Post/Author/DateTime	Post
weasel fierce 03-03-05, 02:48 PM	Have there been a change in tradition and doctrine ? When I started roleplaying, it was always understood, that the game master was in charge of the game. His interest was to make the game as fun, challenging and memorable as possible, and to achieve that, he could do anything and everything he wished, or came up with. From browsing these boards, it seems that the trend has changed. Instead, the DM is now just a player with different responsibilities, bound by the same rules, and deviating from them is unthinkable. The DM must be "fair" and everything must be supported by the rules, and already explained in print. Encounters must be codified and "balanced" with CR's and whatnot. Each player must be able to build exactly the character he wants, with no limitations from campaign or environment. Has there been a change of doctrine and why ? How do you play ?
Mootilator 03-03-05, 03:05 PM	The current DM's Guide is pretty clear about making sure the game should be fun first, then by the rules second. I think the attitudes you are seeing are personal preferences some folks have....I don't think the books advocate it. There is a balance, however. The game really isn't a game without rules to set the parameters and making sure there is consistency. Constant ignorace of the rules makes the game an excercise in "let's pretend" using some frigging expensive books that aren't being used.
Morik the Rogue 03-03-05, 03:27 PM	If a Player Dont Agree with me i ask every player in my Group if they think i should change it, and if all think that i should i usualy do, Butt is it just one that says its a stupid rule Change i usualy tell them to Stop whining and accept it, Butt mainly i dont bend many rules unless i realy have to. And i give my players allmost Full freedom when they are making Charakter, more fun then to se what they come up with :D.
The Shaman 03-03-05, 04:53 PM	Cribbed these quotes from another BB: 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. .... I think the basic point here is the design challenge of something like the D&D core system, where you're trying to write something for the brand-new-to-the-game 12 year old player and the been-playing-since-before-electricity experienced player.... If we erred, we probably erred on the side of the new guy, assuming that the experienced players will just strip out or overrule anything they don't like. The idea is that DMing is really hard at first--even just the concept of it--and the fewer judgement calls that new DM has to make the better, just to make his life easier. (And if you do really know and understand the rules, it does cut down drastically on the rules arguments and misunderstandings, no matter what your experience with the game.) For me personally, I'm all about the DM and DM power. That's why it's very freeing for me to work on Malhavoc products now. At Malhavoc, we assume that we're writing for experienced players, particularly experienced DMs. People who are not only not afraid to make judgement calls but also have the experience to do it fairly and well. I think the number of people, for example, that will have Arcana Evolved as their first rpg is very, very small. That makes designing AE/AU must simpler than designing D&D. The audience (and the audience's needs) aren't so broad. I honestly think it's something that WotC should be seriously thinking about as they move forward, to see if they can come up with a better solution than we did. In hindsight, there should have been a lot more discussion in the DMG, for example, aimed at more experienced DMs and explaining how they can manipulate the rules more to their liking, if they so desire (and the potential drawbacks of such). Yes, there was a conscious decision to emphasize "The Rules" over GM judgement, and yes, it's not necessarily a good thing. The relationship between the players and the GM is a balancing act: the GM is in charge of the game-world, but if the players don't like the experience of that world, they'll find something else to do, leaving the GM alone with a big stack of books and a bag of dice and nothing to do with either of them. There needs to be a level of trust and a willingness to share a measure of control for the game to work. As a GM, I create the world in which the characters adventure - the players have absolute control over their characters with which they explore that world. As an older-than-dirt GM I am absolutely comfortable coming up with stuff on the fly, something made easier than ever by the d20 mechanic by the way, and I tweak the rules and conceits to fit the setting and the flow of the game as I see fit. That's what I bring to the table as a GM - the players can accept it or they can find someone else with whom to play.
aleph_woodenglenn 03-03-05, 05:03 PM	I think that there has been a general change in gameplay for many. As the editions have progressed, there has been greater and greater codification and legislation of various aspects of game play which lends itsel for better consistency, but less imaginitiveness. Personnally, I think that, as the game reflects real life, with all its subtlties and happenstances, the DM should act as judge, but to follow every rule every time (ie, rolling a d20 EVERY time a skill is used) can take away from roleplaying while at the same time more standardization (character builds etc.) leads away from randomness, to more of the similar types of characters. It is probably just personal preferrence, but I figure that it is nice to have the rules there as an outline, and a guide, but to use them (and carry on and on about them) as the end-all-be-all of gameplay detracts from the gameplaying experience for both DM and Player. D&D is suppose to be a game of personal interraction, I say if a person wants to follow the letter of the law absolutely for every game, and have nearly the same type of gameplay every adventure, thats what video games do (of course even those frequently change rules by setting options or playing in different servers).... but if he or she wants a dynamic, interesting social gaming experience with tough choices, and an interesting roleplaying, D&D works better, even if the DM and players take creative liberty, remember, the people who write the manuals are really just players (I hope) who have the support of a publisher and the legitimacy of a brand name. These books aren't lawbooks, they are just game rules and rules were made to be broken (remember, you don't get any money from landing on free parking in monopoly...technically. thats just another rule from the people at Hasbro that we typically don't think twice about breaking)...I say don't let Hasbro dictate your gaming experience....thats what the DM is for (teehee)
11d7 03-03-05, 05:12 PM	Have there been a change in tradition and doctrine ? When I started roleplaying, it was always understood, that the game master was in charge of the game. His interest was to make the game as fun, challenging and memorable as possible, and to achieve that, he could do anything and everything he wished, or came up with. From browsing these boards, it seems that the trend has changed. Instead, the DM is now just a player with different responsibilities, bound by the same rules, and deviating from them is unthinkable. The DM must be "fair" and everything must be supported by the rules, and already explained in print. Encounters must be codified and "balanced" with CR's and whatnot. Each player must be able to build exactly the character he wants, with no limitations from campaign or environment. Has there been a change of doctrine and why ? How do you play ? I hate this new additude to. I started playing in 2nd Ed and it seemed like the DMs had an Iron grip on the world and what the players could and could not do becuase all rules (that I know of) were varients. Also all the important rules were in the DMG were pesky players could not read them. Now the players have access to all the important rules that I could never gain access to in 2nd Ed and now they think they are co-DMs. Now every new player I get whines for hours becuase they cant be something that doesnt fit my world even though the core books say they can. Whats a player have the right to a monster manual for anyway? (I hate metagaming, its my biggest problem next to players complaining at first) And when I alter/make new races and monsters to counter this they whine too! My biggest problem ever though, but something I will never budge on: If you want to play an X race at level 1 and the campaign starts in Y town 5000 miles from X town you cannot have possable traveled there and would have needed to have been born there to still be level 1. Oh look my demographics say that no memebers of X race even live within 2000 miles of Y town and no memebers of X race have been here in the recent enouph past to have given birth to you, and even if they did you would not have your cultural bonuses growing up here.
Sorel 03-03-05, 05:16 PM	As a 25 year veteran of GMing, I do not find that the d20 mechanic has 'eliminated' the DM. It doesn't take too much in the way of imagination for players to have to come up with situations that I need to make a spot ruling for. However, that's the players (and DMs) that I enjoy playing with. I have encountered some people that have difficulty accepting that the game can be played perfectly without having a perfectly 'balanced' party and encounters that only use up a certain percentage of their resources. The new culture that has developed around d20 has brought about a game with a different 'feel' to it. I don't care for it either. I don't believe in 'fair' encounters. I also always make sure there's a way out when PCs trip into an 'unfair' encounter. The main problem with the current system is that some players and DMs are allowing themselves to be handcuffed by it. I like the idea of being able to 'test' an encounter by determining the EL, but I won't always stick to 'balanced' encounters and 'balanced' party wealth in magic/equipment. This may because I find that DMG certified 'balanced' encounters present an inadequate challenge. Anyway, i'm off to play in a perfectly acceptable by the book balanced game. :D
Andrew_980 03-03-05, 08:52 PM	the other half of this trend is the DMs that think it is them against the players, that every combat has to be an attempt to slaughter the PCs, even if he needs to "cheat" ("dms always right") i just had one of those the other day, changing the modual to make the fights too lethal
11d7 03-03-05, 09:11 PM	the other half of this trend is the DMs that think it is them against the players, that every combat has to be an attempt to slaughter the PCs.... In my defence I dont want to win and slaughter the PCs but usualy whatever they are fighting does. In defence of said creatures I must have them act in an intellegent manner because I will not allow them to be killed only for the PCs to further their goals. #1 example of this is how I build kobold cave settalments: Built for small sized creatures, a number of locked iron doors near the entrance and the doors are trapped as well as the floor between them. Only shut off is on the other side of the last door in a control center. Magical divices and/or secondary tunnels with slidding eye slits are used to moniter the passage way. At least one of the traps involves flooding the corridor or summoning creatures (and the PCs usually being medium are at a huge disatvantage). This sould all be possable if with the average Kobold tribe with numbers atleast 100 adults.
Andrew_980 03-03-05, 09:15 PM	that seems a little high tech/magic for a bunch of monsters out in the wild, a modern concept that may well be a bit too much for them and where do they buy all these doors?
Thorak 03-03-05, 09:16 PM	I hate this new additude to. I started playing in 2nd Ed and it seemed like the DMs had an Iron grip on the world and what the players could and could not do becuase all rules (that I know of) were varients. Also all the important rules were in the DMG were pesky players could not read them. Now the players have access to all the important rules that I could never gain access to in 2nd Ed and now they think they are co-DMs. The problem here is your players, not the new system. I've been playing since early in 2nd edition, and while I was mostly a player, I also owned a DMG and an MM. It wasn't an issue, because the DM isn't required to follow the rules to the letter, he can houserule if he likes. As long as he's not houseruling on the fly, because he can. That's irritating to players, because they don't know what the rules they're playing by are, because the DM might change them on a whim at any moment. Now every new player I get whines for hours becuase they cant be something that doesnt fit my world even though the core books say they can. Whats a player have the right to a monster manual for anyway? (I hate metagaming, its my biggest problem next to players complaining at first) And when I alter/make new races and monsters to counter this they whine too! The problem is your players. Why do players need an MM? For starters, to play something other than a core race. For animal companion and familiar stats. For summoned creatures. For Wildshape and Polymorph forms. Need I go on? If your players are using OOC knowledge to benefit their characters IC, that's called "metagaming", and it's been bad RP manners throughout. I know that a troll is vulnerable to fire and acid, and regernerates all other damage, without even looking at the book. My most recent character, in a homebrew world where the monstrous humanoids were almost wiped out 50 years ago, on his first encounter with one dropped it with his sword, and started rooting through it's cave looking for treasure. And promptly got ambushed by the half-healed troll a few minutes later. Then I watched it, and saw it knitting together, and hacked it into hamburger. And it was still healing. Then I saw the one across the way, that the sorceror had cooked up with his favourite attack spell that just happens to deal fire damage (it's not metagaming, he fires it even against things he knows are immune to fire, because it does a tiny bit of concussion damage too). The light goes off, and I light a torch. See, that's called "roleplaying" and "separation of character and player". If your players can't handle that, the problem is your players, not the system. My biggest problem ever though, but something I will never budge on: If you want to play an X race at level 1 and the campaign starts in Y town 5000 miles from X town you cannot have possable traveled there and would have needed to have been born there to still be level 1. Oh look my demographics say that no memebers of X race even live within 2000 miles of Y town and no memebers of X race have been here in the recent enouph past to have given birth to you, and even if they did you would not have your cultural bonuses growing up here. Right. Because you can't travel without gaining experience. Farmers who take their goods to town can expect to get a level or two in the process. If you missed it, that was written in dripping sarcasm. Yes, you'd need a good reason. But there's nothing about being level 1 that means your character has only just started traveling the world. Maybe they signed on as a caravan guard, and have been traveling incident-free for months now. No reason to gain experience, still level 1, and thousands of miles from home. I'm not even trying yet, there's tons of reasons to justify this kind of stuff. If you don't allow it, you're the one being hamhanded and ridiculous, in implying that people never travel for any reason outside their home town unless they have already gained some levels first.
11d7 03-03-05, 09:32 PM	that seems a little high tech/magic for a bunch of monsters out in the wild, a modern concept that may well be a bit too much for them and where do they buy all these doors? Well with kobold I think that with them getting a racial bonus on Trap Making and Mining they would be able to make their own Iron doors from their mines and make clever traps or maybe I'm assuming to much about a races of sneaky weaklings with techinal knowledge (mining and trap making are rather 'high tech' for every member of a race to be good at) For starters, to play something other than a core race. For animal companion and familiar stats. For summoned creatures. For Wildshape and Polymorph forms. Need I go on? I always write out the stats and such for all the races I allow and give them to the players. This usually is around 7-10 which may or may not include core races or even published races. For summons I let the wizard choose from the PHB list and then I open the MM to the page they need (also help on saves vs. greasy chip hands), I premake the most commonly used templated summons like Fendish Apes and Celestial Bison. Heck I incourage them seeking out knowledge in game, if they plan on it I make little books out of paper with bristal board covers and yarnstraped bindings I right with knowledge from an in game perspective in them. But they would rather just memorize stat blokes. Yes, you'd need a good reason. But there's nothing about being level 1 that means your character has only just started traveling the world. Maybe they signed on as a caravan guard, and have been traveling incident-free for months now. No reason to gain experience, still level 1, and thousands of miles from home. I'm not even trying yet, there's tons of reasons to justify this kind of stuff. If you don't allow it, you're the one being hamhanded and ridiculous, in implying that people never travel for any reason outside their home town unless they have already gained some levels first. Well I guess my problem is that my players will not come up with good reasons. I'm sure if they did I would let them but their reasons are always "cause I want to have +4 Str and +4 Con and fast healing 1 and die at -my con score"
HomebrewedMonster 03-03-05, 09:53 PM	Well with kobold I think that with them getting a racial bonus on Trap Making and Mining they would be able to make their own Iron doors from their mines and make clever traps or maybe I'm assuming to much about a races of sneaky weaklings with techinal knowledge (mining and trap making are rather 'high tech' for every member of a race to be good at). You are assuming too much. They have racial bonuses to craft (trapmaking) and profession (mining), but they do not have racial bonuses to craft (blacksmithing) and knowledge (architecture and engineering). This does not mean that the kobolds in your world are not good at these things, but using the examples as a Core supplement it does not work. I also would not consider mining and trap making "high tech". If you have the ability to dig a hole, get a net, and cover it with leaves, you can make a trap. Having craft (trapmaking) does not mean you have knowledge of pullies, levers, and complex traps. That is the realm of knowledge (architecture and engineering). I would have to say they are a resourseful race that are clever enough to make simple traps to guard their homes and territory.
sampi 03-03-05, 10:03 PM	The players are responsible, racional people, they shouldn't be treated as little kids. They can read the DMG and the MM, but doing so really affects the gaming experience for everyone (the DM and the players). A DM should give his/her players the liberty to do whatever they want, but make them understand that doing so takes the fun away. XP and GP(or SP :P) aren't really worth anything, the DM can give infinite amounts of them away but that makes the game a lot less fun. I belive my party understands that they shouldn't do anything that is too unbalanced, but not because the evil DM says so, but because its important to follow the rules in order to make the game fun. A DM is not a boss, he's just a player with a different role. Telling the players they can't read the DMG is stupid, they're free to do whatever they want, they are just like DM(meaning (s)he's not above them in any way), but they understand that doing so destroys the game altogether. The most important part of the game is for everyone to have fun, if the bossy DM makes everyone happy then so be it, if not, change it.
Titan W 03-03-05, 10:27 PM	Let's see our DM is an unflexible perverted person, who at least looks out for the party's helath (Unless of course it comes to killing them off wiht a succubus, incubus, or other sexual meathod) However overall he runs an okay game, and is open to a few, verry few, suggestions, but since about 90% of the table are high-school self-admitted nerds and geeks (Including the teacher who runs it), who tend to also have raging hormoes, the situations are almost always found funny... so it's all good...
11d7 03-04-05, 07:03 AM	The players are responsible, racional people, they shouldn't be treated as little kids. Well my players ages range from 12-15 years old, they are immature kids. The 17 year old is fine, its the younger ones who are the problem. A DM should give his/her players the liberty to do whatever they want, but make them understand that doing so takes the fun away. XP and GP(or SP :P) aren't really worth anything, the DM can give infinite amounts of them away but that makes the game a lot less fun. My players have yet to learn that becuase they are happy just sitting there telling childish jokes. A DM is not a boss, he's just a player with a different role. Telling the players they can't read the DMG is stupid, they're free to do whatever they want, they are just like DM(meaning (s)he's not above them in any way), but they understand that doing so destroys the game altogether. I'm sorry but I have to be the boss to get anything done. If I didnt they would just sit there and socialize dispite them begging me to come over and play D&D. If I let them read the DMG more than they already have all they would do is complain there are not enouph high level NPCs in a town or whine becuase I dont follow the weath rules to the exect of the letters. Maybe with a more mature group can you let the players read the other books but not with mine.
Moon-Lancer 03-04-05, 08:15 AM	freeform is good as long as you dont have power issues. dms complain about powergamers but its a whole lot worse when its the dm that has power issues. Its also not to good when the dm is trying to fullfill some sort of fantasy through d&d. It makes for bad priorities. its ok for players to know the rules. just think how much of a better role player they can be if they know everything about d&d and still keep hacking up that troll untill something comes along. good role playing should not be brought out through ignorence. This means the more you learn by playing the game the worse you get as a role player. Extreem but in a way sortof true.
Afarian 03-04-05, 09:38 AM	In response to the original poster..... Honestly, I think there's a little of both in today's gaming scene. I don't play D&D a lot, but from what I've seen it really depends on the group and the DM. I.E. I have a group right now which for some odd reason the DM thinks that it's utterly unreasonable for someone to have the capability of moving 30ft and swinging a sword or cast a spell in 6 sec. So he's totally screwed up combat so now you can only move half your distance and attack or cast a spell, however the spell is a full round casting time instead standard so it doesn't even go off until next round. Sometimes it fluctuates though, at least for melee--sometimes people are suddenly allowed to do it and it seems that all the enemies/Npc's can move 30 ft and cast/attack everytime!? Also, it could just be me, but whenever I ask for the prices from a merchant it costs about 2x to 10x the standard price and getting a stat boost of +2 would make you so ungodly powerful and gamebreaking that it costs 40,000 for a simple Headband of INT. But everyone treats the DM as God and nobody dare question any misruling he might make for fear of incuring his unfathomnable wrath! Well, ok it might not the DM might not be quite that godly, but still they don't think I should speak up when I think something is unfair towards my class I personally think it's good to try to keep a grasp on rules that are meant to "balance" game mechanics. That doesn't mean you have to follow them to the letter, however I don't think everyone would have fun if the classes were so unbalanced that one class had such a severe advantage over another that the inferior class would feel useless! Or if every encounter was either way too difficult or provided no challenge at all! That's why IMO, it's good to go by the rules more or less but still have freedom to change details as the DM sees fit!
Ogre4Hire 03-04-05, 01:24 PM	Another thing is the total anti-metagaming thing. While nobody wants to have a character look up the stats on a Glabrizu in the middle of combat, it isn't as if the characters somehow grew up in an alternate world where monsters don't exist. I pretty much expect any players in my group to know that Trolls can only be killed by fire or acid or that only Silver weapons can harm a werewolf because both monsters are relatively common in the area of the world we play in, so it makes more sense that they would know. And then there's the characters themselves. Under the strictest sense of the word, every time a player chooses a new feat or buys a magic item, he's metagaming, because his character isn't going to know that "taking Cleave will allow me to make more attacks" or "that +1 Battle Axe deals triple on a crit instead of double like the Longsword."
Ourph the Mingol 03-04-05, 02:02 PM	Has there been a change of doctrine and why? Yes there has and the simple answer to why is that, as a customer base, players outnumber and outspend DMs. The rules support the players because, financially speaking, the players support the rules. How do you play? I rule with an iron fist, flay the munchkins alive and hang the ruleslawyers at dawn each morning. It's great! :D
sampi 03-04-05, 04:05 PM	Well my players ages range from 12-15 years old, they are immature kids. The 17 year old is fine, its the younger ones who are the problem. My players have yet to learn that becuase they are happy just sitting there telling childish jokes. I'm sorry but I have to be the boss to get anything done. If I didnt they would just sit there and socialize dispite them begging me to come over and play D&D. If I let them read the DMG more than they already have all they would do is complain there are not enouph high level NPCs in a town or whine becuase I dont follow the weath rules to the exect of the letters. Maybe with a more mature group can you let the players read the other books but not with mine. You need to find a more mature group or tell them to grow up.