want to play in, I am being selfish.  Now I am attempting to impose an obligation.

If I demand that you run a game the way I want you to run it, I am being selfish.  Now I am attempting to impose an obligation.​
Here's another thing about "fun".  

I've been giving it a bit of thought over the weekend, and I disagree that the purpose of D&D is to have fun.  I mean, yes, the game is supposed to be fun overall.  Yes, the game is supposed to be entertaining.  But that does not mean that this is the only purpose of the game. 

You can easily say the same thing about movies.  Going to the movies is supposed to be entertaining.  Does this mean that movies are supposed to be fun?  Sure, frequently.  Most movies, most of the time, have to be fun or going to the movies would be unbearable.  However, about a year ago a friend of mine convinced me to watch _The Deer Hunter_ (1978).  This is a great movie.  It is not, however, a fun movie.  _Deliverance_ (1972) is not a fun movie, either, nor is _Jack the Bear_ (1993).  But these are all great movies.  

_American Pie_ (1999) is a fun movie.  However, it is not in the same class as _The Godfather_ (1972) or _Philadelphia_ (1993).  

The grimmer, sometimes hard-to-watch films do have their fun moments in some cases, and you can certainly have fun watching them or talking about them later, but their purpose is not to be fun.  Yet they are entertaining.

A D&D game relentlessly modelled after _Boyz n the Hood_ (1991) might be unbearably grim.  On the other hand, one modelled completely for fun (ala the D&D Cartoon, or even _Dungeons & Dragons:  The Movie_ [2001]) presents a game world that is stripped of its meaning.

For me, all fun and no meaning means less entertainment.  Perhaps we should be looking at something broader than mere "fun" from our gaming experiences?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's strange to see people telling me that I'm not entitled to have fun when playing a game of D&D. That my fun as a player is contingent on the DM's fun. That I am not allowed input into the world despite playing one of it's heroes and/or adventurers. That the DM is entitled to my acquiescence.





Ah, KM, where exactly did anyone suggest that the DM is entitled to your aquiescence?




> And they should, I think, be able to have a dialogue with a DM without being told to go fish if they don't like it.





You do realize, don't you, that having "a dialogue" with the DM is a very different thing from claiming that the DM can only say "No" if you let him?  Right?


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 18, 2005)

> Ah, KM, where exactly did anyone suggest that the DM is entitled to your aquiescence?




Well, the idea of "My way or the highway" suggests that there is no dialogue. That I can either agree, or leave. Effectively, that a player must compromise, but a DM doesn't have to (unless he wants to). If I want to play, I need to give up my idea of what is fun and trust the DM's. 



> KM, you seem to believe that the meaning of the word "selfish" as you apply it to DMs somehow does not apply when you say it here.




The key in the quote is the asking. It's not saying "I'm not having fun, we're changing." It's saying "Maybe this would work better?" It's expressing your needs without demanding they be met. Expressing them allows a compromise to be met. Demanding they be met results in a binary absolutism.



> As much as I enjoy the game, I don't enjoy all of the work all of the time, nor do I enjoy having to tell a player that no, his character cannot begin play with six adamantium swords and a minor artifact that he didn't pay for (happened today). However, that is part of the job.




I've never seen DMing as a job. I've never NOT enjoyed what I do. When I tell someone "no," I enjoy it because I know it will make everyone have more fun. And I know it will challenge me to meet their needs in other ways. Six adamantium swords and a minor artifact? Why? What's the need here? And how do I meet that need as a DM?



> You, however, seem to have some expectation that it is your "right" to get a little without giving anything. Expecting everyone else to give over their fun game to meet your needs is more than a little selfish. It is quintessentially childish behaviour.




It is everyone's right to have fun playing a game. It's childish to say that?



> It isn't my job to ensure that every potential player has fun. It is only my job to ensure that those players whom I choose to DM for have fun. Period. Whether or not "there is a solid chance, especially with new players or people new to the hobby, that someone won't have fun with it" is immaterial. Moreover, ensuring that anyone has fun at all is only my job insofar as I decide it is.




No argument here. But I was bringing the argument into the context of the thread. That 3e is not flawed because it lets players expect what they want. Is it right for you? Maybe not. You seem to want something more out of D&D than a night of fun gaming. But that doesn't mean that's what D&D needs to cater to.



> I've been giving it a bit of thought over the weekend, and I disagree that the purpose of D&D is to have fun. I mean, yes, the game is supposed to be fun overall. Yes, the game is supposed to be entertaining. But that does not mean that this is the only purpose of the game.
> 
> You can easily say the same thing about movies. Going to the movies is supposed to be entertaining. Does this mean that movies are supposed to be fun? Sure, frequently. Most movies, most of the time, have to be fun or going to the movies would be unbearable. However, about a year ago a friend of mine convinced me to watch The Deer Hunter (1978). This is a great movie. It is not, however, a fun movie. Deliverance (1972) is not a fun movie, either, nor is Jack the Bear (1993). But these are all great movies.
> 
> ...




Here's a major division between our positions as well. 

Cinema and literature, two things to which D&D is constantly compared, are one-way conduits. The audience for these is passive. The people absorb the information the film or words present. They are labors, works of art. They can be simply entertaining, but then they're popular culture, which can have it's own unintentional artistry. They can be very meaningful, and then they're _Goodfellas_

D&D, however, is a *game*. It's closest analogues are not movies and books, but Poker and Monopoly. All games have some sort of meaning -- all play has some significance. But it is just play. It is safe. It is enjoyable. It is easy. It also has more than one input. A film is one director's vision. A book is one author's creation. Those have a message. A game does not have much of a message. Chutes and Ladders pretty much exhausts its analogic potential in a single metaphor of success. 

For me, trying to add deep and significant meaning to something that is primarily for play is going to devalue them both. Like a "very special episode" of Blossom, it comes off as shallow and disolyal to the true meaning, and as not that much fun. Perhaps isntead of trying to look for something deeper in five folks rolling dice around someone's table and pretending to be gumdrop fairies you should let it be fun, and look for deapth in things that are more capable of challenging your world. 

_Deliverance_ is challenging. It's also an artistic work, a monologue from active film to passive audience. D&D has many active participants. It's also a game, a process of victory and defeat where choices can affect the result.

A D&D campaign based off of _Boyz in the Hood_ may be grim. But it would also carry none of that film's integrity and little of its artistry.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 18, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> OR....
> The DM should run a campaign where the half-fiendish earth elemental genasi or traditional cleric of Pelor is permissable.




It is my right not to run any setting I do not wish to run. There is no discussion around this point because if I don't want to run it I will not devote my time and energy to DMing it. Because my time and energy are necessary to run the setting, what I am averse to doesn't run. I would play in a game where such character types are permissable because very little is required of me. However, I will not DM this type of setting as MUCH MORE is required of me and I am not willing to put in the time investment into a setting that, hypothetically, doesn't interest me.

My desire to run a given type of game trumps all other desires in this regard. DMing is my hobby, for my enjoyment and it is my right to run or not run any game, setting, millieu I see fit. 



> Both are valid and I think there should be compromise. If the players want traditional D&D, the DM shouldn't be trying to run a Dawnforge game. Or, if it's just one player, the DM should try to inject a feel that the player is looking for into his Dawnforge game.




Nope, wrong. I will run what interests me and you may vote by coming to the game sessions or not. Its very simple.



> Those campaign settings are NOT sacrosanct, any more than the RAW is. Just as a DM shouldn't throw high AC monsters against a party that doesn't have a fighter, A DM should change his setting or a published setting based on what they'd have fun doing.




If you enjoy running settings that are a generic mishmash of every available option that is presented to you by your players, feel free. I run games that are consistant to the setting being run. 



> For the record, I am a DM 99% of the time. And I think my own role is as the DMGII says:
> FYI, the first thing the original DMG3.5 says about my job as a DM is to provide adventures for the PC's.
> 
> A player has a right to expect a game to be fun.




Fun is a subjective term and I do my best to make it an interesting, challenging, memorable, compelling role-playing experience for the players. If that is fun for you great, we'll have fun. If you want mindless dungeon crawls focusing on minis and gold accumulation at the expense of character development and versimilitude and whatnot find another DM or run your own game. That could be your fun. I wouldn't play in a game like that as it would bore me. It wouldn't be fun for me to play so I wouldn't involve myself in that DM's campaign. I am not entitled to tell him how to run his game.

Yeah, and i don't need the DMG2 to tell me what to do after nearly 20yrs. I don't care what WoTC's pet policy or philosophy is in this version of the game. The game has been DMed by me successfully before WoTC ever existed and with luck will outlast them as well to wander into the newest DMing philosophy of the next 3 versions of the game and whatever company ownes the Dungeons and Dragons IP rights.


Chris


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, the idea of "My way or the highway" suggests that there is no dialogue. That I can either agree, or leave. Effectively, that a player must compromise, but a DM doesn't have to (unless he wants to). If I want to play, I need to give up my idea of what is fun and trust the DM's.





All social contracts include If/Then statements.  

If you want to play, you must play a game that is available.  The available game may be one in which the DM is willing to compromise, or it may not.  It may be that you have to make the game yourself in order to make it available.  This is tautologically true, and no amount of wishing it were not so is going to change that.

If the DM wants you to play, then s/he must provide a game which you will want to play.  This may, or may not, require a certain amount of compromise on the DM's part.  If the only game you will play in is one in which everyone has to tell you how clever you are every five minutes, and the DM wants you to play, that is the condition.  This is also tautologically true, and no amount of wishing it were not so is going to change that.

However, if you want to play, and if the DM isn't particularly concerned if you in particular are a player, then you -- not the DM -- are going to have to compromise.  For example, say I am playing in a group so large that the table almost isn't big enough, and there are people circling around hoping that one of the players drops out so that they can get a crack at my campaign world.  Well, good luck convincing me I have to change.  What I am doing is certainly working well enough from where I'm sitting.

But let us say instead that it is just you and I sitting at the table, and there isn't another potential player within 100 miles.  You want me to run Game X, but I hate running game X.  Yet Game X is the only game you want to play.  Suddenly, I have to decide whether my distaste for Game X outweighs my desire to run a game.

If this sounds familiar, it should.  This is exactly the situation described by Jackalope King, only in this case the player is singular in his desires.

You know what?  The player is not selfish for being singular in his desires.




> It is everyone's right to have fun playing a game. It's childish to say that?





Yes.

Better to say, "It is everyone's right to choose not to play if they are not having fun" or even "It is everyone's right to try to have fun playing a game."

Your statement carries within it the expectation that others are obligated to do something (play the game, make it fun for you) and assumes that there is some magical formula that makes any Activity X equally fun for all involved.  

After all, if the game is not solitaire, then someone else must be playing.  Even in the case of a computer game, someone must program it, and you have no inherent right to expect that it is programmed to your tastes.  Certainly, you may read reviews and examine advertising to attempt to determine whether or not it meets your tastes.  Hopefully you will have fun.  You do not, however, have a right to have fun.

_The Declaration of Independence_ (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html) says, 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."​
Note, please, that what is self-evident is a right to the pursuit of happiness, not its attainment.  Also, as an aside, anyone interested in the DM/Player question would do well to take a look at the _Declaration of Independence_.  Much of it could have been written to a DM by some disgruntled players.    

You do not have a right to have fun; you have a right to try to have fun.  

There is also the issue of the magical formula that makes everyone have equal fun.  In Narnia, or in Oz, such a thing might exist.  It does not exist in the real world.

It is not difficult to have a campaign in which, overall, most of the people are having fun all of the time.  It is not difficult to have all of the players having fun most of the time.  All the players having fun all of the time?  In a general sense, perhaps, if you open up the parameters of "fun" far enough and make the units of time large enough to prevent the occasional glitches to which human nature is prone from registering.  Realistically, though, this is just using semantics to make a claim that cannot possibly be actualized.

Nothing is fun for everyone all the time.  If it were, there would be even more potential players circling around our table, cash in hand, ready to make us wealthy if we would just game full time.

Most of the people having fun all of the time and all of the players having fun most of the time is about as good as it gets, imho.

Of course, there is no objective method to measure "fun".  Largely, one has to go by the expressions on people's faces, body language, lively chatter, and what they say at the end of (and between) sessions.  

And if they come back.  People don't come back because they are being tortured.  People come back because they are enjoying the experience....even if it is not the *maximum *enjoyment they could receive.  People who are not having fun demostrate this fact by doing something else.

Me, I look at the number of players I'm juggling.  I look at the number of people who want in based on what those players have told them.  I listen to my players.  Then I say, "Heck, gotta be doing something right."  And I am, as I have already admitted, the Worst DM Ever.


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 18, 2005)

> It is my right not to run any setting I do not wish to run. There is no discussion around this point because if I don't want to run it I will not devote my time and energy to DMing it. Because my time and energy are necessary to run the setting, what I am averse to doesn't run. I would play in a game where such character types are permissable because very little is required of me. However, I will not DM this type of setting as MUCH MORE is required of me and I am not willing to put in the time investment into a setting that, hypothetically, doesn't interest me.




You don't have to run anything you don't want to. Maybe someone else would want to? And if not, they're apparently fine with the way things work now and there's no reason to change it. So there's no real argument.



> Nope, wrong. I will run what interests me and you may vote by coming to the game sessions or not. Its very simple.




I never pretended it was complex. My case is that for some people, this isn't fun, and that these people aren't wrong in trying to influence your campaign; they're just trying to enjoy themselves.



> If you enjoy running settings that are a generic mishmash of every available option that is presented to you by your players, feel free. I run games that are consistant to the setting being run.




Everyone plays this game differently. Like a hand of poker or a round of monopoly, there's a million and one ways to do this thing. If you choose to be faithful to the RAW or the setting, that's just peachy. But that doesn't mean that someone is wrong for daring to ask you to consider their enjoyment -- which may include influencing the campaign.



> Fun is a subjective term and I do my best to make it an interesting, challenging, memorable, compelling role-playing experience for the players. If that is fun for you great, we'll have fun. If you want mindless dungeon crawls focusing on minis and gold accumulation at the expense of character development and versimilitude and whatnot find another DM or run your own game. That could be your fun. I wouldn't play in a game like that as it would bore me. It wouldn't be fun for me to play so I wouldn't involve myself in that DM's campaign. I am not entitled to tell him how to run his game.




Agreed. No one should tell you how to run you game. But they can tell you how they would have fun. If your world doesn't allow their fun, and you're not interested in changing, that's fine. Obviously you won't mesh. But they aren't out of line in asking you to consider their desires. 



> Yeah, and i don't need the DMG2 to tell me what to do after nearly 20yrs. I don't care what WoTC's pet policy or philosophy is in this version of the game. The game has been DMed by me successfully before WoTC ever existed and with luck will outlast them as well to wander into the newest DMing philosophy of the next 3 versions of the game and whatever company ownes the Dungeons and Dragons IP rights.




For a guy who runs settings as-written, you're obviously not too concerned with the game as-written.   But there's nothing WRONG with players knowing and asking for what they want. Maybe it doesn't mesh with your playing style, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2005)

KM,

I broke up my reply so as not to confuse multiple issues.




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Here's a major division between our positions as well.
> 
> Cinema and literature, two things to which D&D is constantly compared, are one-way conduits. The audience for these is passive. The people absorb the information the film or words present. They are labors, works of art. They can be simply entertaining, but then they're popular culture, which can have it's own unintentional artistry. They can be very meaningful, and then they're _Goodfellas_
> 
> D&D, however, is a *game*. It's closest analogues are not movies and books, but Poker and Monopoly. All games have some sort of meaning -- all play has some significance. But it is just play. It is safe. It is enjoyable. It is easy. It also has more than one input. A film is one director's vision. A book is one author's creation. Those have a message. A game does not have much of a message. Chutes and Ladders pretty much exhausts its analogic potential in a single metaphor of success.





First off, I was pointing out that entertainment and fun are not always the same thing.  I was not suggesting that D&D should be like a book or a movie.

Might I suggest, however, that there are qualities of books and movies that should be part of a D&D experience.  For example, the action resolution byword of 3.X is "cinematic", right?  Like a movie?

D&D is not literature, nor is it poker.  But if I had to pick, I would say that it is a lot closer to open-ended literature than it is to poker.  (I could have a long discussion, btw, about how literature is a lot less of a one-way conduit than film, but that is probably best left to another thread.)  

You are right when you suggest that I expect more from my D&D experiences than just a night of fun gaming.  My players expect more, too.  Unlike you, we do not expect Chutes and Ladders when we come to the gaming table.  Safe?  Fun?  Sure, but we do not expect it to be easy.

It seems odd to me that including meaning to something would make you see it as "shallow" -- in fact, it seems that logic would dictate that absolving something of depth would make it shallow, not the reverse.

Then again, if you view the game as "five folks rolling dice around someone's table and pretending to be gumdrop fairies," and that works for you, that's fine.  Pursuit of happiness and all that.  I'll even support your right of free speech and agree that you have the right to proclaim that this is the best way to experience D&D.

I will not, however, be joining you.  Nor will you be joining me.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You don't have to run anything you don't want to. Maybe someone else would want to? And if not, they're apparently fine with the way things work now and there's no reason to change it. So there's no real argument.





So I take it you are now in agreement that the DM can say "No" anytime he wishes to?  That the players can attempt to influence him, and failing that they don't have to play?  That they do not have the right to demand anything of him?

Because, if so, then we are in agreement.

There's nothing wrong with anyone knowing, and asking for, what they want.  There's nothing wrong with you asking the baker in the previous example to make you oatmeal cookies instead of chocolate chip.  There's only something wrong if you think that the baker is selfish for choosing not to put forth effort to do what you want.

I agree that it isn't wrong for players to try to influence the campaign setting.  I just said that it is wrong for them to feel entitled to influence the campaign setting.  I.e, it is not wrong for them to suggest that something else might be more fun, but it is wrong for them to claim that the DM can say "No" only when the players let him say "No".

Is this the position you are now advocating?






> For a guy who runs settings as-written, you're obviously not too concerned with the game as-written.





For anyone not playing a Chutes and Ladders/Five Folks as Gumdrop Fairies-style game, setting (nearly) always trumps core RAW.  Rather, there is a setting-specific RAW.  This has come up lots of times already on this thread. 


RC


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 18, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> For a guy who runs settings as-written, you're obviously not too concerned with the game as-written.   But there's nothing WRONG with players knowing and asking for what they want. Maybe it doesn't mesh with your playing style, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.




I think that there might be a bit of a devil's advocate in you, though maybe I am wrong.   

I run settings in the spirit of the setting, sometimes that is as written, sometimes, depending on the freelance writer who is doing the writing, it isn't.

I am of course more inclined to run settings as written as opposed to rules as written because the RAW is designed largely to support a vanilla setting that everyone can grasp both easily and quickly. The settings as written cater to the setting and the internal consistancy of the setting and because the rules are simply tools to support a game of imaginitive, interactive storytelling and adventure I consider the setting to be far more sacrosanct than the RAW.


Chris


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 18, 2005)

> If you want to play, you must play a game that is available. The available game may be one in which the DM is willing to compromise, or it may not. It may be that you have to make the game yourself in order to make it available. This is tautologically true, and no amount of wishing it were not so is going to change that.
> 
> If the DM wants you to play, then s/he must provide a game which you will want to play. This may, or may not, require a certain amount of compromise on the DM's part. If the only game you will play in is one in which everyone has to tell you how clever you are every five minutes, and the DM wants you to play, that is the condition. This is also tautologically true, and no amount of wishing it were not so is going to change that.
> 
> However, if you want to play, and if the DM isn't particularly concerned if you in particular are a player, then you -- not the DM -- are going to have to compromise. For example, say I am playing in a group so large that the table almost isn't big enough, and there are people circling around hoping that one of the players drops out so that they can get a crack at my campaign world. Well, good luck convincing me I have to change. What I am doing is certainly working well enough from where I'm sitting.




What's so wrong with both finding a compromise based on true needs? Why should either side be inflexible? 

Let's take a quote from you and modify it:



			
				RC said:
			
		

> However, DMing is a choice, not a chore. You choose to DM or you choose not to DM. Your choosing to DM does not entitle you to rank your fun as higher than anyone else's.




I agree with the original quote. I feel this one is completely equal. Would you?



> Your statement carries within it the expectation that others are obligated to do something (play the game, make it fun for you) and assumes that there is some magical formula that makes any Activity X equally fun for all involved.




No.

It's not baking cookies for a town. It's picking pizza toppings with some friends. Five different friends want five different things on one pizza. If the guy with the phone says "Look, I want Onions and Anchovies, and I have the phone, so that's what we're getting. You can go have a burger if you don't like it." That's a simple power play, in the most basic sociological sense of the concept. Now, maybe that power play is rewarded. Maybe Anchovies and Onions are the most popular pizza toppings in a ten-mile radius, and people are lining up to eat his pizza. That doesn't mean that he was right, it just means that he's popular. No one was RIGHT. No one was WRONG. It just changed who was eating the pizza.

Now, when I'm the guy with the phone, I'd rather help my friends then be popular. I don't care what EVERYBODY wants, I just want something that my friends will eat and be reasonably content with. Sure, I have the final say, I have the authority. But I'm not going to tell my friends to get lost if they don't like my choice. We'll reach a compromise. Maybe I'll have to pick off the pepperonis, and maybe Ed won't get those green peppers.

It's not a binary absolute. It's a continuum. And the difference between them is merely a difference in goals. 

Now, when extrapolating that to D&D, which do you think the written books should cater to? Which do you think is more common, more frequent, with more potential customers? The man who has a knack to order the most popular pizza around? Or the one that advocates compromise? Would it be wrong for someone to be told it's okay to have sausage if the DM only wants Onions and Anchovies?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 18, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What's so wrong with both finding a compromise based on true needs? Why should either side be inflexible?





If everyone wants to be flexible, that's perfectly fine.  Flexible is a way of doing things. Demanding that someone do something the way you want to do it is not flexible.  Therefore, if I want to do it in way X, and you want to do it in way Y, and way X is mutually exclusive to way Y, then way Z is not necessarily a compromise.  It could just be both of us not getting what we wanted.

Or another way to put it is, neither side should be flexible, except to whatever degree they wish to be flexible.





			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Let's take a quote from you and modify it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





You do know, I hope, that you modified my quote to match your earlier quote, which my quote was a modification of?

You do know, I hope, that you were consistently saying that the DM was supposed to serve the players, and treat the players' fun as more important than his own?

You do know, I hope, that I reversed the quote to show that you were consistently suggesting that the DM's fun was less important than the players' fun in any specific example that arose?

Obviously the quotes are completely equal.  They were intended to be.




> It's not baking cookies for a town. It's picking pizza toppings with some friends. Five different friends want five different things on one pizza. If the guy with the phone says "Look, I want Onions and Anchovies, and I have the phone, so that's what we're getting. You can go have a burger if you don't like it." That's a simple power play, in the most basic sociological sense of the concept.





In your pizza analogy, perhaps.  But it is a poor analogy at best, and the guy with the phone is nonetheless absolutely correct (even if he is a dink).  That you cannot force him to order something is self-evident.

Your analogy presumes either (1) that everyone is paying equally for the pizza, or (2) that one person is paying for the pizza for the express purpose of feeding these five guys.

If (1), then you have a D&D analogy wherein everybody contributes equally to the game.  There is no DM; there is DMing by proxy as all players decide what will happen next.  Or perhaps in the closest reasonable proxy, the DM is running a one-shot canned module in the most simple, plain-vanilla setting and style possible.

I've already covered this.  It that's what you want, fine.  But it isn't what I do when I come to the table, and I doubt my players would be pleased if I started running games in this way.  An examination of these forums will show that your "Chutes and Ladders/Five Folks as Gumdrop Fairies-style game" isn't what many (dare I say most?) people are looking for.

If (2), then I've already dealt with this one too.  If the DM wants you to play, then s/he must provide a game which you will want to play. This may, or may not, require a certain amount of compromise on the DM's part. If the only game you will play in is one in which everyone has to tell you how clever you are every five minutes, and the DM wants you to play, that is the condition. This is also tautologically true, and no amount of wishing it were not so is going to change that.  

In this case, the guy ordering pizza has a specific desire to feed these other folks.  That is his motive.

If the guy has no motive to be popular, he'll simply order what he wants.  Only the most fantastical desire to be popular is based upon some expectation to be popular to everybody.  A desire to be popular is based upon a desire to be liked by a subset of people.  Like the guys you're ordering pizza for.

Another thing:  If the pizza is the adventure you're running, whose actually doing the baking?  I imagine that it is a pizza baker, and that baker is getting compensation for baking your pizza, right?  I also imagine that when you call, you make sure you call the pizza joint that has the toppings you want?  The sauce you like?  The best crust?

My analogy still lurks behind your analogy.  You'd just prefer that it wasn't so visible.


Again, there is nothing wrong with compromise.

Demanding compromise, however, is not compromise.


RC


----------



## Thotas (Sep 18, 2005)

It isn't that DM's fun is less important or more important than player fun.  But player fun is contingent on the DM running some kind of game, and most people (including from what I see, myself, RC and Chris) will fold a game they're running if they aren't having any fun, following KM's advice.  So within the context of a given game, we find that player fun is ultimately contingent on DM fun.  DM fun does not take priority in importance, but it does take priority in existence.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 18, 2005)

KM said:
			
		

> OR....
> The DM should run a campaign where the half-fiendish earth elemental genasi or traditional cleric of Pelor is permissable.
> 
> Both are valid and I think there should be compromise. If the players want traditional D&D, the DM shouldn't be trying to run a Dawnforge game. Or, if it's just one player, the DM should try to inject a feel that the player is looking for into his Dawnforge game.




Pardon me for getting confused on this...

 Lets say you come to my Ravenloft Game.
You want to play a Half-Celestial Archon Blooded Monk with the Vow of Purity from BoEDs.

 I tell you that playing that sort of character in the game will attract the attention of the Demi-plane itself and the characters life will be short and violent as there is no way to defeat Ravenloft itself. The groups characters will also be in harms way for the duration of his existance.. how about playing a different character?

 Am I, per your quote above, supposed to find some way to inject your 'holier than thou and on my way to deification' character concept into the realm *while maintaining setting integrity*?

HA!

 I would indeed allow such a character into the game. The characters life would indeed be short lived...unless I could find a way to currupt the character, which is much better 
 The experience for the group..and for you.. would not be as fun due to your choice of characters.

 I see DnD more like a freeform theatrical play than any game/literature/movie. The DM sets the stage and the players play thier parts. Both need to alter styles in order to incorperate the others.. but the player has to stay on the stage in order to be in the game.
 Its not an obligation.. unless one is paying the other for thier participation.

 I have seen alot of generalizations based on the assumption of extremes recently. This discussion appears to boil down to:
   DMs suck if they never compromise with the players
   Players suck if is they never comprimise with the DM

Those I agree with. However most of the DM's and Players out there *do* compromise together in the spirit of creating the game that is entertaining for _all _ the participants _most _ of the time. 

 KM said he does.
 RC said he does.

 The debate rages on based on andectodal stories that start with 'Dude, back in teh day I had this {dm/player}...."


----------



## Greg K (Sep 18, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> I see DnD more like a freeform theatrical play than any game/literature/movie.



This is pretty much how I view it although I have used the term "cooperative storytelling"


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 18, 2005)

Go to six flags for a day, miss a lot.



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Why do you assume "the players" is a fixed group?




Because that is the way I play. You're free to run a game your way. That's great. If I had to run a game that way, though, I might not play. My group is myself, John, Alan, Angela, and Kevin. That's it. That's how it is. Live with it. Your fun != my fun.



> can both the GM and the players have fun with a compromise play style.




Eight years. Eight years I've been doing it like this. You ask me if it works? You ask if we're having fun? That's a silly question. If we weren't having fun, it wouldn't have lasted eight years. Sure, the group has changed. People move, I invite other friends to come over and play every other weekend. Only two are left from the origional group (half the player pop though). One person drove six hours on weekends to play my game during the Summer. And, you ask if its fun.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 18, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am saying that the DM is not obligated to compromise.  The DM can make any campaign setting he likes, with the intent to run it in any way that he likes.




The DM isn't obligated not to kill all the PCs in the first minute of an advenure on a whim with lightning from the sky either. Saying a DM doesn't _have_ to do something means absolutely nothing to me. What we should be discussing is what is a DM _supposed_ to do to run a good game. You can keep saying noone is obligated to do anything. Well, that's great. They arn't obligated. Should they? If I ask "should a good DM compromise?" and you answer, "he isn't obligated to," that is effectively the same as responding, "no, he should not compromise," for all intents and purposes.



> The players are not obligated to compromise.  The players can create any type of characters they like, with the intent to play them in any way that they like.




The players should compromise. They should talk with the DM and determine what kind of game is going to happen, then they make characters based on the game. If we decide to run a Ravenloft campaign, then the players know what to expect. Likewise, if they agree to play in a game that takes place in remote barbarian lands, then they know how to create characters that fit into that environment.

In other words, the Players shouldn't be expected to try to break the internal consistancy. That would be counter-productive, and if you have players who enjoy being counter-productive, the fault isn't with the DM being too lenient, the problem is with the players themselves.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 18, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's strange to see people telling me that I'm not entitled to have fun when playing a game of D&D.



I haven't heard anyone say anything of the kind - what I have read is that fun for one group may not be fun for another.

"Fun" is a moving target in this context.







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That my fun as a player is contingent on the DM's fun.



Conversely the GM's fun is contingent on the players' fun - everyone in the game should be enjoying themselves.

That doesn't mean that every single thing that everyone at the table would like to see will be included in every game. I may think that it would be fun for run a rogue who's a second-story man, spending all of my time in the city burgling rich merchants, but if the rest of the players and the GM are headed off on a dungeon crawl or a wilderness trek, then my thief will join the rest of the adventurers and dream of stolen rubies until next they return to town.







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That I am not allowed input into the world despite playing one of it's heroes and/or adventurers.



As a player you do have input into the world - your character may well shake the world to its literal foundations over the course of several campaigns, to the point of doing battle with the gods themselves.

However, if the GM says there are no elves in the setting, there are no elves.

You can certainly ask for anything you want - you should not have an expectation of getting it just because you asked, however.







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That the DM is entitled to my acquiescence.



Yes, the GM is entitled to your acquiescence *if you join the GM's game.*

You are not obligated to play in that game. Once you join the game however, you do agree to submit to the GM's vision of the setting. You can certainly ask if your character can take this feat or that prestige class, but you do not have the right to get twisty about it if the GM says no nor do you get to decide if the reason is "good enough" or not. That is the GM's perogative. Your perogative is to leave if the game isn't working for you at that point.

That a GM is provided with this role in the game is contingent on presenting something that the players will enjoy, which generally means offering the player interesting options for classes and races, writing an variety of adventures types such as dungeon crawls and wilderness treks and artistocratic intrigue, and creating an immersive setting filled with interesting places, creatures, and peoples. The fact that a GM can severely limits player options doesn't make it a good idea in many cases, nor does it mean that players are in any way obligated to play that GM's game.







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> OR....
> The DM should run a campaign where the half-fiendish earth elemental genasi or traditional cleric of Pelor is permissable.
> 
> Both are valid and I think there should be compromise.



This quote is the crux of the matter. *Kamikaze Midget*, there is a fundamental disconnect here between what you believe and what the core rules say: whole sections of the _DMG_ describe campaign- and world-building, including choosing the classes, races, and deities that fit the setting that the GM creates. That is the rules as written: there is no "should" with respect to character classes, there is no "valid" other than what the GM indicates is appropriate for the game.

Your argument falls apart when you insist that one set of rules (character classes, monster races, core-book deities) trumps another set of rules (world-building, the GM's role). 







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Just as a DM shouldn't throw high AC monsters against a party that doesn't have a fighter...



The _DMG_ suggests that there are a couple of different ways to approach encounter development. To paraphrase, one is the tailored approach, in which encounters are crafted to challenge the party's abilities, and the other is the status quo approach, in which the world exists as it is and the party must adjust to meet it.

I personally favor the latter approach which means in this context if the party is deficient in one or more areas of expertise, it's up to the players to find ways to strengthen their weaknesses. I don't pull my punches if the players don't create a well-rounded party of adventurers.

The idea that a party of wizards should run around and never encounter a high AC opponent would destroy the verisimilitude of the setting for me as a player or GM.







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ...a DM should change his setting or a published setting based on what they'd have fun doing.



*_sigh_*

It may surprise you to know that I recently did exactly this: we changed games based on the fact that the players wanted to try something different. I was running a historical fantasy game: one of the players really loved the genre, another found it interesting, but two others were feeling a little lost - they were having trouble with the historical aspects of the game, so it was making it difficult to relate to their characters and roleplay them the way they wanted to. When we concluded our last adventure, I suggested trying something different, a future/apocalypse game instead. We started it last weekend, and the first adventure went really well.

Do I think this is how it "should" work? Yes, and most definitely no.

Yes, the GM should offer a game that players want to play, unless the GM wants to sit home alone on Saturday night. This is the broad brush stroke.

Most definitely no, in that "should" as it's used here implies an expectation and an obligation on the part of the GM to make the campaign an amalgam of what players want to see, a POV that is simply unsupported by the rules themselves. This is the fine penwork.

A couple of the players expressed the opinion that playing a more contemporary game would be fun, and I obliged them with a post-apocalypse game - that is the broad stroke. The game is based on a variety of Seventies movies such as _Logan's Run, Planet of the Apes, Zardoz,_ and so on - if one of the players wanted to play a mutant character with six arms, the answer would be no, as mutations are not available to the adventuerers at the start of the game, based on setting considerations. This is the detail work.

So what's my point? The game is a social contract: the GM offers a game that entices players to join, and the players accept the GM's vision for the setting. It's a reciprocal relationship. If I understand you correctly, you would call this a compromise, but I disagree - no one compromises anything in this instance. It is rather a reflection of their mutual interest.


----------



## fusangite (Sep 18, 2005)

Shaman,

That was awesome. It's the first ENWorld post I would describe as "magisterial." It should join the archive.







			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Because that is the way I play. You're free to run a game your way. That's great. If I had to run a game that way, though, I might not play. My group is myself, John, Alan, Angela, and Kevin. That's it. That's how it is. Live with it. Your fun != my fun.



What would happen if you had more friends who wanted to play in a game than spaces in the game for players? Once you reach this situation, as I did 17 years ago, how do you proceed?







> Eight years. Eight years I've been doing it like this. You ask me if it works? You ask if we're having fun? That's a silly question. If we weren't having fun, it wouldn't have lasted eight years.



Forgive me not finding this to be an obvious answer but I have too many friends who have gone through divorces recently.   Anyway, I'm glad to hear your style works for your group.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 18, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> What would happen if you had more friends who wanted to play in a game than spaces in the game for players? Once you reach this situation, as I did 17 years ago, how do you proceed?




That happened, and sadly, I had to let the new players go. Five Players is really the max I want to DM for. Seven is pushing my limits to giveing individual attention, and more than that and I'm like a newbie DM again.

Ironically, soon afterward, people's life issues popped up, and the group dropped to three (including myself) for a while. That showcases the downside of having not enough people as well, when your friends don't have the time to give to gaming.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The DM isn't obligated not to kill all the PCs in the first minute of an advenure on a whim with lightning from the sky either. Saying a DM doesn't _have_ to do something means absolutely nothing to me. What we should be discussing is what is a DM _supposed_ to do to run a good game.





Sure, we could discuss that...but that would be a different thread topic.

The topic of this thread relates to whether or not the DM is ultimate arbitrator in the game, to whether or not WotC or other agencies are fostering a sense of entitlement to some other form of arbitration among players, and whether or not that is a good thing.

"Tips for Great DMing" would be a wonderful thread.  It just isn't this thread.


RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 19, 2005)

Wait, wait, wait.

You're relating this to the topic at hand? I thought this was some tangent that people had gone into because we broke several hundred posts already. That makes this simpler.

The origional poster had the feeling that the books inferred that the DM can't say no. This is, of course, innacurate. The books infer not that the DM shouldn't say no, but they do imply that there is nothing wrong with saying yes. Historically, the books empowered the DM so that it was his job to say no except when it suited him. Historically, the DM was in a more adversarial relationship with the Players. This is no more.

I refer to to my post in another thread.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> A big change from previous editions is that the players are now supposed to know the rules. When the players know the rules, the DM loses much power. Back in the day, players were afraid to read the DMG because of the righteous wrath that would surely be inflicted upon them if they dared desecrate the book. Even in 2E that was the case. If the players don't know the rules, then the DM has got much more of a grip on the game. Not only through knowlege, but through the player's fears of what they don't know.




Previously D&D was like playing poker where only the dealer knew the rules. You could bet and you knew that the more similar cards you had the better, and an inkling that consecutively numbered cards were good. But, beyond that, you had to rely on the dealer to tell you who wins. Now, the Players can look at the hands they are dealt and have a good idea of where they stand in the game, even if they can't see everyone else's cards.

So, the DM can't alter the rules as much as he could, becuase the Players now know the rules. Before he could say that having the hand 5, 6, 7, 8, A was almost as good as a straight. Now he can't. He could outright say that a PC can't jump a 10' pit, and now he can't say that, because the rules cover jumping and the Player knows them.

This isn't about DMs having control over what comes into their games. That isn't where the real power comes from, and it never really was. DMs used to be encouraged to kill PCs. Now they arn't. They used to be taught to keep the rules from the Players, and now they're right there for the Player to read. Heck, they're marketing traditional DM only books to Players now!

So, we bring this around to the DM allowing or disallowing something. Now, the game is more balanced with the idea that everything that is written will work in a traditional, generic, D&D game. Before this wasn't really the case. Especially in 2E there was an arms race going on. Things would be unbalanced and it was the DM's job to adjudicate things so that his game stayed balanced if that's what he wanted. The idea wasn't to allow things, it was to disallow things. A DM _had to_ disallow things or his game would soon spiral out of control.

That isn't the case anymore. You can play a vampire fiendsh half-dragon PC in a game and it won't be unbalanced, it will probably be weak. So, now the DM disallows this only if it won't fit his campaign. Before the DM would disallow it if it wouldn't fit the campaign or because of a rules consideration (unbalancedness for one). So, now the DM has half the reason to disallow it.

So, the DM is less likely to say no nowadays. Wanna play a bladesinger? In 2E I balked at the idea of letting that kit into my games. I didn't care that it fit a character. It was overpowered and there was no way it was going in. Now? It's a PrC and its balanced for play. I can now allow the bladesinger PrC into my game as an attainable goal for a PC whereas before I would have said no.

So, for these reasons I have to say that 3E is definately giving to the Players, and that the DM's job is not only easier, but it is a lot more flexible in terms of saying "Yes."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2005)

Well, see, now we agree.


RC


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 19, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, see, now we agree.




Woohoo!

*wonders how much that misunderstanding padded his postcount*


----------



## helium3 (Sep 19, 2005)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> Sure there can. The DM can be something other than a bubbling pot of ego and try to make things _fun for the group_ as opposed to _fun exclusively for him/herself_.




You're entirely correct that both the players and the DM's need to have fun. That's the point of the game. Sometimes though, I think that players lose sight of the idea that what's fun for players isn't necessarily fun for DM's. 

With players, generally the enjoyment of the game is rolled up in creating characters, running them through encounters, watching them become more powerful and building up a group oral history about things that have happened in and out of game.

With DM's, they don't quite get to do this. Yes the DM gets to participate in creating the oral history by being the person that places the encounters, but it's not the same as being one of the people controlling the prime movers. As the DM, you never really get to "win" or do anything pro-active. I think it's a bit analgous to the differences between the coach of a team and the players of said team. Sure the coach has significant input into the success of the team as a whole, but it's the players that are ultimately responsible for whether or not games are won.

From my experience, players often need to make sure that they pay attention to what it is that makes a DM's experience enjoyable. Obviously, if being an egomaniac and punishing players is what floats the DM's boat, the players should find someone else to do the job. I think that many DM's find the game most enjoyable when the players show interest in the setting, start asking questions about it and try to play characters that "fit." Things become problematic when players insist on running characters that don't "fit" and generally don't give a thought to whether or not what their characters are doing things that make sense within the context of the setting. 

Conversely, DM's need to take time to find out what it is that their players find enjoyable, and modify their setting to incorporate that. However, given the burden of work necessary on the part of the DM to get the game rolling, I think the lions share of compromise is on the part of the players. They need to find a way to satisfy whatever itch it is that's motivating them within the context of what the DM is attempting to create. If they can't satisfy that itch, then the DM should generally find a way to allow it to be satisfied, unless the itch is something like "I want to be the best and make all the other players feel inadequate."

All in all, this IMHO optimal style of gaming requires a lot of communication between DM and Player about what both roles want out of the game. If this communication doesn't happen or either side is unwilling to compromise, then the game generally sucks for some if not all of the people involved. In situations where someone wants something radically different and is unwilling to compromise, it's best to just cut the losses and ask that person to leave. After all, the point is to have fun, not dread gaming sessions.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 19, 2005)

ThirdWizard... By quite a lot   

 But now that you and Raven Crowking have answered the original posters question.. to which I completly agree with your analysis... we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread hijack


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 19, 2005)

*My 2¢*

There are a LOT of books out there...

While I own many of them, I'm not the only DM in the group, and the current consensus among the other DM's is that they do not use ANY of them except the core and the class books.  Some core classes get disallowed on occasion, like Paladins and Monks.  Psionics?  Don't even ask.

And even when I'm the DM, the players tend towards the familiar.

I have, in other threads, griped about plain vanilla D&D for the past 10 years- I can't even get them to try other RPGs- but I have NEVER felt entitled to play a particular class or PrCl...nor have I ever felt pressure to screw my campaign by allowing a player to design a PC that doesn't fit the campaign.

If I'm running a stone-age fantasy campaign, you can be sure that there will be NO Warforged PCs.  When I ran my last campaign in which all of the races were sentient animals, there were NO Dwarves, Elves, Humans, Orcs, Half-Demon Genasi, etc.

I see the proliferation of books as just a natural growth of the hobby towards increasing options in _all_ RPGs.  The original RPGs were fairly rigid, but the rise of point-based systems and RPGs based on sources other than JRRT touched off peoples' imaginations.  These days, any system or setting that controls PC creation too much is going to be shunned.  Thus, while not as flexible as a system like HERO, GURPS or Mutants & Masterminds, 3Ed's flexibility is greater than all previous editions of D&D because of all those wonderful books, WOTC and otherwise.

But the "Set of Choices" available in all of those books is perforce going to be limited by the DM's campaign design to the "Set of Campaign Choices."


----------



## Testament (Sep 19, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> So what's my point? The game is a social contract: the GM offers a game that entices players to join, and the players accept the GM's vision for the setting. It's a reciprocal relationship. If I understand you correctly, you would call this a compromise, but I disagree - no one compromises anything in this instance. It is rather a reflection of their mutual interest.




Dude, I am framing this quote on one panel of my frickin' screen.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 19, 2005)

#507 is a great post, ThirdWizard.  But I'm curious.  Do you believe that there's no arms race whatsoever in 3.x?  I could see the case being made for prestige classes and templates, etc.  But spells, IMO, clearly get more powerful with each successive splatbook...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 19, 2005)

/follow ThirdWizard


----------



## Belen (Sep 19, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So, the DM can't alter the rules as much as he could, becuase the Players now know the rules. Before he could say that having the hand 5, 6, 7, 8, A was almost as good as a straight. Now he can't. He could outright say that a PC can't jump a 10' pit, and now he can't say that, because the rules cover jumping and the Player knows them.




Good post.  However, I was never advocating a relationship where I created rules and hid them from the players.  I was saying that the players do not have the right to demand that certain rules be added to the game.  Certain rules are "add-on" to the system, such as PrCs or feats.  There should be no assumption of "yes" where these are concerned.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So, we bring this around to the DM allowing or disallowing something. Now, the game is more balanced with the idea that everything that is written will work in a traditional, generic, D&D game. Before this wasn't really the case. Especially in 2E there was an arms race going on. Things would be unbalanced and it was the DM's job to adjudicate things so that his game stayed balanced if that's what he wanted. The idea wasn't to allow things, it was to disallow things. A DM _had to_ disallow things or his game would soon spiral out of control.
> 
> That isn't the case anymore. You can play a vampire fiendsh half-dragon PC in a game and it won't be unbalanced, it will probably be weak. So, now the DM disallows this only if it won't fit his campaign. Before the DM would disallow it if it wouldn't fit the campaign or because of a rules consideration (unbalancedness for one). So, now the DM has half the reason to disallow it.




I disagree here.  This dynamic has not changed.  The idea that all new options are balanced is part of the problem.  All new options in 3e are not balanced against one another.  Some options are clearly superior than others.  If anything, the veneer of balance means that a DM has to be more wary about supplments these days, especially considering how additions can alter the complexity of the rules.  The tight rules set works against itself in that it's base is almost like a house of cards.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So, the DM is less likely to say no nowadays. Wanna play a bladesinger? In 2E I balked at the idea of letting that kit into my games. I didn't care that it fit a character. It was overpowered and there was no way it was going in. Now? It's a PrC and its balanced for play. I can now allow the bladesinger PrC into my game as an attainable goal for a PC whereas before I would have said no.




2e had the bladesinger.  3e has the Hulking Hurler.  



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So, for these reasons I have to say that 3E is definately giving to the Players, and that the DM's job is not only easier, but it is a lot more flexible in terms of saying "Yes."




And here we disagree.  I think it is more difficult in 3e.  In 2e, if a kit was horribly overbalanced, it was fairly easy to compensate.  You could change core rules to fit the existance of the unbalanced kit.  In 3e, an option that is unbalanced is far more difficult to deal with.  The core rules of the game are so tighly woven that you cannot easily modify things to fit the circumstances.  This place the DM in the position of saying no while the "rules" give the impression that things are "balanced."

In 3e, there is no tool that allows a DM to readily evaluate new options.  It requires a lot of work to test out new classes, feats, etc.  You cannot just assume that the new options will even fit a generic game.  And there are so many rules that even WOTC designers cannot see where a new rules will interact with all the others.

This may be different if 3e fostered strong DMs with the power to say no, but this is not the case.


----------



## Quasqueton (Sep 19, 2005)

> In 2e, if a kit was horribly overbalanced, it was fairly easy to compensate. You could change core rules to fit the existance of the unbalanced kit. In 3e, an option that is unbalanced is far more difficult to deal with. The core rules of the game are so tighly woven that you cannot easily modify things to fit the circumstances.



Isn't this backwards? If an option/kit is unbalanced, shouldn't you change the option/kit rather than the core rules?

Quasqueton


----------



## Hussar (Sep 19, 2005)

I'm still confused as to how people can say that the DM's ability to say no has been eroded in 3e.  Admittedly, I don't buy an awful lot of supplements, but, simply looking at Dragon, I see the mantra, "You must ask your DM to okay this idea" repeated in just about every issue.

How does that jive with the idea that players are being entitled?  How much more support can a DM want from the rules than to have the rules specifically state that it is entirely up to the DM to allow a new rule?  Don't like Hulking Hurlers?  No problem, nerfed.  

3e rules repeatedly state that X is optional.  If you don't like X don't use it.  Any optional rule is the perview of the DM.  Again, how much support do you want?


----------



## Belen (Sep 19, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Isn't this backwards? If an option/kit is unbalanced, shouldn't you change the option/kit rather than the core rules?
> 
> Quasqueton




No, I am saying that fixing it requires changing the rules, which is hard to do in 3e.  So the easiest option is to say "no."


----------



## Quasqueton (Sep 19, 2005)

> No, I am saying that fixing it requires changing the rules, which is hard to do in 3e. So the easiest option is to say "no."



Sorry, but I'm still not following this. If X option is "broken", why is changing the _core rules_ the "fix"?

Quasqueton


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 19, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> #507 is a great post, ThirdWizard.  But I'm curious.  Do you believe that there's no arms race whatsoever in 3.x?  I could see the case being made for prestige classes and templates, etc.  But spells, IMO, clearly get more powerful with each successive splatbook...




There definately was before 3.5. I think they tried to reign it back in after that was released with the new books (I don't have a whole lot so I could be wrong) and we might see the Spell Compedium going back and toning down some of the more powerful spells. If we see that, then its definately diminished, if we see it reprinting some of those powerful spells without any change, then I'll agree that we've got a problem with an arms race in spells.



			
				BU said:
			
		

> Good post. However, I was never advocating a relationship where I created rules and hid them from the players. I was saying that the players do not have the right to demand that certain rules be added to the game. Certain rules are "add-on" to the system, such as PrCs or feats. There should be no assumption of "yes" where these are concerned.




I wasn't saying you were hiding rules from the players. I was saying previous editions of the game were hiding rules from the players. The thread title starts with the "word" 3E. So, as opposed to previous editions. And, in previous editions, the rules were quite clearly hidden from the players.

Secondly, it's not about asumptions of yes. It's about a _non-assumption of no_. These arn't the same thing, though its a fine line, but a very important one.



			
				BU said:
			
		

> I disagree here. This dynamic has not changed. The idea that all new options are balanced is part of the problem. All new options in 3e are not balanced against one another. Some options are clearly superior than others. If anything, the veneer of balance means that a DM has to be more wary about supplments these days, especially considering how additions can alter the complexity of the rules. The tight rules set works against itself in that it's base is almost like a house of cards.




Supplements are highly more balanced than they were during previous editions. Now we have things like LA to balance being a monster, for instance, whereas before we had roleplaying penalties. For all the flack that psionics gets in 3E it doesn't hold a candle to the brokenness of 2E Psionics Handbook. And don't go into Skills and Powers.

No. The vast majority of what is released nowadays is balanced with the core rules. We just don't hear about it on the boards because there's nothing to complain about or it isn't uber enough to go on about. I have so far allowed just about everything my Players have wanted to use so far in my games. Show me a WotC book that is even 50% overpowered material relased in 3.5. I don't think one exists. If you exclude BoVD and BoED I can't think of one for 3.0 either.



			
				BU said:
			
		

> 2e had the bladesinger. 3e has the Hulking Hurler.




2E had a lot more than the bladesinger. It had the Book of Elves. Or whatever. I can't remember the name exactly.



			
				BU said:
			
		

> In 3e, there is no tool that allows a DM to readily evaluate new options. It requires a lot of work to test out new classes, feats, etc. You cannot just assume that the new options will even fit a generic game. And there are so many rules that even WOTC designers cannot see where a new rules will interact with all the others.




What tools in 2E did we have to determine balance that we don't have in 3E? Indeed, it is easier to determine balance in 3E than 2E. For example, classes. In 2E every class had not only different abilities, THAC0, etc, but they had different XP tables. You had to determine if a (made up numbers) 5th level Theif was equal to a 2nd level Paladin. Now, you can compare straight up the Hexblade, Warlock, and other new classes to see if they are balanced.

You can compare feats to existing feats. First tier to first tier. Second tier to second tier. Mid level to mid level. You can compare PrCs easily. There are no roleplaying disadvantages trying to balance out crunch. In 2E I had a guy make an insanely tweaked guy using several different books with cross referenced abilities that interacted with each other to make him a killing machine. That isn't something unique to 3E. It was _easier_ in 2E.

So, in summary, in 2E, the guy who wanted to play the lycanthrope couldn't do it because he would be overpowered as compared to the rest of the party. In 3E we don't have to worry about such issues, and the DM is free to say yes if he wants instead of being basically forced to say no if he wants to run a balanced game, even if he likes the concept. 




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm still confused as to how people can say that the DM's ability to say no has been eroded in 3e.




The ability to say no hasn't been eroded. He can still say no. He can just more easily say yes.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 19, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The ability to say no hasn't been eroded. He can still say no. He can just more easily say yes.



Yes, this is what got me to reply to the thread in the first place.  Since most books actually ARE balanced (or at least MOSTLY balanced) now, rather than in previous editions where you had to restrict 90% of the content to avoid going insane.

I've found that a lot of DMs seem to come from 2nd Edition (or possibly other RPGs) where the system and splat books were not balanced.  They are so used to banning everything that they do it without thinking now.  The slightest reason means they'll change a rule they don't like or ban an entire book without trying them.

Then they'll complain that I DO allow them and I'm creating players that expect to use those books in their games.  And that WOTC is a money grubbing company who serves only one purpose, to "undermine their authority".

Or it could be that they are trying to design an internally consistant game that allows those who don't want to make up house rules to not have to.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2005)

ThirdWizard,

Now that we have the bigger issue of the authority of the DM out of the way to almost everyone's satisfaction (DM has authority, but should not necessarily use it in some ways), we get down to the far more contentious "How should the DM self-limit his own authority" portion of the thread.

I think, in this case, that many of the tricks of poor DMs and good DMs are the same tricks.  The difference lies in application and motivation.  For instance:




			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I wasn't saying you were hiding rules from the players. I was saying previous editions of the game were hiding rules from the players. The thread title starts with the "word" 3E. So, as opposed to previous editions. And, in previous editions, the rules were quite clearly hidden from the players.





Do I hide rules from players?  Yes.  Guilty as charged.  I said so far upthread, and I am reaffirming it here.  I hide rules from players.  The critical thing, I think, is "What sort of rules, and why?"

The rules I hide tend to be new monsters, prestige classes that their characters would not have accurate information about (i.e., they do not get to know the special class abilities of every evil cultist they meet), local-area feats or feats that have prerequisites they cannot meet (i.e., race-based, where the race is "troglodyte" and no PC can be a troglodyte), hidden ramifications of cosmology (including the specific nature of an alternate planar cosmology), and things of that nature.

Why do I do this?  Because I believe that it adds to versimilitude, and ultimately to the enjoyment of all involved.  Players like to know ahead of time what the creatures can do.  However, players end up rehashing and bragging about the time they faced foes with unknown abilities and triumphed.  

Players like to be surprised.




> Secondly, it's not about asumptions of yes. It's about a _non-assumption of no_. These arn't the same thing, though its a fine line, but a very important one.





I know that sometimes these things sound like they are splitting hairs, but this is as valid as my distinction between a DM who makes changes because he wished to please the players, and a DM who is obligated to make changes.  They are very different animals.

So, in other words, I agree with you here.

Let me also say this:  prestige classes were one of the best tools 3.X gave us for versimilitude, in that DMs can create groups specific to place, species, and/or culture.  The generic "this class is for everyone" idea, imho, is less compelling.  Not only that, but if the choices players are allowed to make do not include some limitations imposed by those choices (i.e., if I am an elf I can never be a dwarven defender), it lessens the value of the ability to choose.

Players should get to choose between options that combine strength with weakness, rather than merely choosing how to further compound strength.  Obviously, YMMV, but this is necessary in what I would see as an optimal game from either side of the screen.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 19, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Then they'll complain that I DO allow them and I'm creating players that expect to use those books in their games.  And that WOTC is a money grubbing company who serves only one purpose, to "undermine their authority".





Whoever complained about what you allow in your campaign?

Every single DM on this thread, in all posts, who suggested that DMs have the ultimate authority to arbitrate within their games, has also either implicitly or explicitly said that the same holds true for you in your game.


RC


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 19, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> 2e had the bladesinger.  3e has the Hulking Hurler.



Here's where we disagree.  The two aren't related at all.  We have a Hulking Hurler in our game, he's not overpowered.  If anything, he's underpowered.

This is mainly because the DM used the existing rules and said "Hmm, a rock sized for you likely does about 3d6 damage given the sizing rules."  And he became the guy who threw rocks as a role playing device rather than because it was overpowered.

I have yet to see an option as overpowered yet, except for a couple problems that occur when you combine at least 3 feats or PrCs that work in strange ways with each other or rely on a vague interpretation of the rules.  We've always fixed these by simply ruling that the opposite interpretation of the rules in the correct one.

Recently, we've discussed Power Attack, the Orb Spells from CA, Mass Fire Shield, Wraithstrike, Frenzied Berzerker, and Persistant Spell as all being possible candidates for house rules.  Each time I'm about to change one, I realize that it is only really useful in a specific circumstance and that it hasn't been especially useful in multiple sessions, so I allow it to stay as it is.

Still, even if I'm right and that is the list of "broken" rules items, that still means that 95% of all items put out are fine.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 19, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Whoever complained about what you allow in your campaign?



I assumed it.  I figured that if players were expecting that ALL options were allowed in your game, and that the books themselves did not appear to encourage this, it is likely because there were too many game out there allowing them to be everything that they have begun to think this is the norm.

Or pehaps the "average" game is now closer to a RAW game with all splat books so it is considered the norm, so those DMs who are running games away from the RAW and disallowing a lot are getting frustrated?


----------



## fusangite (Sep 20, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Yes, this is what got me to reply to the thread in the first place.  Since most books actually ARE balanced (or at least MOSTLY balanced) now, rather than in previous editions where you had to restrict 90% of the content to avoid going insane.
> 
> I've found that a lot of DMs seem to come from 2nd Edition (or possibly other RPGs) where the system and splat books were not balanced.  They are so used to banning everything that they do it without thinking now.  The slightest reason means they'll change a rule they don't like or ban an entire book without trying them.



Balance is not the reason most of us exclude certain options; world coherence is. It is very hard to suspend disbelief when the contents of every single splatbook are simultaneously true. If you don't make your world aesthetically or culturally coherent, you are in danger of turning right back into a wargame.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 20, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Do I hide rules from players?  Yes.  Guilty as charged.  I said so far upthread, and I am reaffirming it here.  I hide rules from players.  The critical thing, I think, is "What sort of rules, and why?"




Hiding certain rules is an important part of the game, and the decision on what to include and exclude is also one of the things that separates a good DM from a bad one. I hide things too.

That's not really what I was talking about, though.

This is hyperbole, but like all good satire it is based on truths. 

I see a difference between hiding a rule so that the Players can experience more wonder toward the world and hiding rules because you don't want the Players to know how something works. There was a sense that part of the DM's control of the game hinged on the Players not being aware of certain things. This gave DMs more leeway in rulings because the Players don't know if the DM is actually following the rules.

I think that's a classic case of hiding rules for the wrong reason. Like you said, two DMs can make the same decision, but the reason behind the decision determines if it is a good one or a bad one. That will determine the pattern of how the DM behaves in that regard. 

Players should always know the abilities of their own PCs, for example, IMO. A wizard should even know how suchandsuch spell behaves on an incorporeal creature, I think. They just might not know that this particular incorporeal creature is immune to fire. But, the basic workings should be known.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I know that sometimes these things sound like they are splitting hairs, but this is as valid as my distinction between a DM who makes changes because he wished to please the players, and a DM who is obligated to make changes.  They are very different animals.
> 
> So, in other words, I agree with you here.




Yeah, I get you now. 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Let me also say this:  prestige classes were one of the best tools 3.X gave us for versimilitude, in that DMs can create groups specific to place, species, and/or culture.  The generic "this class is for everyone" idea, imho, is less compelling.  Not only that, but if the choices players are allowed to make do not include some limitations imposed by those choices (i.e., if I am an elf I can never be a dwarven defender), it lessens the value of the ability to choose.




I have very mixed feelings on the subject. 



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> Balance is not the reason most of us exclude certain options; world coherence is. It is very hard to suspend disbelief when the contents of every single splatbook are simultaneously true. If you don't make your world aesthetically or culturally coherent, you are in danger of turning right back into a wargame.




I'd like to go on record as saying balance was the main reason I excluded certain things from my campaigns in 2E. 

Looking through, as an example, Complete Warrior, however, there are very few things that would be more difficult to have in an existing setting than the stuff in Core. So, new material will possibly rarely have to be more altered than the Core books. Even PrCs as exotic as the Kensai and Knight of the Chalise could be put into small cloistures that wouldn't affect anything on a large scale.

However, for those who go into enough detail that, say, they can't see the monk class fitting in, then it might get more difficult.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 20, 2005)

One other tool the "evil" game creators have given DM's is to change the format of PrC's.    While the change is much maligned by some, it has two very important effects.  

One, it gives a pretty decent tool to new dm's to include a new PrC into a campaign.  While there is rarely anything earth shatteringly unique about most of the PrC's, the fact that there is so much backstory to them certainly gives DM's a wealth of information for including the PrC's into a campaign.  

The second effect adds to DM's power.  No longer is qualifying for a PrC a simple matter of fufilling mechanical pre-req's.  Now, with so much background material, the fluff has become just as important as the crunch.  Granted, not every DM is going to bother, but, then again, that's their choice.  If a DM wants to limit a particular PrC in his campaign, the fact that there is so much fluff makes that a fairly easy thing to do.  

For example, the Dervish PrC.  In a campaign without a nomadic desert people, a DM can simply rule that the Dervish doesn't exist.  There's so much fluff there that it's pretty easy to say to the player, "Look, yeah, the idea's cool, but can your really see this fitting into the campaign?"  In my own case, in a naval campaign when a player approached me with this PrC, my answer was, "Well, your character comes from the dockstreets of Mithril, you've never so much as seen a desert, and you have a small castle.  How exactly do you qualify for this PrC?"  It wasn't that I disliked the PrC, it was that the PrC as written simply didn't fit with the campaign or with this character.

It's become a standing rule in my campaigns that if you wish to take a PrC, you better fit the fluff as well as the crunch.  And the fluff is equally important.  Players who want a particular PrC are encouraged to start behaving like that PrC about two or three levels (at a minimum) before they take it.  If you want to be a Knight of the Holy Whoopee Cushion, you better be getting your jester on a long time before you actually qualify for the PrC.  

Isn't this precisely what rules SHOULD do?  I mean, again, what else can a DM ask for?  Rules that support the DM, and support role play, hrmm, no, that's not what we want.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 20, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I assumed it.  I figured that if players were expecting that ALL options were allowed in your game, and that the books themselves did not appear to encourage this, it is likely because there were too many game out there allowing them to be everything that they have begun to think this is the norm.
> 
> Or pehaps the "average" game is now closer to a RAW game with all splat books so it is considered the norm, so those DMs who are running games away from the RAW and disallowing a lot are getting frustrated?





I wouldn't say that is a fair assumption, overall, although it might be in your neck of the woods.  My working assumption is that each DM's preferences, combined with the preferences of the people that DM games with and the flexibility of everyone involved, gives the DM some idea of what sort of campaign world the players would best like.  Again, this is within the framework of the DM being interested in it enough to actually do the work and run the games.

The plethora of options available (WotC, homebrewed, and third party) means that nearly any sort of campaign setup can be devised.  Often, much of the setup is rules selection instead of rules creation.  I think that, in many cases (mine included) we are beginning to see "campaign workbooks" put together that spell out options.  Some of these are as carefully thought out and as detailed as published campaign worlds.

Personally, I think the "throw all the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks" philosophy of world design results in a world that is inherently less interesting and meaningful than a world that follows through on a limited set of initial premises.  

Back in the days of 2E, I produced a mere 155 page campaign book, detailing gods in the same format as the excellent Forgotten Realms deity suppliment, explaining which of the Players' and DMs' Options were in use, and determining which kits were allowed to characters of various backgrounds.  This stuff allowed the world to seem a lot more real.

IMHO, prestige classes and feats with a regional/cultural prerequisite do the same thing, only better.  I admit freely that the d20 System provided a better framework for the creation of campaign worlds than did 2E.  However, I do not always agree with the generic setting that they hung over that framework in the core ruleset.  

I think that the problem is not that you are playing the game in a certain way, or that even the preponderance of games (especially pick-up games) are played in a certain way.  I think that the problem is simply that WotC is marketting _control of the setting_ to the players.  Then, rather than having players who ask to play a certain PrC, you have players who forget that there is a social contract in place, and demanding that the DM do specific types of work as some form of obligation.

Is this the majority of players?  No.  In a thread devoted to the topic, there is only one individual who claimed that this was the correct philosophy for a D&D game.  So, not really a huge problem just yet.


RC


P.S.:  Re:  Splatbooks and game balance.  I recently ran World's Largest Dungeon as a break, and opened the floodgates wide as to what kind of characters the players could make.  Are there unbalancing combinations out there?  Oh, yes!  But, I think that is likely to be true in any game system, and what is unbalancing in one game may fit perfectly into another.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 20, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Personally, I think the "throw all the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks" philosophy of world design results in a world that is inherently less interesting and meaningful than a world that follows through on a limited set of initial premises.



Well, I don't see my ideas as being "throw all the spaghetti at the wall".

Since I run a pretty much standard Greyhawk game, I understand that there are European style knights that come from the Shieldlands, the Northern Kingdom, Furyondy, etc.  There are Arabic style people's who come from the west, from Ket, Zeif, Tusmit, etc.  There are powerful mage guilds in cities always discovering new magical abilities and styles.  There are people who are nomadic and shamanistic leaving room for other styles.

I so far have only disalllowed things purely oriental in nature as there isn't a major oriental culture in the Flanaess.  There MIGHT be one elsewhere in the world, but most of the area outside of the Flanaess is not really explored or canon.  Which means I can use all of those PrC if I want as one time enemies or as storyline devices.

As for almost all the creatures in the MM, MM2, FF, and pretty much every other book, they've been proven to exist somewhere and there are areas that have been unexplored where the rest could come from.

So, overall, I find that it is a good world because all of the material put out can fit into it without straining belief.  This is actually why I chose Greyhawk as a world.  It allows me as a DM to come up with almost anything without restricting myself to what may or may not exist in the world.  If I feel like a high seas adventure, I can run one, if I plan on sending them to a desert and using Arabic enemies for a week, I can.  A lot of my fun comes from seeing the PCs deal with situations that put them out of their element.  They don't know what the enemies can do to them, because the enemies could be ANYTHING.

As a secondary benefit, it gives me excuses to allow almost anything as a PC as well.  Although I restrict races to those in the PHB and subraces of those races.  Also, each final character has to be run past me because although individual classes or feats are not overly powerful, certain combinations are.  I've rejected only a couple of ideas though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 20, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Well, I don't see my ideas as being "throw all the spaghetti at the wall".





Not to imply that your ideas, specifically, are "throwing all the spaghetti at the wall".  However, WotC seems (to me, YMMV) to be advocating more of a spaghetti-slinging philosophy than even 2E did.  This makes sense from their end, because more options = more books = more sales = more money.  2E at least marketted their books on the basis of "Here is a bunch of stuff, some of which may be useful in any given campaign" as opposed to "here is a bunch of stuff for any given campaign".

(Another hair-splitting, I know, but like so many of these things, it is the fine differences which make up the meat of the problem they cause.)



RC


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 20, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 2E at least marketted their books on the basis of "Here is a bunch of stuff, some of which may be useful in any given campaign" as opposed to "here is a bunch of stuff for any given campaign".



Well, I've always viewed it more as "these are things that might be in Greyhawk", adapt from there.  Since I can find a place for almost all the material released somewhere in Greyhawk (and due to their similarity, FR and Eberron as well), every book that comes out could be useful, from beginning to end.

IMHO, this is the market WOTC is going for.  That it COULD be adapted to other settings further away from the "standard" settings, but it takes a lot more effort and a lot more cutting out classes or spells that don't fit your own homebrew settings.  Most people who run their own homebrew settings are already used to this and made the choice to do this when they chose a setting far away from the D&D "norm".


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 20, 2005)

One other fine difference I think exists whether you view crunch and fluff seperatable...

 An example is the Dervish mentioned upthread. If I was running a Nautical campaign and had a player wish to take the Dervish PrC, I would see if thier was any fluff that matches both the setting I am running and the crunch of the class.
  IMO, it would be easy to see a Dervish type character in the pirate organizations...


----------



## Thotas (Sep 20, 2005)

Majoru, I think we're just about there.

You've described to us how you set up your game.  It's perfectly legitimate by the standards of , I think, everyone here that's been arguing the other side -- at least partially because we've been arguing the point that it's yours, you can do what you want.  

As it happens, you've also described a situation in which your world is quite large, and some of the parts of it are intentionally left open specificly to facilitate the option for you and your players to bring in ideas from many published sources, even ones not in print yet.  WotC loves you, you're the demographic that best keeps them in business.  If you're enjoying it that way, great.  If you are good at running the table, I'd probably enjoy your game myself.

But, and here's the big but, it's set up that way because ... _you exercised your authority as a DM_.  You chose a large world, you run it in an open fashion 'cause _that's the game you want to DM_.  Raven Crowking runs his tighter, from the sound of it.  Which is his authority as a DM, also.  I bet I'd enjoy his game, too.  

And if I show up at your table or his, I don't like what you've done, it's time for me to leave you to your game and your other players.  It's not for me or another player or Monte Cook or some guy in a suit at Hasbro to tell you what should be in your game or what shouldn't.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 20, 2005)

Thotas said:
			
		

> And if I show up at your table or his, I don't like what you've done, it's time for me to leave you to your game and your other players.  It's not for me or another player or Monte Cook or some guy in a suit at Hasbro to tell you what should be in your game or what shouldn't.



Frankly, no one IS telling you what can be in your game.  WOTC releases a bunch of books as to things that are in THEIR game.  Some of the ideas you may want to use.

That's why I've said before, to me D&D is baseline D&D.  Everything that changes the rules or campaign world so it doesn't even resemble one of the published ones is running a variant.  No problem with that, luckly you can do whatever you want with the rules.

However, I think there's nothing wrong with expecting a D&D game is using the baseline and to have each DM describe his differences from that.

I think it's fairly clear, for instance, that Magic of Incarnum is a book that's rather ourside of the standard D&D and that it should not be expected to be used.  The Complete books, no so much so.


----------



## Thotas (Sep 20, 2005)

But again, the point is that nowadays, it seems, there are players out there who think they can tell DMs what is allowed and what isn't.  Though I've said above that I run an old-fashioned game in terms of who's in charge, I do have a player I have to be a little stern with at times when, for example, he wants to know why something doesn't work the way he expected it to, but I refuse to tell him why for the simple reason that his character doesn't have a way of knowing it at this point.  He's also someone who can beat a video game that takes most people a month in under a week.  Based on what I've read on this thread, I'm guessing this isn't a coincidence.  And it seems that several DMs are having a perception that the owners of the brand name are encouraging this kind of thinking to a point of detriment.

That player doesn't run the game, I do.  When someone wants to know if it looks like they can climb a given wall, I'll describe that wall in minute detail to help them estimate the likelihood of success, but I will absolutely not tell them what the DC is.  The characters can only read their own sheets if I'm running an "Order of the Stick" campaign. 

This is a slightly separate issue, of course.  This whole issue is actually divided between a DM's prep time rights and a DM's table rights issue.  As I've indicated in my previous post, I think the prep time issue has been settled now.  You repeated a lot of in your latest post, in response to me.  

The only real difference I see now is an ettiquette one.  You go in "expecting" a baseline, or very open, game.  I think politeness requires you to actually ask, immediately, when you are given the option to play.  And if it's not a baseline game, politeness requires your DM to provide you a rundown on those changes in a coherent, concise manner earlier enough for you to follow them.  KM's Arthurian DM example, is well within D&D rules but hopeless wrong in terms of the rules of being a good host.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 20, 2005)

Thotas said:
			
		

> That player doesn't run the game, I do.  When someone wants to know if it looks like they can climb a given wall, I'll describe that wall in minute detail to help them estimate the likelihood of success, but I will absolutely not tell them what the DC is.  The characters can only read their own sheets if I'm running an "Order of the Stick" campaign.



You are right, they don't run your game.  You are well within your rights not to tell them the DCs.

Still, from ther other side, as I've said earlier, if I'm not given enough detail about WHY I fail or why an enemy is changed, I feel like the DM is out to get me.

When I do this to my party, I say "Unlike other trolls you've encountered, this one seems unphased by the torch waved in front of it.  When you touch it with the fire, it doesn't seem to even hurt it."

I've seen DMs who just said "It's a troll as far as you can tell" then after about 10 rounds of using every fire spell we had on it and wondering why it wasn't dead yet said "well, maybe you should try something other than fire and stop metagaming."

I can well play within a world that doesn't work like my expectations of the world.  I just need the DM to describe to me the whys of his world and make sure I know.  If EVERYONE in his world knows that his trolls aren't killed by fire, I should know too.  If it is rude to say hello to nobles without them addressing you first, I'd like to know before rather than after I embarrass myself.

So, yes, as long as you give people the information they need, you don't need to give them the EXACT DC to accomplish things.  I find giving them the DC often doesn't hurt anything and enables things to move quicker, but it's not required.  I'll say "Alright, you find a wall, if you'd like to climb it, it is about a DC 10, can you all make a DC 10 taking 10?  Yes.  Good, you climb the wall and move onwards."  Either that or "Everyone make a DC 19 Fort save."  I don't always do it either.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 20, 2005)

My question is, why are so many DMs threatened by players who ask questions? 

It's like people at work who are told "Just shut up and do what I tell you." You don't know why they ask the question. Maybe it behooves you to find out instead of throwing out an order?

(Note. I'm not talking about preserving mystery about something. That's fine. I am talking about providing an explanation to a player of the rules so that they know you've been fair with them.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 20, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> So, yes, as long as you give people the information they need, you don't need to give them the EXACT DC to accomplish things.  I find giving them the DC often doesn't hurt anything and enables things to move quicker, but it's not required.  I'll say "Alright, you find a wall, if you'd like to climb it, it is about a DC 10, can you all make a DC 10 taking 10?  Yes.  Good, you climb the wall and move onwards."  Either that or "Everyone make a DC 19 Fort save."  I don't always do it either.





Also, I would say that if you are not giving the DC, and the PCs take 10, it is important to say something along the lines of "The wall seems like it's (a little/a lot, depending) harder than you thought.  Would you like to make a roll?"  Rather than just saying that the check fails.


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 20, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Still, from ther other side, as I've said earlier, if I'm not given enough detail about WHY I fail or why an enemy is changed, I feel like the DM is out to get me.



My earlier question still stands: who decides what is "enough detail?"

My experience tells me that rules lawyers/"gurus" are often disatisfied no matter what the answer is - the game is a competition to them, and anytime they 'lose a move', it's because the GM 'didn't play right'.

Has the increased rules-transparency of 3e made this worse?

As far as giving DCs, I will for standard checks straight from the RAW where the character has a reasonable chance of knowing whether or not s/he is successful, or to give the player a chance to spend an action point or not. Checks where there is a degree of success attached (such as Knowledge or Gather Information checks), rather than a straight chance of making the DC or not (such as a Treat Injury check) are made without knowing the DCs in advance, as are Spot, Listen, Hide, and similar checks.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 20, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> My earlier question still stands: who decides what is "enough detail?"
> 
> My experience tells me that rules lawyers/"gurus" are often disatisfied no matter what the answer is - the game is a competition to them, and anytime they 'lose a move', it's because the GM 'didn't play right'.
> 
> Has the increased rules-transparency of 3e made this worse?






I don't know about Majoru, but I would say that the DM decides what is "enough detail" when describing what happens, and if the players feel that they are consistently not receiving the details that their PCs should reasonably know they will, sooner or later, seek out a new DM or start a new game.

Which is not so say that the players cannot or should not seek to remedy the problem within that DM's game.  Quite often, I think, new DMs are not certain what information the PCs should reasonably know, and are not sure how to impart that information to the players.  

In many cases, rules transparency means that, when something varies from what is expected, the players ought to prick up their ears.  Something is obviously happening.  It is either in the real world (the DM is new/doesn't fully understand the rules/is a dink) or in the game world (some unknown factor is working against the PCs).  The players relationship with the DM is going to be the primary factor in determining whether or not the players suspect that the reason is in-game or out-of-game.

Me, I love to say:  "You don't know, do you?"  This is my catch-all, meaning, "There is an in-game effect which is affecting what you preceive, but the cause of the effect is not apparent."  If the DM acknowledges that the PC expectation normally should be different than what the PCs are actually experiencing, most players IME will accept that the DM knows what s/he is doing and the game will not dissolve into an argument.

But, again, we are now in the area of "what constitutes good DMing" rather than "who has the authority to determine how much information is enough".  The DM has the authority.  Abuse of that authority has its own consequences.


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 20, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Quite often, I think, new DMs are not certain what information the PCs should reasonably know, and are not sure how to impart that information to the players.



This is why I would love to see more emphasis on teaching GMs how to run games, rather than substituting book after book of new rules.







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In many cases, rules transparency means that, when something varies from what is expected, the players ought to prick up their ears.  Something is obviously happening.



Which is the very best reason to add layers of difficulty to a challenge, or modify a monster's abilities, and so on.

As to the causes of these unexpected variances...







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It is either in the real world (the DM is new/doesn't fully understand the rules/is a dink)...



Again, teaching GMs is so important.







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> ...or in the game world (some unknown factor is working against the PCs).



Which is the GM's province to decide, and should not necessarily be immediately transparent to the players in many cases.







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The players relationship with the DM is going to be the primary factor in determining whether or not the players suspect that the reason is in-game or out-of-game.



Once again, the social contract.







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> But, again, we are now in the area of "what constitutes good DMing" rather than "who has the authority to determine how much information is enough".



I'm not so sure that those two concepts are so easy to split: the GM's authority to make calls and the GM's ability are both framed differently in the minds of those who believe the RAW, rather than the GM, is the final arbiter. A "good GM" is a 'strict constructionist' in the eyes of the rules lawyers, who would to varying degrees limit the GM's authority to make calls that vary from the RAW: "That's a DC 25 Climb check! It says so in the rules! I can take 10 to make that!"







			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The DM has the authority.  Abuse of that authority has its own consequences.



Yep.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 20, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> A "good GM" is a 'strict constructionist' in the eyes of the rules lawyers, who would to varying degrees limit the GM's authority to make calls that vary from the RAW: "That's a DC 25 Climb check! It says so in the rules! I can take 10 to make that!"



Teaching GMs to run games is fine.  But what you are advocating is teaching them "whatever you say it right, don't worry about the RAW if it gets in your way and if the players try to hold you to the rules in the game tell them that you won't stand for any uppity players undermining your authority.  Boot them out of your game if they keep complaining and just find players that agree with you."

If it is a DC 25 Climb check, then it is, regardless of what you want to say about it.  If you say "It's slippery, that seems like a -2 modifier to your roll, it's a DC 27 now".  Fine, that's within the rules, and I have no problem with a DM telling me that.  I think we need to teach DMs how to use the rules to do what they want.  Then those rules lawers/gurus will be perfectly happy AND they get to run the game they way they want.

As I've said before, there is almost no situation I can think of that I can't model with the rules or at least a good extension of the rules.  What people need to learn is that the rules are not their enemy.  They aren't something to be thrown out whenever they become the slightest bit inconvenient.  Instead, you find out how to model what you want using the rules and make them work FOR you.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 20, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Teaching GMs to run games is fine.  But what you are advocating is teaching them "whatever you say it right, don't worry about the RAW if it gets in your way and if the players try to hold you to the rules in the game tell them that you won't stand for any uppity players undermining your authority.  Boot them out of your game if they keep complaining and just find players that agree with you."



*Majoru Oakheart*, in one sense you're right and yet at the same time you're very, very wrong.

What I'm saying is that the rules are a starting point and can be modified to suit the GM's campaign, that the rules do not cover every circumstance that arises in the course of play, and that (per the rules of the game) it is entirely within the purview of the GM to extend or change the rules if it improves the play of the game.

Earlier in this thread I offered a couple of scenarios (Tumbling from a table and Jumping over a wall) to test the idea that the rules cover most things that arise in the course of the game - I deliberately chose examples that hewed very close to the existing rules but were not covered explictly, in order to see just how much variance would arise. With respect to the second scenario, jumping over a more than half the height of the character to land in the adjacent square, I figured the differences would be slight but that there would be differences, and that was borne out by the responses - it also confimed that this is not explicitly covered in the rules (Jump on to something half the character's height is DC 10, but there is no DC nor explicit application of the skill covering of the scenario I proposed, one that was taken directly from a Modern game that I'm running here on ENWorld).

On the first question, the Tumble check, I selected a scenario that was pretty marginal - are there modifiers or additional skill checks required for a Tumble from a table? The rules-lawyer crowd said, "Of course not - it's not covered in the rules as written therefore there is no additional modifier, nor is there a Jump check since there is no chance of damage from jumping down from a table." That response is again what I expected as it adheres to the RAW. (You did mention applying a modifier to the Tumble check to reflect the greater difficulty represented by Tumbling off an elevated surface.)

Suppose I said that, instead of a table, it is was an eight-foot wall. Again the RAW answer is, "No change," but a number of GMs might balk at that - now we're talking about dropping a distance higher than the character (in most cases) is tall, while at the same time tumbling past an opponent to take up a flanking position in melee. According to the RAW, there is no difference between that scenario, the table scenario, or Tumbling across flat ground, yet many GMs would look at a scenario like that and think, "Now we're talking about a different breed of animal altogether."

What I am suggesting, *Majoru Oakheart*, is that it is possible, and even at time advisible, to extend the rules in the interest of making the game more challenging, or to add verisimilitude, or to cover grey areas. Could the Tumble from an eight-foot wall be covered by a circumstance penalty, or a second Tumble check at DC 8, or a Jump check at DC 5 with failure resulting in a lost action for the round? The first is the most likely and stays closest to the rules as written, but are the other ideas so far out of left field as to represent ignoring the RAW? They each take the same basic mechanics into consideration.

I could understand a player getting upset if the GM said, "You have to make a Reflex save to avoid an AoO for Tumbling off the wall," or, "Okay, make a Strength check to stick the landing," or "You can't do that 'cause I said so!" All of these represent a further departure from the rules (or ignore them completely in the last case), but not all deviations from the RAW are as thoughtless as these examples.

Extending or modifying the rules to blur the sharp edges once in awhile adds to the challenges the game presents to the players and their characters and adds verisimilitude, IMHX.

I used another example, that of the Demolitions check, of requiring multiple checks to render an explosive device inert. The straight rules-as-written don't mention that, and I've no doubt that a sharp rules-lawyer might complain about it to me someday. I don't feel unjustified in playing it the way I do - for example, one check to disarm a trip wire, another to defuse the device completely, and possibly a third if the device is booby-trapped - given that one of the designers of the game included an almost identical example in a WotC-published adventure.

*Majoru Oakheart*, please forgive me for repeating myself, but you cannot reasonably say that the rules as written with respect to skill checks, combat resolution, and so on are more valid or carry greater weight than the rules-as-written that say the GM can modify those rules to suit the game s/he wants to run.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> If it is a DC 25 Climb check, then it is, regardless of what you want to say about it.  If you say "It's slippery, that seems like a -2 modifier to your roll, it's a DC 27 now".  Fine, that's within the rules, and I have no problem with a DM telling me that.  I think we need to teach DMs how to use the rules to do what they want.  Then those rules lawers/gurus will be perfectly happy AND they get to run the game they way they want.



I agree with you to some extent - I do believe teaching GMs how to extend the rules appropriately is a good idea.

Coming back to my example of the "living wall" earth elemental, as noted I gave the thief's player a description of what was happening before the character fell - I also gave them a 5% chance to see that it wasn't a normal wall (and if that seems low to you, note that I took that directly from the description of the trapper in the 1e _MM_).

I absolutely agree that teaching GMs how to use the RAW as a basis for making sound, consistent judgements is essential, and I don't think many of the books published do that very well. Where I disagree is that a rules-lawyer will be satisfied with that.

I notice only one person touched my question regarding mechanical traps - the highest DC shown in the books to disable a mechanical trap is DC 25, so can there be a DC 28 or DC 30 mechanical trap? I'm willing to be there are rules-lawyers out there that wouldn't hesitate to challenge that - at the same time, published WotC supplements include Disable Device DCs of 28 and 30.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> As I've said before, there is almost no situation I can think of that I can't model with the rules or at least a good extension of the rules.  What people need to learn is that the rules are not their enemy.  They aren't something to be thrown out whenever they become the slightest bit inconvenient.  Instead, you find out how to model what you want using the rules and make them work FOR you.



For the most part I agree with you, *Majoru Oakheart* - while I don't think the rules are as complete as you've expressed you do, I do think that one can make reasonable inferences from existing mechanics in many cases - I also feel that this is something that needs to be taught to GMs more than it is. I've also attempted to use examples of this in my posts throughout this thread.

That's why I'm a bit puzzled by your comment suggesting that I'm advocating "whatever you say it (_sic_) right, don't worry about the RAW if it gets in your way" - I'd like you back that up with an example or two, please. So far I think my scenarios have all shown an extension of the existing rules to cover grey or blank areas - if I'm mistaken, please let me know.

Where I do agree with you in that same passage is this: "...and if the players try to hold you to the rules in the game tell them that you won't stand for any uppity players undermining your authority.  Boot them out of your game if they keep complaining and just find players that agree with you."

Yes, *Majoru Oakheart*, I do expect my rulings to be accepted by the players, and if they don't like them they are welcome to play with someone else. Yes, I do look for players that agree with that stance, and no, I don't care to play with someone who feels the need to complain about the rulings after the fact.

I also provide all the players in the game with a list of allowed materials (core rules, original and third-party supplements, web-enhancements), any race or class restrictions from within those materials, and a list of house rules before character generation begins. I will change and expand the house rules as the game progresses, indicating to players when the changes will take effect and soliciting their input before the changes are final - in some cases I'll discuss proposed changes before they're drafted (and have decided to keep with things as they are based on those discussions), and I am always happy to offer the rationale behind a change or a ruling.

I'm always happy to listen to critiques of my GMing style - I solicit them so that I can get better at running games. However, once I've said no, the answer is no - move on, or get up and walk away. I'm sorry if that makes you or anyone else uncomfortable, but that's simply how it is.

It's also the rules of the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 21, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I will change and expand the house rules as the game progresses, indicating to players when the changes will take effect and soliciting their input before the changes are final - in some cases I'll discuss proposed changes before they're drafted (and have decided to keep with things as they are based on those discussions), and I am always happy to offer the rationale behind a change or a ruling.





Shaman,

You're lucky.  In the massive, massive undertaking that I am doing, I continually solict player involvement, and so far (with a couple of exceptions) all I've gotten is "We trust you; give us the complete document when it's ready."

(On the other hand, that "we trust you" is darn skippy!    )


RC


----------



## Hussar (Sep 21, 2005)

> I notice only one person touched my question regarding mechanical traps - the highest DC shown in the books to disable a mechanical trap is DC 25, so can there be a DC 28 or DC 30 mechanical trap? I'm willing to be there are rules-lawyers out there that wouldn't hesitate to challenge that - at the same time, published WotC supplements include Disable Device DCs of 28 and 30.




Well, considering I'm the one who answered that, I think that I gave a pretty solid rules lawyer answer.  Although, I like Henry's Rules Guru better.    Standard practice in 3.5 is that anything which is not specifically limited or mentioned by the rules doesn't exist.  Since there is absolutely no mention anywhere of a mechanical trap being limited to a DC of 25, then that limit doesn't exist.  

That assumption that you don't have to add to the rules to make them work, is one of the basic assumptions of 3e.  I remember one of the biggest problems in the magic creation rules was the assumption that a caster HAD to be the caster level listed in the DMG, despite the fact that caster level is NOT a pre-req.  Yet, DM after Dm argued that it was.  It took WOTC to officially errata that to solve the issue and it STILL comes up five years later.  

I agree that the DM will have to make rules sometimes.  A recent example from my game is, could a harpy that has fallen into water above her head, take off from the water?  I ruled no.  Wet feathers makes flight difficult and a harpy has claws, not webbed feet like a duck.  It can't take off from water.  Is that covered in the RAW?  Nope.  Not even a little.  So, I made a ruling BECAUSE it is not covered in the RAW.  Where the malfunctions usually (not always, but many times) come in, is when DM's decide that their pet idea is automatically better than the RAW even when definitive proof is shown to the contrary.

Primitive Screwhead - yeah, I could see dervishes in a pirate community.  Unfortunately, like I said, the PC was an officer on a merchant ship, owned a large home, had never travelled further than the city he grew up in until he joined the crew of a ship and never bothered to include any details of a dervish nature in his depiction of his character.  To me, that adds up to not being a dervish.  He could have been a dervish had he bothered to play it up before trying to take the PrC, but, the background of the character just did not support being one.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 21, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Where the malfunctions usually (not always, but many times) come in, is when DM's decide that their pet idea is automatically better than the RAW even when definitive proof is shown to the contrary.





One cannot offer definitive proof of a subjective concept.  "Better" and "worse" are not objective traits, except as defined related to a specific desirable state or outcome.


RC


P.S.:  Whether or not Primitive Screwhead could work a dervish into a naval campaign has no bearing on whether a dervish would fit into your naval campaign, my naval campaign, or even someone else's desert campaign.  

From a corporate standpoint, options are there to sell books.  From a game standpoint, options are there because some will enjoy them, and they can be used to differentiate parts of the campaign world (those parts including, but not limited to, cultures, regions, adventure locations, and player or nonplayer character concepts).  Neither one of these standpoints creates a situation where the mere availability of an option makes it either mandatory nor necessarily desirable to use it.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Sep 21, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> P.S.:  Whether or not Primitive Screwhead could work a dervish into a naval campaign has no bearing on whether a dervish would fit into your naval campaign, my naval campaign, or even someone else's desert campaign.
> 
> *From a corporate standpoint, options are there to sell books.  From a game standpoint, options are there because some will enjoy them, and they can be used to differentiate parts of the campaign world (those parts including, but not limited to, cultures, regions, adventure locations, and player or nonplayer character concepts).  Neither one of these standpoints creates a situation where the mere availability of an option makes it either mandatory nor necessarily desirable to use it.*
> 
> ...




Quoted for truth.  

And, in all honesty, I believe that the majority of players out there understand that.  Sure, I've bumped into a bit of "Well, why not?" from my players from time to time, but, that's understandable.  It's just human nature to wonder why an idea is getting shot down in flames.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 21, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Standard practice in 3.5 is that anything which is not specifically limited or mentioned by the rules doesn't exist.  Since there is absolutely no mention anywhere of a mechanical trap being limited to a DC of 25, then that limit doesn't exist.



Conversely there's no mention of mechanical traps with a disable DC > 25 in the core rules, so following your example, those don't exist either.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Where the malfunctions usually (not always, but many times) come in, is when DM's decide that their pet idea is automatically better than the RAW even when definitive proof is shown to the contrary.



What would constitue "definitive proof" in this instance?

I think you may be overstating things a bit here.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 21, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You're lucky.  In the massive, massive undertaking that I am doing, I continually solict player involvement, and so far (with a couple of exceptions) all I've gotten is "We trust you; give us the complete document when it's ready."
> 
> (On the other hand, that "we trust you" is darn skippy!    )



Remember, saying, "We're fine with what you bring to the table," is feedback.

But yes, it's great when there's a dialog as well. I'm fortunate to play with some good gamers.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 21, 2005)

Hussar.. I was not saying you had to let the option in, I was replying to the post that a PrC should not be allowed because the fluff does not match the setting. I completely agree with your refusal to let that character translate over.

 I just wanted to point out that in most cases the fluff of a given mechanic can be altered to better fit the campaign.... and IMO a GM who _outright_ rejects an idea because the fluff doesn't fit isn't working with thier players.

 Rejecting the change/class/whatever after looking at both 'does the crunch fit' and 'how can the fluff fit' is the DM's right.


----------



## fusangite (Sep 21, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, considering I'm the one who answered that, I think that I gave a pretty solid rules lawyer answer.  Although, I like Henry's Rules Guru better.    Standard practice in 3.5 is that anything which is not specifically limited or mentioned by the rules doesn't exist.



Ah... so love doesn't exist in D&D because the rules don't mention it and it's clear that neither Bluff nor Diplomacy cover it. This is wooly logic.







> That assumption that you don't have to add to the rules to make them work, is one of the basic assumptions of 3e.



However, it is equally clear that another basic assumption is that a DM must extrapolate from them in order to make the game work, as you yourself suggest.







> I agree that the DM will have to make rules sometimes.



I agree with you here but question whether this is consistent with the overall theme of your post.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 21, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Ah... so love doesn't exist in D&D because the rules don't mention it and it's clear that neither Bluff nor Diplomacy cover it. This is wooly logic.
> 
> However, it is equally clear that another basic assumption is that a DM must extrapolate from them in order to make the game work, as you yourself suggest.
> 
> I agree with you here but question whether this is consistent with the overall theme of your post.




It also never says that a PC has to breath either.  Taking something to the extreme is not a logic answer.  The question was, can a mechanical trap have a DC higher than 25.  There is nothing in the rules which prevents it, so, yes, you can have a trap of higher than DC 25.  If there was a ceiling, the rules would state it.  3.5 rules have been very, very careful about this sort of thing.  The only way for a DC ceiling to exist would be for a DM to add rules.  If the DM doesn't add any rules, then there is no ceiling.  

Since the rules do not specifically disallow love to exist, then it does.  That's actually very much in keeping with my original post.  Unless the rules specifically disallow or limit something, then there are no limits.   ((Heh, d02- Know no limits.))  You don't need to say that the higher DC's exist.  By not saying that they don't exist, the standard 3e assumption is that they do.

Extrapolation and creating new rules are separate issues.  I can extrapolate from the rules that a DC 30 mechanical trap exists since mechanical traps of lower DC's exist in a progression.  However, no extrapolation of existing rules places a cap on those DC's.  To place that cap, I need to create a new rule which states that mechanical traps can only have DC's of X.  

Although, to be fair, my original point should be ammended somewhat to read:

_ The standard practice in 3.5 is that if something is not specifically limited by the rules, then no limitations exist._

There is no theoretical cap to ability scores since the RAW does not place one.  There is no theoretical cap to levels (assuming epic rules are in play) since the rules do not have one.  If epic rules are not in play, then characters are limited to 20th level by the RAW.  

No, I do not think I am overstating things when I say that the malfunctions around the gaming table frequently stem from poor rules understanding.  Pretty much every arguement, with some notable exceptions true, that I see in games come from one or both parties not having a solid grasp on mechanics.  This is really my biggest reason for playing 3e.  Now whenever a player starts questioning my decisions, 99% of the time I can take a look at the HTML SRD and cut and paste him the answer.  Poof, end of discussion.

To me, that's precisely what rules should do.


----------



## D'karr (Sep 21, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Ah... so love doesn't exist in D&D because the rules don't mention it and it's clear that neither Bluff nor Diplomacy cover it. This is wooly logic.However, it is equally clear that another basic assumption is that a DM must extrapolate from them in order to make the game work, as you yourself suggest.I agree with you here but question whether this is consistent with the overall theme of your post.




I think I understood his post as meaning that anything not specifically "limited" by the rules could exist.  Even though he did not state that properly and I could have misinterpreted his point.

That is how I've always ruled it.  If the rules do not specifically state that you can not do something then it is, at least, a possibility.

Here is the problem with strict adherence to rules, they mutually restrict the DM and the players.

For example, my group had a fight inside a huge temple.  Part of the party was on the second story balcony and part of the party was on the lower level.  They fought a creature ,that because of its size, could fight them on both levels simultaneously.  One of the party members, a dwarf, asked, "can I jump on the creatures back and attack it as I ride it?"  He's got a dwarven waraxe as a weapon.

According to a strict interpretation of the rules, he can't...  He would have had to make a grapple, to occupy the same space as the creature and he could not attack it with his weapon because it does not fit the size restrictions for grappling.  So I threw the rules out the window.  and MADE UP rulings as appropriate to the situation.  That is my philosophy of DMing.  I'm there to adjudicate the unadjuducatable.

I see the rules as guidelines that provide a somewhat level playing field.  But in this specific case they restricted unnecessarily.  So I changed the rules (guidelines) to fit the situation and the game was much more fun for it.

That is why I believe the DM has to have complete control of rules adjudication and interpretation.  This responsibility does not fall on the shoulders of the players, no matter what the marketing arm of Hasbro might lead them to believe.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 21, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> It also never says that a PC has to breath either.





Actually, I believe the rules do, when discussing drowning and suffocation.




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Since the rules do not specifically disallow love to exist, then it does.  That's actually very much in keeping with my original post.  Unless the rules specifically disallow or limit something, then there are no limits.




[QUOTE-Hussar]Standard practice in 3.5 is that anything which is not specifically limited or mentioned by the rules doesn't exist. Since there is absolutely no mention anywhere of a mechanical trap being limited to a DC of 25, then that limit doesn't exist. [/QUOTE]


I think that the interplay between these posts might be confusing your position.  As I understand it, you are *not* saying that a thing not mentioned specifically in the rules does not exist in the *game world*.  Rather, you are trying to say that a thing not specifically mentioned in the rules does not exist *in the rules*, and is therefore fully open to DM interpretation/house rules without said interpretation/house rules being considered an actual variation from the RAW.

Is this correct?


RC


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 21, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> No, I do not think I am overstating things when I say that the malfunctions around the gaming table frequently stem from poor rules understanding.  Pretty much every arguement, with some notable exceptions true, that I see in games come from one or both parties not having a solid grasp on mechanics.  This is really my biggest reason for playing 3e.  Now whenever a player starts questioning my decisions, 99% of the time I can take a look at the HTML SRD and cut and paste him the answer.  Poof, end of discussion.
> 
> To me, that's precisely what rules should do.



I agree.  For example, the situation where we were discussing someone jumping down off a table.  There is no rule in the RAW whatsoever that says you need a jump check to jump down 3 or 4 feet.  You just do it, I've reread the jump description twice to be sure there wasn't something I was missing.

Adding a jump check is either poor understanding of the rules or needlessly complicating the situation and adding more die rolls than you need to have (What's the penalty for failing?  Do you fall over?  Why?  It's not far enough to take damage, according to a new FAQ ruling, it pretty much assumes if you don't take damage, you are still standing).

It's when you think too far that starts confusing things.  Can almost anyone step off a table without falling over?  Yes, no roll.  Jumping over a 4 foot wall?  How high do you need to jump, find the DC, and you are done.  You could figure out the physics of the situation and say they need to jump so much earlier, etc.  Or just leave it simple.

The rules are there to cover any situation where the result is in question.  If the result isn't in question, you don't need to use them.  Which is why the rules need common sense applied to them.  You are right, without common sense, dying doesn't mean anything because the book never says what penalties you get for dying.  You could still cast spells and walk around for all the book says.  However, when you use the rules only in situations where someone (who isn't an idiot) actually thinks something is in question, and then only the minimum rules to figure out the results.  Otherwise every action someone attempts slows the game to a crawl.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 21, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Rather, you are trying to say that a thing not specifically mentioned in the rules does not exist *in the rules*, and is therefore fully open to DM interpretation/house rules without said interpretation/house rules being considered an actual variation from the RAW.
> 
> Is this correct?



I agree with this statement.  Yes, use the rules when they apply, when they don't apply (fairly rare circumstance) make something up that seems to be close to the rules.

In a case mentioned above: Creature falls into water, can it fly out?  Maybe not, it has wet wings and need some air to take off.  Maybe it can because it's a magical creature or because it can leap a couple feet out of the water in order to take off.  Does this ruling matter in the grand scheme of things?  Unlikely, except maybe the next time that specific creature falls into water and it is important for them to get out again quickly (i.e. unlikely to come up in the same game ever again).  So you accept the on the spot ruling not covered by the rules and move onwards.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 21, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> In a case mentioned above: Creature falls into water, can it fly out?  Maybe not, it has wet wings and need some air to take off.  Maybe it can because it's a magical creature or because it can leap a couple feet out of the water in order to take off.  Does this ruling matter in the grand scheme of things?  Unlikely, except maybe the next time that specific creature falls into water and it is important for them to get out again quickly (i.e. unlikely to come up in the same game ever again).  So you accept the on the spot ruling not covered by the rules and move onwards.





However, one could easily say that there is no rule in the RAW whatsoever that says you need a cannot fly with wet wings.  You just do it.  Adding a condition to flight is either poor understanding of the rules or needlessly complicating the situation and adding more complication than you need to have (What's the penalty to flying?  Can you simply not fly? How wet is wet?  The rules pretty much assume that if you have movement of a given type, you can use it).  It's when you think too far that starts confusing things.  You could figure out the physics of the situation, etc. Or just leave it simple.

*My point is that the word "needlessly" is extremely subjective.  * 

RC


----------



## Voadam (Sep 21, 2005)

What rules are people saying were hidden from players in 2e that are open to them in 3e?

In 1e the character attacks and saves were in the DMG and so not available to PCs.

This changed in 2e, not from 2e to 3e, when they were put in the PH. The DMG in 2e had magic items and xp and DM advice, just like in 3e. Combat, classes, spells, races, and nonmagical equipment were in the PH in 2e as well as in 3e.

I'm not seeing the argument for change from 2e to 3e.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 21, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The rules pretty much assume that if you have movement of a given type, you can use it).  It's when you think too far that starts confusing things.  You could figure out the physics of the situation, etc. Or just leave it simple.



Yes, which is why I would rule there would be no problem with the creature flying out.  If we start arguing physics, it doesn't have aerodynamics or big enough wings, it can't fly in the first place.  So, it "flies however it flies" and it gets out of the water.

If I started introducing rules like this, my players would be all over me with logic problems.  Still, I see how someone else could rule this way.  The more you do it though, the more you risk opening up a can of worms you don't want open.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> *My point is that the word "needlessly" is extremely subjective.  *



I completely agree, which is exactly why I try to avoid doing it even if there seems to be a need.  What I may think is a "needed" reason to introduce a new rule may just ruin someone else's perception of the game.  When I say "I'm going to allow all those oozes to share the same spot without squeezing penalties" I get players yelling at me because it gives the oozes an unfair advantage in combat over them, allowing more then 1 of them to attack them at once, despite fighting in a corridor.  So, I learned my lesson.  The rules apply.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 21, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I completely agree, which is exactly why I try to avoid doing it even if there seems to be a need.  What I may think is a "needed" reason to introduce a new rule may just ruin someone else's perception of the game.  When I say "I'm going to allow all those oozes to share the same spot without squeezing penalties" I get players yelling at me because it gives the oozes an unfair advantage in combat over them, allowing more then 1 of them to attack them at once, despite fighting in a corridor.  So, I learned my lesson.  The rules apply.





Not being subject to critical hits is an unfair advantage for oozes, too.  The only differences between the two rules are (1) one rule was devised by WotC, and the other was devised by you, and (2) you determined that "players yelling" was sufficient reason to change your rule.


RC


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 21, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I agree.  For example, the situation where we were discussing someone jumping down off a table.  There is no rule in the RAW whatsoever that says you need a jump check to jump down 3 or 4 feet.  You just do it, I've reread the jump description twice to be sure there wasn't something I was missing.



No, that's incorrect and misleading - let's be clear: the scenario was tumbling off a table to the floor in melee to flank an opponent .







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Adding a jump check is either poor understanding of the rules or needlessly complicating the situation and adding more die rolls than you need to have...



First, including the Jump check as part of a complex combat maneuver was one possible solution to reflect the added dificulty of what the character was attempting to do, as was requiring a second Tumble check or increasing the Tumble DC.

Second, some GMs would consider the situation more complex than what the rules provide for, that the rules fail to adequately reflect the challenge of what the character is attempting to do. Is Tumbling from the table, or from an eight-foot wall, the same as Tumbling while standing on flat ground? If you read the rules as written, it is - however, this tests the limits of plausibility for some GMs.

It's also bland as heck. As a GM, I want the players to operate on the edge of success, not safely behind it - this means creating challenges that force them to make tough choices, where calculating DCs results in, "Gee, that's gonna be a close one!" Some GMs use circumstance modifiers, some use complex skill checks, but either way, the goal is the same: to nudge the players out of their characters' comfort zones and make the action as exciting and unpredictable as action/adventure should be.

(In my humble opinion, of course.)

By the way, complex skill checks are a part of the rules. Want to jump up to reach a ledge or a scaffold twelve feet over your Medium-sized character's head? DC 16 Jump check and DC 15 Climb check. Straight from the RAW. Using a complex skill check to resolve the Tumble from table or wall is an extension of the RAW.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> (What's the penalty for failing?  Do you fall over?  Why?  It's not far enough to take damage, according to a new FAQ ruling, it pretty much assumes if you don't take damage, you are still standing).



When the rules are ambiguous or are being extended to cover something that isn't explicitly addressed, that's up to the GM to decide.

The idea that most skill checks are pass/fail also contributes to that sense of blandness that I try to avoid. I've used a lost action as the consequence for failing a skill check, such as missing a Drive check - that could be the only consequence of missing the Jump check in the Tumble example above, if the GM decides to blur the sharp edges of the existing rule.

On the other hand, it would be much more interesting if that character attempting to Tumble from the table or the wall had a chance to fall flat on her arse instead of Tumbling past safely regardless of the results of the skill check...

(Just say no to bland.)







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It's when you think too far that starts confusing things.  Can almost anyone step off a table without falling over?  Yes, no roll.



Again, this was not the scenario originally offered - you're dumbing-down the example rather than addressing it as written. Please stop.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Jumping over a 4 foot wall?  How high do you need to jump, find the DC, and you are done.



Really?

Okay, *Majoru Oakheart*, quote the Jump DC from the 3.5 SRD for the scenario I described - hopping over a four-foot wall to land immediately on the other side (not eight-feet beyond it) - and I won't post to any ENWorld board other than the PbP forums for a week.


			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The rules are there to cover any situation where the result is in question.  If the result isn't in question, you don't need to use them.  Which is why the rules need common sense applied to them.



Tumbling from flat ground. Tumbling from a table. Tumbling from an eight-foot high wall. All in melee. All DC 15.

Maybe that seems like common sense to you - it doesn't to me.

3e/d20 does an admirable job of covering a great many actions, but there are also what I call "sharp edges" to many of the rules - six inches one way or another means the difference between risking damage or not from a fall, for example. Blurring those edges a bit increases the verisimilitude of the setting and makes it feel less like a board game.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 21, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think that the interplay between these posts might be confusing your position. As I understand it, you are not saying that a thing not mentioned specifically in the rules does not exist in the game world. Rather, you are trying to say that a thing not specifically mentioned in the rules does not exist in the rules, and is therefore fully open to DM interpretation/house rules without said interpretation/house rules being considered an actual variation from the RAW.




I think he is simply stating that the rules as printed are not all encompassing. They arn't an exhaustive list of all in game events, objects, and such. If the DMG doesn't list a trap with a DC 30, it doesn't mean that that trap can't exist under the RAW, it just means that they didn't happen to detail any above that DC. So, a DC 30 trap isn't breaking the RAW, because the RAW does not say specifically that a trap's DC is capped at 25. Likewise, it isn't against the RAW to come across an orc with ranks in Craft(weaponmaking) just because the orc in the MM doesn't have that because it isn't prevented under the RAW.

That kind of thing.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 21, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> (Just say no to bland.)Again, this was not the scenario originally offered - you're dumbing-down the example rather than addressing it as written. Please stop.Really?



That's how I use the rules.  I dumb it down to the simplest explaination for anything using the rules to reduce the number of rolls made at the table at to avoid rules arguements:

In this case:
Stepping off a table: Easy, no roll
Moving through enemies threaten space: DC 15, likely 17 as you are doing it across uneven ground.  Done as part of a move.
If he can get where he wants to go using the movement rate he has, he still has and attack action left and can attack.

One tumble check and you are done and can be on to deciding the real question in the combat: Do you beat the enemies?  How much damage does everyone take?  So that when you have an answer you can get on with the story.

This is, of course, just my opinion, and the way I play it.  I normally favor a sort of "you can do most things if you succeed in a DC 20 roll" idea.  I like the players to be able to accomplish whatever they want.  The more rolls I make them make, the less chance they have of succeeding in one.  Basically, if it gives no mechanical benefits, I will allow it with minimal rolls.

In this case, does tumbling off a table give any benefits more than tumbling normally (or using a DC 25 tumble check to tumble THROUGH a dragon which we've done many times), so why complicate it other than to set up more chances to fail?  I love when my PCs do interesting actions and defeat the enemies.  They are supposed to win, they are the heroes.  I could say "alright, make a jump check in this case...you failed?  You lose your action this round, looks like you won't get there in time to save your friend."  I find we all have more fun when things succeed.





			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Okay, *Majoru Oakheart*, quote the Jump DC from the 3.5 SRD for the scenario I described - hopping over a four-foot wall to land immediately on the other side (not eight-feet beyond it) - and I won't post to any ENWorld board other than the PbP forums for a week.



Yes, I know there is no DC for "jumping directly over a wall without going too far".  I generally assume that if anyone wants to do LESS than what is listed, they can.  If someone makes the DC for jumping that high, they make it over, if they don't want to go 8 feet past, they don't have to.  Physics doesn't work the same way it does in real life, people can leap 40 feet in the air.

You are right though, this is a situation that goes slightly past the rules so any rule someone came up with would be fine.  If a DM said "look, you need to jump straight up and land on the wall and then jump off the other side OR you have to jump 8 feet past the wall, those are your choices."  I'd be fine with that.  Once again, I've said, if you get beyond the rules, you should expect to be at the mercy of the DM, but still have a good guess as to what to expect.  Both of those options are supported by the rules and I would expect either of them.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> 3e/d20 does an admirable job of covering a great many actions, but there are also what I call "sharp edges" to many of the rules - six inches one way or another means the difference between risking damage or not from a fall, for example. Blurring those edges a bit increases the verisimilitude of the setting and makes it feel less like a board game.



There ARE those edges, I will admit them.  10 feet you take damage, 9 feet you don't.  I've always just said that was the way physics worked in a D&D world in an effort to avoid remembering new rules and keeping the game simple to use.

In this situation, for instance, I've had a DM say you still took damage at 9 feet because he didn't like that "edge", which then started an arguement about where the dividing line was and if 10 feet did so much damage, 9 should do less, but what about 8 feet 9 inches?  There was always a line somewhere and it was always just as arbitrary as 10 feet, and it only made one person, the DM, feel better.  Now, in order to make sure people know.  If I say about 8 feet up, my players expect to take no damage, I say 10 feet, they expect to take 1d6.

The problem is, from our point of view, the game still IS a board game.  It isn't a life simulator, it's a set of rules to simulate a world remotely resembling ours.  If we get nitpicky about one rule, we can raise similar beefs with nearly every rule in the book.  It starts a slippery slope I don't want to start on.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 21, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think he is simply stating that the rules as printed are not all encompassing.



Yep, exactly.  Just because there isn't a DC listed for Jumping over a wall made of ICE doesn't make it different from jumping over anything else.

Traps exist that aren't in the books, monsters do as well.  Exceptions to each rule exist as well, but when every creature is an exception, it makes the baseline mean nothing.


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 21, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Traps exist that aren't in the books, monsters do as well.  Exceptions to each rule exist as well, but when every creature is an exception, it makes the baseline mean nothing.



Yes, absolutely.

However, IMX 3e breeds players that expect everything to be baseline, without exceptions, which I see as a consequence of making more of the mechanics transparent to the players. While I can understand the desire of players to want to be able to weigh the odds of a given action, I think this is taken to extremes at times.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> That's how I use the rules.  I dumb it down to the simplest explaination for anything using the rules to reduce the number of rolls made at the table at to avoid rules arguements:...One tumble check and you are done and can be on to deciding the real question in the combat: Do you beat the enemies?  How much damage does everyone take?  So that when you have an answer you can get on with the story.



I don't see complex skill checks as taking anything away from "the real question": in fact, I build whole encounters that are based around skill checks rather than combat. Those dice rolls are 'the real answer' for me: how something is accomplished is just as much a part of the story as the accomplishment itself.

I also don't seem to encounter as many rules arguments as you do - from your posts I gather this was a regular feature of your games. For myself I've seen far more rules arguments since I started playing 3e than I did when I played 1e or original.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I love when my PCs do interesting actions and defeat the enemies.



Me, too - something else we can agree on.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> They are supposed to win, they are the heroes.  I could say "alright, make a jump check in this case...you failed?  You lose your action this round, looks like you won't get there in time to save your friend."  I find we all have more fun when things succeed.



I believe the heroes should have a reasonable chance of success, but that there are times when the Fates will not smile kindly and they will in fact fail, sometimes spectacularly and very publicly.

For me, as both player and GM, picking yourself up and dusting yourself off after failure is part of the fun - winning all the time is like watching the grass grow.

(And those failures often make the most entertaining stories, IMX.)







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> You are right though, this is a situation that goes slightly past the rules so any rule someone came up with would be fine....Once again, I've said, if you get beyond the rules, you should expect to be at the mercy of the DM, but still have a good guess as to what to expect.



For the most part I agree with you here as well.







			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The problem is, from our point of view, the game still IS a board game.  It isn't a life simulator, it's a set of rules to simulate a world remotely resembling ours.  If we get nitpicky about one rule, we can raise similar beefs with nearly every rule in the book.  It starts a slippery slope I don't want to start on.



IMX consistency provides the traction that prevents sliding down that slippery slope.

That, or a DC 20 Balance check.


----------



## Quasqueton (Sep 22, 2005)

> However, IMX 3e breeds players that expect everything to be baseline, without exceptions, which I see as a consequence of making more of the mechanics transparent to the players. While I can understand the desire of players to want to be able to weigh the odds of a given action, I think this is taken to extremes at times.



To my knowledge (admittedly, relatively limited), in 90% of the games other than D&D (and even some editions of D&D), all the game/rule mechanics are listed in the same book. The mechanics are transparent to the Players. The Players have full access to all the rules, all the "monsters", all the "magic", etc. The Players have the same game knowledge as the GM. How, then, is this only a problem with D&D3? How is this just now being complained about?

Quasqueton


----------



## The Shaman (Sep 22, 2005)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> How, then, is this only a problem with D&D3? How is this just now being complained about?



Excellent question, and probably one that belongs in its own thread, since answering this question would take this one even further afield from the subject than it is presently.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> However, one could easily say that there is no rule in the RAW whatsoever that says you need a cannot fly with wet wings.  You just do it.  Adding a condition to flight is either poor understanding of the rules or needlessly complicating the situation and adding more complication than you need to have (What's the penalty to flying?  Can you simply not fly? How wet is wet?  The rules pretty much assume that if you have movement of a given type, you can use it).  It's when you think too far that starts confusing things.  You could figure out the physics of the situation, etc. Or just leave it simple.
> 
> *My point is that the word "needlessly" is extremely subjective.  *
> 
> RC




Well, in my mind there are two issues actually.  One, can a harpy fly with very wet wings.  The other, which, to me is far more relavent, can a Harpy take off from water.  Now, since a Harpy really can't fly anyway, the whole wet wings thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  However, talons don't work so well for taking off from water, so, I ruled no.  

The point is, this is a situation which is not covered in the RAW, so it requires a DM ruling.  It's not even remotely touched on in the RAW, so you cannot reasonably expect to extrapolate from existing rules.  So, the DM steps in and does the deed.

However, when there are existing rules which cover the situation, IMO, there's nothing wrong with the players expecting those rules to be followed.  

A recent conversation in another thread had a DM who got rid of the Flat Footed rules.  Simple enough change I suppose.  He wanted to streamline combat and didn't want to constantly deal with different AC's.  However, that simple change has major effects.  The biggest effect is the fact that a rogue can now only sneak attack if he is flanking.  This means that a lone rogue can NEVER sneak attack.  This is a huge effect.  Any player playing a rogue would be well within his rights to blow a gasket.  Imagine if a DM ruled that a mage could never cast spells unless he was accompanied by an ally.  Here's an example where a DM is pretty definitively in the wrong.  Stripping away a major ability of a class without any compensation is not good.  

Being DM does not make anyone right.  It means that your word is final, that's true, but, it doesn't make you right.

3e has meant that my arguement time around the table has gone from about 30% of game time to about 1%.  I've just run 10 straight sessions of the World's Largest Dungeon.  I've had one rules arguement and I was wrong.  My players pointed out to me in the rules where I made my mistake.  IIRC, it was whether or not you could take a 5 foot adjustment after standing from prone.  Today's session saw the orc barbarian try to take a 5 foot step to cleave - and got shot down.  It works both ways.  Being able to end disagreements in about 1 minute is why I play 3e.  

For those who talk about having to go through multiple supplements, well, I suppose if you used Arcana Unearthed or something like that, it would make sense.  But, then again, shouldn't the alternative rules be listed all in one book?  If I'm using DR rules for armor, for example, aren't those rules all listed in one section of the same book?  What situation would require me to look for answers in more than one book?


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 22, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> What situation would require me to look for answers in more than one book?




The simple fact that you're using alternative rules from more than one book, and try to gauge how they influence each other in a given problem situation?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 22, 2005)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> The simple fact that you're using alternative rules from more than one book, and try to gauge how they influence each other in a given problem situation?




But, correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't use an awful lot of alternative rules, but, aren't alternative rules by and large replacements for existing rules?  If you are using the AC as DR alternative rule, then, the only place you would look for answers would be the Unearthed Arcana.  If I'm using a Warforged character, then any questions regarding my warforged abilities should be directed at the Players guide for Eberron.  How many people actually use two sets of alternative rules at the same time?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I don't see complex skill checks as taking anything away from "the real question": in fact, I build whole encounters that are based around skill checks rather than combat. Those dice rolls are 'the real answer' for me: how something is accomplished is just as much a part of the story as the accomplishment itself.





Don't forget that combat itself is really a form of complex skill check.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, in my mind there are two issues actually.  One, can a harpy fly with very wet wings.  The other, which, to me is far more relavent, can a Harpy take off from water.  Now, since a Harpy really can't fly anyway, the whole wet wings thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  However, talons don't work so well for taking off from water, so, I ruled no.
> 
> The point is, this is a situation which is not covered in the RAW, so it requires a DM ruling.  It's not even remotely touched on in the RAW, so you cannot reasonably expect to extrapolate from existing rules.  So, the DM steps in and does the deed.





Sure it's covered in the RAW.  A creature with a listed fly speed can fly, period.  One could say that's just "the way physics worked in a D&D world in an effort to avoid remembering new rules and keeping the game simple to use".  

Please note that I am not advocating the simpler system.  I am merely pointing out that what the RAW actually contains is subjective.  A person could easily claim that the RAW contains, or does not contain, rules for flight from water.  On one hand, flight from water is not specifically mentioned, so you can say that the RAW does not cover the situation.  On the other hand, flight from water is not mentioned as an exception to the flight rules, so you can claim that, according to the RAW, normal flight rules apply.

The changes, extrapolations, and/or additions that one needs to make to the RAW, both as part of campaign design and in-play to cover unforseen circumstances, are highly subjective.  Which elements of change are "needless" and which are necessary for a cohesive world-vision or to maintain suspension of disbelief vary from group to group and DM to DM.

Which, I believe, was the point of the "tumble from table" example.  It is also a very good reason why DM's are allowed to make rules calls/changes as they decide they are needed.  I would hate to have every rules decision argued about, as Majoru seems to experience.  Outside the game, sure.  Inside the game, my table rule is "Go home or game on".


RC


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 22, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't use an awful lot of alternative rules, but, aren't alternative rules by and large replacements for existing rules?  If you are using the AC as DR alternative rule, then, the only place you would look for answers would be the Unearthed Arcana.  If I'm using a Warforged character, then any questions regarding my warforged abilities should be directed at the Players guide for Eberron.  How many people actually use two sets of alternative rules at the same time?




T'would be nice if it was that easy, but if you ever tried to answer a question about a spell from book A, modified with a feat from book B, affects an opponent who is either from book C entirely or maybe has a template from book D, all the while keeping in mind that there are various boni (not all from core books only, either) in effect, you might find yourself flipping more than one book while hoping to find a good answer. Or you simply make up one on the spot.

Maybe I'm the only one who simply hasn't the time to scan and collect all the different stuff he'd like to try in his games, and I still  love 3E for the options it gives, I truly am...but sometimes it can get a bit time-consuming, if it does ya. And  yes, writing it out beforehand, and copying all the relevant stuff into one folder is a good solution that I heard more than once, so all I need now is somebody get my real life off my back for a week so I can actually do that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Sep 22, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't use an awful lot of alternative rules, but, aren't alternative rules by and large replacements for existing rules?  If you are using the AC as DR alternative rule, then, the only place you would look for answers would be the Unearthed Arcana.  If I'm using a Warforged character, then any questions regarding my warforged abilities should be directed at the Players guide for Eberron.  How many people actually use two sets of alternative rules at the same time?




But you might not just be using one alternative rule.  For example, if you use the Vitality rules from UA, and the armor as DR rules from UA, you might also have to devise rules for how these things interact.  This is something I have had to do, and I discovered that the interaction covered exactly something that was otherwise missing from D&D.

RC


EDIT:  When armour DR removes wound points from a critical hit, the armour takes the damage itself.  Subtract the DR for the material the armour is made of from the actual damage to the armour.  Whatever remains is a penalty to AC for that armour, which remains until the armour is repaired (craft skill check DC 10 + the amount of damage taken by the armour).  If the character has a shield, the damage can be taken by the shield, possibly destroying it, to retain the full function of his remaining armour.

Suddenly, armour becomes truly important (DR vs really terrible wounds is as good as DR vs vitality), can be damaged using a simple system, and shields can be riven by a lucky blow!  Eowyn's last stand against the Lord of the Nazgul can become a D&D event....!


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Sep 24, 2005)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Which, I believe, was the point of the "tumble from table" example.  It is also a very good reason why DM's are allowed to make rules calls/changes as they decide they are needed.  I would hate to have every rules decision argued about, as Majoru seems to experience.  Outside the game, sure.  Inside the game, my table rule is "Go home or game on".



Yes, I agree on almost all points, it IS highly subjective.  Thus, my comment about trying to avoid coming up with new rules for "exceptions" when the raw works fine.  Like the flying out of water thing, RAW doesn't say you can't make a large leap directly into the air only for the purposes of taking off out of water, and mechanically, you end up the same as raw, it flys out of the water.  It satisfies my sense of "realism" to have the image of the powerful creature suddenly jumping high into the air with powerful muscles and catching a drift of air.  This way I don't have to add it to a growing list of new rules I've added to the game to cover strange things.

I'm glad you've not experienced the sort of rules discussions we've had in the past.  Well, I wouldn't call them rules discussions.  In previous editions, they were normally logic discussions.  Which lasted for hours as each side really advocated their side: "The book doesn't say how far you can jump, so I say the world record is 30ft (made up number here), I have a strength of 20 which is above the max for humans, so I can jump further than that!"

Now we have small number of rules clarifications arguements, mostly things like "This PrC says you can use a move equivilant action to create a weapon.  Can I make more than one?" or "It says I can apply extra damage to a weapon I'm holding, is this special abilty I have considered a weapon?"  They are normally clearly yes or no answers with the DM making the final decision.

Most of the important rules that affect nearly every session are spelled out in the book.  My players know if they want to move from point a to point b, they can do so, if they move through threatened spaces they provoke AOO unless they tumble.  If they do all threatened spaces they move through take double moves.  I've never really needed to implement special rules for jumping off of tables, walking down stairs, leaping over walls.  The most discussion over this sort of thing has been "a 4 foot tall wall, huh?  Ok, I take 5 more feet of movement to walk around instead, then I attack" or "Can you jump over it?  Sure, it's about 5 ft, make a DC 5 check"

I find other DMs are good at overcomplicating situations, turning each action anyone attempts into an except to the rules so that the rules never apply.  I just assume any modifiers that aren't obviously overwhelmning are inconsequential.


----------



## the Jester (Sep 25, 2005)

I just wanted to chime in here and say that I've just spent several hours reading most of this thread and it is, imho, a really cool one.   Good arguments on all sides, no real personal attacks, etc.  I'm sorry I missed getting into it earlier... at this point there's so much built up that I don't know quite where to begin. 

Keep on keepin' it civil, guys!  There's a lot of passion here- and I'd hate to see this thread end up closed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 9, 2005)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I'm glad you've not experienced the sort of rules discussions we've had in the past.  Well, I wouldn't call them rules discussions.  In previous editions, they were normally logic discussions.  Which lasted for hours as each side really advocated their side: "The book doesn't say how far you can jump, so I say the world record is 30ft (made up number here), I have a strength of 20 which is above the max for humans, so I can jump further than that!"





I never had these sorts of arguments for a very good reason.  I don't allow more than a sentence or two to convince me at the table (EDIT:  Happened just this week that I changed a ruling because of that sentence, though!), and after the game has moved on I find that players tend to be less concerned about what the world record was.  

When the DM can say "No" the game can stay on track.

Going over the thread again, it amazes me how some would say, on one hand, that the DM does a whole bunch of extra work because he enjoys it, and on the other hand that there wouldn't be a game without the players.  Aside from the fact that it is always easier to find players than DMs, it seems that the DM actually does gain quite a bit of enjoyment from the game away from the players.  I have to admit that this is true in my experience as well.  I enjoy the set-up, most days, nearly as much as actually playing (and without the careful set-up, I don't enjoy running a game nearly as much).

I wish you all the best in your games, no matter how you enjoy playing them.  If you ever sit at my table, though (or I sit at yours), you know ahead of time that I believe in the DM's authority.


RC


----------

