Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rodolfomaxi 04-15-08, 03:03 PM	Hey boardmates. I wanna collect some opinions here. If you are (and probably will be) a player too. Answer this other thread as well: As a Player, What's your opinion? (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=15620801#post15620801) DM, the guy who is the absolute ruler (zero). He say what goes and what not. What happens and what not. This power in his hands shall be always used for the fun of the group as a whole. With this is mind... How do you feel as a DM of creating a character/power/spell without the rules? Making it as you want it to be. Custom spells,equipment,etc. A)What do you did/does/will do like this in your campaing and why? B) This DM power: Do you feel it's necessary? It's great if used correclty? Don't needed? Frustate the players? Thanks for reading and feel free to throw your opinions!
iserith 04-15-08, 03:10 PM	Hey boardmates. I wanna collect some opinions here. If you are (and probably will be) a player too. Answer this other thread as well: As a Player, What's your opinion? DM, the guy who is the absolute ruler zero. He say what goes and what not. What happens and what not. This power in his hands shall be always used for the fun of the group as a whole. With this is mind... How do you feel as a DM of creating a character/power/spell without the rules? Making it as you want it to be. Custom spells,equipment,etc. Do you feel it's necessary? It's great if used correclty? Don't needed? Throw your opinions! I think you'd be hardpressed to find someone who would be offended by additions or customizations to the rules based on the campaign as long as they are consistent and fair. I could be wrong, based on some things I read in these forums, however. Personally, I don't make many changes to the rules as written. I may not emphasize certain aspects to the game and I certainly limit availability to books as needed, but I haven't found a case where I felt something was so lacking in a campaign that I had to design and implement it. The only thing I could possibly think of adding would add flavor and that's all.
setekh 04-15-08, 03:11 PM	I prefer not too, but if I really need something that the rules can't provide, then I will make it. Saying that, I'll always make it theoretically available to the PC's as well, although it may be nigh on impossible to do so. For example a feat that allows the character too, I don't know, use some icey spells as spell-like-abilites, might require levels in a prestige class I've created that is only available to those touched by the BBEG deity or whatever. Theoretically possible, but obviously not going to happen.
WilliamTanner 04-15-08, 04:28 PM	Well, I look at it this way: Dungeons and Dragons is the framework that allows the players to participate in the game I am providing. It isn't a game of chess where I play by the same rules as "my opponents". I am not an adversary. I am there to provide opportunities and help resolve the results of their many decisions and actions. I don't have an agenda to speak of. I am not trying to tell a story, win friends, or share in the glory of fabulous riches and daring deeds. All of those things are onus of the players. The majority of my role takes part off screen, between sessions. The DMG and published scenarios are good resources, but they are not binding constraints. I reserve the right to make stuff up. But here's the catch: The more I deviate from the norm, the more likely I am to hose myself down the line. Just because I can improvise, doesn't mean I am always doing a good job of it. If I get too wild and complicated in my personal tweaks, I may break the trust of my players, and then the game dies.
JancariusSeiryujinn 04-15-08, 04:40 PM	I once just completely changed an NPC on the spot, gave him an artifact weapon that was near perfect for fighting the PC he was dueling. It let him essentially heal himself of anything other than normal damage (status effects and stat damage could be cured for example) as a swift action, and the beguiler I had him fighting spent the fight yelping and running for his life. The player didn't seem upset about it, and he was a little less inclined to pick fights with characters he knew nothing about after. Oh, and he couldn't be disarmed, the sword would automatically reappear in his hand if anyone tried to take it from him by any means other than him willingly giving it away while not under any magical compulsion.
Dash Branaghan 04-15-08, 05:04 PM	I make changes all the time as need be to fit into my world/realm/concept. However, that said, when I create spells or what not, I balance it out with a very simple question: "Would I want my PCs to have access to this (at any point)?" If the answer is no, then I usually don't bother incorporating it or tone it down to the point where, if my PCs did get it, it isn't a game breaker. NPCs...I make them outside the rules all the time - sometimes they have extra feats that they shouldn't have, but then again, sometimes I "gift" feats along with XP to players. Again, not in the rules, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander IMO. As for the absolute power thing - well, it's not something I lord over the players. I don't consider myself the absolute power - I consider myself more of a combination of story teller and Mother Nature (complete with gamer breasts), and if that comes with absolute power, so be it. I generally don't pay attention to it. I'm not out to frustrate my players any more than they are out to frustrate me - I usually have things pre-configured and if I thwart them, great. Sometimes we learn new things because I read one of the splat book of tactics and implement them with the next creature that will likely use them. Stuff like that. But again, anything I can do with or give to my NPCs are fair game in the hands of the PCs...assuming they meet level or alignment restrictions for use of the item/ability.
r3gulark 04-15-08, 05:07 PM	It can be necessary, and I say that it's completely viable to do. As long as the DM balances the power, so to still challenge the players, but not to dominate them, then I'm sure its fine. The best way to do this is to check other CR x monsters and see how comparable the powers are.
Moonslayer 04-15-08, 05:38 PM	I think the option to go "off the grid" is one of the best tools a DM has. It does need to be used within reason, making sure what you do is fairly well balanced within the confines of the rules (bending and cracking the rules can be okay if done sparingly, breaing them is still probably a bad thing). As a member of a very experienced group, the ability to toss custom things into the mix makes for some very fun, challenging, and exciting games.
Etarnon 04-16-08, 07:41 AM	You know, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. I do that kind of stuff all the time. Seriously, I am stumped as to why you are asking this. Custom maps, spells, classes, (in 3.X, Prestige classes) weapons, gear, artifacts, history. I mean, it's my campaign, I design it. I do this to make it interesting, with unexpected challenges.
twad 04-16-08, 12:13 PM	Basicaly, yes to most (custom rules, items, npcs, yes to fun, no to unfunny) Of course the Dm is the sole dictator, god and ruler of the game. Doesnt mean a DM is a stupid power-hungry individual. Right now, i set up a situation and i craft the main points of interest.. and my players act freely inside it. I learned that a more structured game than that would tend to be inflexible to the PCs choices, and be time-consuming.
Jeibo 04-16-08, 04:33 PM	Yeah, i always do it. if your players are one of those guys that know all spell-lists of 10 books, all feats, all strengths and weaknesses of each class/race etc., its often much more fun for them too, not to know what hit them. I always try to out-read my players as well, (tho with some of them thats harder than it sounds). Showing them that theres still things to learn through their actual PCs, not books, is always fun.
UberDog 04-16-08, 05:31 PM	Story has to come first, but being consistent and letting the players know that the NPCs have to use use the rules too comes in a strong second. What I have found players will always chafe under is the yolk of a perceived double-standard. The rules apply to them but not you, their characters have to make their roles and learn spells out of the books, but not the NPCs. If you make a new spell, then I would suggest you allow the players to gain access to said spell if they jump through the adventure hoops. As long as they have the chance of learning Mordenkanen's Nefarious Napalm Bombing Run, after they beat the wizard slinging it at them, they'll feel it's fair. But if the wizard's spell book gets incinerated in the ensuing chaos, they'll be mad that you used your God-like powers to cheat them and save your nifty stuff for your NPCs.
rodolfomaxi 04-16-08, 11:08 PM	Hey board, thanks for the replys. Myself, i'm a DM that first preoccupation is with the overall enjoyment of the players in the game. I make sure they get what they want with their characters. That's why i create custom feats/ classes etc. If there's one thing that REALLY pisses me off is metagaming. "Hey, if the guy striked someone and auto-healed he is a crusader... The guy hasn't spells...how did he counterspelled me?" I find this very annoying. Being so, i frontly warn my players that i WILL house-rule. So stop expecting obvious things for the game. It's not about making UBER-Npcs. It never was about that...
KoboldSlayer 04-17-08, 12:23 AM	I think that sometimes it is useful to write your own things and/or change up things to give players surprises...especially if they have the books memorized even better than you do. Three things I keep in mind: 1. Whatever it is, it might end up in the hands of the PCs. (And if you write in a way that it "just can't"...that, to me, is cheating. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in my opinion. I also use this theory the other way, though. If the PCs find some absolutely devastating combination or start using the same thing over and over as a one-pony-show kind of way of dealing with encounters, eventually some NPC or group of NPCs will use it on them. I don't do this often , but I do occassionally steal tactics I feel the players have over-used or abused and use them on the PC party. My logic is, they are not the only...or even the "most"...intelligent things in the realm, so why would they be the only ones to think of a great tactic?) 2. It should enhance the enjoyment of the game or forward the storyline...not be there to kill PCs or mess up their plans just because you are the DM and you can. (It does not sound like the original poster would do this, anyway!) 3. If it is a "change" to an established creature, spell, etc and the characters witness it, give them a chance to use their knowledges (if they have the right ones) to recognize the change in character...even if they don't know it out of character. You don't want them to use knowledge that they know OOC when their characters don't know it IC...so be sure that you don't deny them access to knowledge their characters would have IC (based on the characters Knowledge ranks, intelligence, and a roll you make in secret) just because they don't know it OOC. For example: If you have a species of owlbear in your campaign that has red-tinted fur and Fire Resistance 5, then when they player comes upon one of these red-tinted owlbears, make the knowledge roll to see if they know not to toss alchemist's fire or fire spells on it. It might make a difference to their tactics...and their character might know it even if there's absolutely no way they would know OOC. You asked for an example of how I've used this. I try to use it sparingly, but one of my favorites was a flesh golem that had intelligence. It was an NPC that a more powerful NPC had sent along with the party to keep an eye on them. They thought it was a human until it started showing that it was "different", and it made a nice mystery for them to figure out. I left it the same CR, as even though it had Intelligence (and could therefore get class levels, feats, and had skill points, unlike most constructs), it had a down-side that it lost a few of its construct traits that had to do with not having a mind...such as it was no longer immune to mind-influencing spells and effects. But it still had some disadvantages such as when the PCs tried to "heal" it...of course cure spells did not work and they had to find another way to do that. This was at the time when the last Terminator movie was out, and I just randomly thought of how fun it would be to have a female NPC similar to the villainous terminator in that movie. (Sometimes the best inspiration comes from the strangest sources.)
Escef 04-17-08, 01:46 AM	I never make up anything new without the rules. Because if you just make up new stuff without using the rules as a guideline the chances of seriously misbalancing the game are pretty good. No spell, feat, PrC, etc. exists in a vacuum.