Post/Author/DateTime	Post
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-22-07, 11:45 PM	DMs, from time to time, ban books for various reasons. And that is certainly their perogative to do so. To wit, every additional book contains the disclaimer that one should talk to one’s DM beforehand as they may allow all, none, or part of the additional material held within. That being said, there are many reasons why a DM should allow the extra material. The foremost that comes to mind is that when a player requests something from a source book, they are telling the DM how the campaign could be improved. Further, they are hinting at the flavour they would like their character to have. Most importantly, they are suggesting a means through which the DM can seed meaningful plot hooks for them. Splat books can and do provide fun extra options for both the DM and the players. As the options are increased in number and complexity, the various combinations of these options increases. This gives the player more options that they can do with heir characters, and the DM more options with which to surprise and challenge their players. Thus expanding the fun for all involved. These extra options also provide differences and uniqueness to what may otherwise be tired clichés. A knight may be built with the fighter, paladin, cleric, or knight class. With the almost unending supply of options, each one of the characters calling themselves a “knight” is unique in their own way. And there is still room for the DM to challenge them with a stereotypical “black knight”. But one then has to ask when it is ok for the DM to disallow a book. The first thing that comes to many people’s minds are balance and power reasons. However as many will show through pure mathematics, virtually everything is balanced against the core classes. The most powerful class by far is the druid. Further, what at first seems to be powerful on paper usually comes with harsh restrictions which serve to curb much of its perceived power. For example: the warlock. At first sight the warlock appears broken in that it can shoot an eldritch blast an unlimited amount of times per day, and has unlimited usages of its spell-like abilities. However, when the number of different invocations is compared to that of a wizard the real balance can be seen. A wizard may be limited by spells per day, but can learn literally hundreds of spells. The warlock gets merely a few. Another common misconception is that class from the Tome of Battle are over powered. Actually, they are – when compared to a traditional melee class. However, when compared to other spellcasters one notices that the maneuvers are inherently weaker then spells of an equivalent level. Further, many of the maneuvers and boosts are limited to one round of combat, whereas many spells can remain active for an entire day. In addition, spells are more versatile, allowing the PHB casters more options in any given day. But maybe wizards and druids are too strong for a particular DM. If this is the case, I propose the “rule of 100%”. This is where the demonstratable strongest class allowed in the setting is used as the measuring stick. In a sense it is the 100% of the power mark. Anything that is equal to or below it is balanced for the world. Anything stronger than it is unbalanced. For most campaigns, the 100% mark is a CoDzilla (I.e. a druid with Augmented Summoning and Natural Spell). The opposite end of the rule of 100% is what I call the “back door out”. This is where the weakest class or rule combination is used to determine if something is too weak for the campaign. Basically, if something is weaker than this mark it as well is unbalanced for the campaign, as it will be too far below the power curve. For most people this is the fighter class and NPC classes. (Note I said most; some people derive a lot of fun playing the “NPC-only” classes. However in these cases the 100% mark would be lower, as would the back door out.) In my games, however, I use the monk as the back door out, and have as such banned the fighter as it is un(der)balanced. Most DMs don’t use a particular system like this, but instead play things by ear. They skim a class and make a judgment call based mostly on instinct. This then invariability leads to a post along the lines of “My DM bans X, help.” To which the responses include logical reasons why X is not broken when compared to Y. Y is usually CoDzilla, a wizard or similar class. For example: Poster: My DM says that energy missile is broken, because I get it at 3rd level. Boards: Fireball is better because it scales with your caster level for no additional resources. When you’re 7th caster level, your fireball does 7d6 damage, and you don’t have to pump it with power points. Further, fireball’s range is far, and energy missile’s is medium. This example assumes that the DM is allowing fireball. If however the DM felt that fireball was too strong that comparison is useless. What I propose we as a community do before railing on a DM for being stupid, is first determine what the 100% mark is and then make our comparison. And then prove that whatever it is as powerful or weaker than the 100% mark. We should also check and make sure that something is not being disallowed because it has met a back door out. If that is the case then we must prove that the rule is more powerful than the 0% mark. Switching gears for a moment, suppose a DM disallowed something because it did not fit the flavor of the world. This is perfectly valid. One would not expect to play a Jedi in a Star Trek campaign. Nor a ninja in a Pirates of the Caribbean campaign. If this situation comes up, we must first Identify it by determining why the rule was not allowed. Then we must prove that the flavor of the rule could work in the campaign. Or, failing that, the mechanics could be re-flavored to work in said world. But we must realize that not everything will work everywhere, and maybe this isn’t the campaign for our concept. On that note, the DM should also realize that when their players request something they are also letting the DM know what they would find fun. Thus, if an entire party wanted to play mecha pilots, maybe the standard medieval fantasy game is not a good fit. Another common reason why DMs disallow material is that they are unfamiliar with it. This is frustrating because when one becomes familiar with new material they generally find it simple and easy to understand. However, this understanding take times. And some DMs simply do not have the time to familiarize themselves all the new material. Players in this case will just have to be patient as there is only one way for the DM to become familiar with new material. A common suggestion is for the player to lend the book to the DM for a period of time so that they may become familiar with it. This really isn’t fair as it assumes 4 things: 1) The DM has the time to read and become familiar with all the material covered in the time allotted. This may be the case, but with more and more DMs having families, jobs, school, and lives outside of the game this is not always the case. 2) That the DM is capable of memorizing everything they need to know about the rules to make fair ruling calls, again within the time allotted. Stopping to look everything up slows down the game, and isn’t fair to the other players. 3) That the DM has a desire to read that particular book when the player presents to them. DMing is still a volunteer job, and the DM not wanting to do even more extra work is understandable. 4) The DM will have access to the book whenever they need. From time to time the DM may want to use the book for NPCs, or just to check something in-between sessions. The best way to accomplish this is to own the book yourself. (I do my best DMing at 3 in the morning, aided by ice cream.) However many DMs do not have the funds available to buy every book a player could request. There are many other reasons a DM may not allow a book, some more silly than others. However then main ones generally fall into one of the above listed categories. And what I hope to accomplish here is that we take to the time understand why something is disallowed, and then base our response off that reason and not the norm for our own campaigns. Lastly, when judging any call a DM makes one must consider the why the rule was made. What does it tries to accomplish or address? Then one has to determine if it does in fact accomplish what it was meant to do. And further, if it is consistent with the other calls that DM has made for that campaign. Thank you for your time.
12Shark 06-23-07, 01:57 AM	Are you sure this wouldn't have been better posted on the Regdar's Repository forum?
BW0222 06-23-07, 02:13 AM	On_the_wings_of_TPK, The foremost that comes to mind is that when a player requests something from a source book, they are telling the DM how the campaign could be improved. Hardly. The campaign has nothing to do with the mechanics behind it. The setting, NPCs, quests, plots, etc. have very little to do with the mechanics. Most campaigns are totally independant of the gaming system. A good Greyhawk adventure from 1st-edition still plays well in 3.5 -- provided you replace the encounters. Most splat books have nothing to do with enhancing the campaign setting. In most cases they detract from it. If you are playing Greyhawk, Ebberon, Arcanis, etc., etc. then Standstorm or Frostburn is just meaningless. The terrain, races, etc. don't lend themselves to a pre-established setting. Bizzare new base classes, new p-classes, etc. rarely fit into these settings in any meaningful way. The 'everything including the kitchen sink' approach rarely makes the campaigns better. Typically, it just fragments things to the point at which nothing is special or believable. Further, they are hinting at the flavour they would like their character to have. Most importantly, they are suggesting a means through which the DM can seed meaningful plot hooks for them. Then why are the players always talking mechanics? I've honestly yet to see someone who can't make a character concept using core classes. Everytime someone comes to me with a character concept and a splat book and I ask "Why can't X class do that for you?", I always get a mechanical answer. That fact is that a +1 BAB progression is not a character concept. Either is getting full spell progression, more hit points, or having to cross class skills or use a feat on skill focus. And yet something like one of these is always the answer to why a core class won't work? However as many will show through pure mathematics, virtually everything is balanced against the core classes. Except, you can't show that. There is no formula for how hit points, skill points, special abilities, spells, etc. combine to form a character class. Any math you make up, is just made up. No one will believe it. Even the current core classes aren't based on formulas. They were based on play-testing. Thousands of folks play tested 3.0 for nearly a year before it was released. Millions played 3.0, and hence changes in certain classes, spells, and abilities in 3.5. And... most DMs know of the limitations in this testing. High levels (15th+) were not as well tested as lower levels. Surprise... classes aren't as balanced at those levels. Some character classes are balanced over wide spreads of levels -- wizard weak at 1st and more powerful at 10th, with fighters tending to be the opposite. Alter self, polymorph, and wildshape, have been particular problems and thus the druid is a special case of not being balanced. Now, many good DMs know that non-core books have not been playtested even a fraction as well as the core books. They are far more likely to contain balance issues and rules problems. Many DMs also realize that the only way they'll find out for sure is to try it... risking months of time and effort in the process. Little wonder many DMs limit materials to their level of comfort.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-23-07, 02:51 AM	The campaign has nothing to do with the mechanics behind it. The setting, NPCs, quests, plots, etc. have very little to do with the mechanics. Most campaigns are totally independant of the gaming system. A good Greyhawk adventure from 1st-edition still plays well in 3.5 -- provided you replace the encounters. Most splat books have nothing to do with enhancing the campaign setting. In most cases they detract from it. If you are playing Greyhawk, Ebberon, Arcanis, etc., etc. then Standstorm or Frostburn is just meaningless. The terrain, races, etc. don't lend themselves to a pre-established setting. Bizzare new base classes, new p-classes, etc. rarely fit into these settings in any meaningful way. You'll note the certain lack of the word "setting" after the word campaign. As in the world is part of the larger campaign. However suppose a player requested the prestige class, "Mage of the Arcane order". They are requesting the mechanics, yes. they are also requesting a mage guild with which they want to belong to. Again suppose that a player wants a swash buckler. Sure they also want the mechanics, and maybe they would like to do some buckeneering. The 'everything including the kitchen sink' approach rarely makes the campaigns better. Typically, it just fragments things to the point at which nothing is special or believable. I'm not advocating the kitchen sink approach. I'm advising DMs not to take their players requests lightly, or to deny everything out of hand. It has to be fun for the players too. Then why are the players always talking mechanics? I've honestly yet to see someone who can't make a character concept using core classes. Everytime someone comes to me with a character concept and a splat book and I ask "Why can't X class do that for you?", I always get a mechanical answer. Its all about preference. perhaps they've played X, and want to try different mechanics. Maybe they agree with you that X has the same flavor, but Ys mechanics are better suited. I really don't want to start the core can do any concept debate. I've already debated that with other posters, and for the most part I agree with you. Core can do everything, but that isn't the point. the point is that not every player wants to do all core, all the time. And hey sometimes it is fun to play around with the system and see what can be down with. And even though you may hate to admit it, but the mechanics are a part of the setting, and adding some different ones in form time to time, my shake things up a bit, and add fun to your game. However if core only is your thing, don't let me stop you. Its your game, and who am I to tell you how to have fun. That fact is that a +1 BAB progression is not a character concept. Either is getting full spell progression, more hit points, or having to cross class skills or use a feat on skill focus. And yet something like one of these is always the answer to why a core class won't work? I never said it was. I said that one should look at the flavor presented by the mechanics as a hint to what the player wants. Although while we're on this topic, If my concept is someone who casts spells, then I should play a class with spell casting, don't you think? Further perhaps I want my spell caster have some from of rare magic. maybe because is from the land of far-far away, or maybe from a another plane. I could represent this with magic incarnium. Or a different class that gets funky spells. maybe psionics, or heck maybe just off the way spell selection. Either way though as a DM you'd be wise to at least listen to what I as player am requesting, and if it isn't unreasonable allow it. Further if your going to disallow it you should have a logical, and reasonable reason as why I can't have it. And on top of that be able to justify that reason. For example suppose I wanted psionics, and said no play a wizard. I then ask why psionics is not allowed. If you say because its over powered, you had best be able to prove that, that is the case. Similarly you should be justify why it doesn't fit into the setting. The converse is also true. I should be able to show why it isn't over powered, and how it does fit into the setting. Except, you can't show that. There is no formula for how hit points, skill points, special abilities, spells, etc. combine to form a character class. Any math you make up, is just made up. No one will believe it. Well it is generally accepted that a D10 for HD is better then a D4 right? Full base attack progression is better then three quarters, is it not? And 6 1st level spells is better then 4, right? So if we take two classes that are similar and put then side by side we should be able to see if one is better mechanically then the other one. And we know that things like spell casting is more powerfully then say fighter feats, or a druids animal companion. So if we take what we know to be the strongest class, or classes, that we are allowing into our campaign, and compare them to what a player is requesting then we should be able to tell if one is better then the other. And if we can tell that then we should also know which is more powerful. Even the current core classes aren't based on formulas. They were based on play-testing. Thousands of folks play tested 3.0 for nearly a year before it was released. Millions played 3.0, and hence changes in certain classes, spells, and abilities in 3.5. And still the classes aren't equal. Whats your point? You'll note that I said when trying to determine if something is mechanically balanced for the campaign it should be compared to both the strongest and weakest classes. So lets use my psion example. I want to play a psion and you say it is too strong. In your core only campaign I would first compare it to the strongest class your allowing, the druid. And find that it is mechanically weaker then the druid. I would then compare it the weakest thing in your game, the fighter. And find that it is inherently stronger then the fighter. Thus it fits within the power level of your game. And... most DMs know of the limitations in this testing. High levels (15th+) were not as well tested as lower levels. Surprise... classes aren't as balanced at those levels. Some character classes are balanced over wide spreads of levels -- wizard weak at 1st and more powerful at 10th, with fighters tending to be the opposite. Alter self, polymorph, and wildshape, have been particular problems and thus the druid is a special case of not being balanced. Again I'm don't see your point. We know the classes aren't balanced. At any level. I'm not saying they are. I'm saying that anything that mechanically is not stronger then the pre-existing strongest thing in the game, and not weaker then the pre-existing weakest thing in the, will not unbalance the game. Now, many good DMs know that non-core books have not been playtested even a fraction as well as the core books. They are far more likely to contain balance issues and rules problems. Many DMs also realize that the only way they'll find out for sure is to try it... risking months of time and effort in the process. Little wonder many DMs limit materials to their level of comfort. Right, well I'll level you to hide your head in the sand then....
Comus 06-23-07, 03:01 AM	The 'everything including the kitchen sink' approach rarely makes the campaigns better. Typically, it just fragments things to the point at which nothing is special or believable. Depends on how you run it. I'm currently running a Spelljammer game. Every d20 book is allowed, pending DM approval. Yes, that includes d20 Modern - the players have already fought WWII era soldiers. However, here's the thing - the really special material, like Sandstorm and Frostburn, the stuff that's niche, is tied to a given planet. There's the desert world (where one character grew into a man in the gladiator pits), there's the ice world (with the occasional pirate base and a few high-security prisons), and so forth. If things are kept separate, they're still special, or at the very least can be used to define people, places or things. Haven't you ever picked up a D&D book and said "Wow, this is some interesting stuff! I wonder how I can integrate some of these ideas into my campaign world...", and then gone on to develop something interesting? That fact is that a +1 BAB progression is not a character concept. Either is getting full spell progression, more hit points, or having to cross class skills or use a feat on skill focus. And yet something like one of these is always the answer to why a core class won't work? Why won't a core class work? Because most players don't just want to play a concept, they want to play a concept and also be as mechanically strong as the rest of the party. I'll admit, I love reflavoring classes, especially core ones, to make something that seems really special without needing anything from a splatbook.... but if there's something in a splatbook that does the job I want it to, and has less of a stretch between mechanics and flavor, then I'm going to look at that, too. Except, you can't show that. There is no formula for how hit points, skill points, special abilities, spells, etc. combine to form a character class. Any math you make up, is just made up. No one will believe it. So what you're saying is... you'll accept no proof that anything can be balanced but core, unless you playtest it extensively yourself. I'd prefer to think that WotC needs to do less playtesting at this point, because with 3.5 they got a lot of the kinks out of the system. In short, they know how to design stuff that works right out of the box, because of all that playtesting experience they've gone through. Really, the only stuff that's broken - really broken - involves stuff that's really far out from core. Most PrCs, Feats, and so forth fall in a comfortable middle ground - because they use mechanics that WotC knows will work. In short, many good DMs may think that material is broken because they haven't tried it and don't trust WotC. Many other good DMs are willing to give the Dev teams a chance and allow new things in the game.
Vaelan 06-23-07, 03:08 AM	Most splat books have nothing to do with enhancing the campaign setting. In most cases they detract from it. If you are playing Greyhawk, Ebberon, Arcanis, etc., etc. then Standstorm or Frostburn is just meaningless. The terrain, races, etc. don't lend themselves to a pre-established setting. Bizzare new base classes, new p-classes, etc. rarely fit into these settings in any meaningful way. Yeah, and my blender doesn't fry eggs very well. The 'everything including the kitchen sink' approach rarely makes the campaigns better. Typically, it just fragments things to the point at which nothing is special or believable. 1. Subjective. 2. You, like all of us, are just some random poster on the internet. Why should we care what you think about the subject when you don't give any supporting evidence? Then why are the players always talking mechanics? They aren't. Look at me, I can make baseless statements too! Everytime someone comes to me with a character concept and a splat book and I ask "Why can't X class do that for you?", I always get a mechanical answer. That's because mechanics can be important both on their own and because they can be inextricably tied to the flavor. Many DMs also realize that the only way they'll find out for sure is to try it... risking months of time and effort in the process. Little wonder many DMs limit materials to their level of comfort. Yeah, because those months of time and effort are just wasted if something turns out to be unsuitable. It isn't like you had fun in the process or anything...
maharai23 06-23-07, 07:25 AM	For including: If it doesn't detract from the campaign or the fun of anyone involved... including the DM, then yes, add it. For when players ask for a source, it's usually not with the intent of improving the campaign... It's with the intent of improving the character. Also, the option you choose for "balancing" based on strongest and weakest is highly subjective. For example, it's possible to build a fighter who is better at grappling than the monk. Alternately, several options which aren't incredibly powerful can support other character concepts exceptionally well... The barbarian with a few fighter levels... The Fighter Mage with the alternate Fighter level from Complete mage allowing casting in armor... Fighter assists many classes in qualifying for a PrC. Saying it's weaker because a 20 Fi is weaker than a 20 Caster isn't entirely fair. It is the DM's job to balance a campaign. In my current campaign I am running, I find that undead would unbalance the campaign. Thus, I have barred any ability which changes a player into undead. I have barred any spell which creates undead. I have barred any spell which summons undead. I have barred any magic item or other effect which will result in a player-controlled undead in any way, shape, or form. Shapeshifting is cool. Anything else is cool. But undead unbalance. Thus, if a player wants to include Libris Mortis, I'm going to tell them no. If they try to argue that it will benefit the campaign, I will laugh in their face, and then say no again. The DM knows more about the campaign, and what will balance/unbalance it, than the player.
Gleepwurp 06-23-07, 09:40 AM	Mostly I disallow certain books because I don't have the time to read them over and compare them to what I have allowed thus far. I've got 2 or 3 WOTC hardbacks that I have bought or have been given to me in the past 2 years -- they are sitting on my shelf but I have not yet taken the time to read them. I don't know if I ever will. I can only spare so much time for my hobby --- and if I get a few hours here or there, I'll usually spend that time preparing for the next gaming session rather than reading books of new or optional rules. I'll generally consider player requests providing they can be handled in between sessions or very quickly when we meet on game night. But when we meet to play I don't want to take a lot of time away from the game and devote it to one player's PC -- that wouldn't be fair to the other players, and it wouldn't be fair to me. If anyone were to ask me what was wrong with the hobby, I would reply, "The biggest problem for me is the sheer volume of material potentially involved in running a D&D game." Options and choices are fine things if you have all of the time in the world to devote to your game, but my players and I have jobs, some have kids, some go to school... finding the time for everyone to get together and play is hard enough... finding more time to read all these books (and integrate them into the game) is impossible. So we just use core books and a few little bits from other books.
maharai23 06-23-07, 10:41 AM	Depends on how you run it. I'm currently running a Spelljammer game. Every d20 book is allowed, pending DM approval. Yes, that includes d20 Modern - the players have already fought WWII era soldiers. The average campaign IS hindered by allowing anything and everything in. Hence, even yours, which features spells, swords, and AK-47's, is pending DM approval on books. That alone shows that you either may find something a flavor issue, or that you think that Wizard's may have let something slip through that is, shall we say, less than balanced. If you trusted WoTC developers fully to make all material balanced and compatible with your personal game, you should allow anything published by WotC for 3.5, right? No approval needed? I'd prefer to think that WotC needs to do less playtesting at this point, because with 3.5 they got a lot of the kinks out of the system. In short, they know how to design stuff that works right out of the box, because of all that playtesting experience they've gone through. If they knew how to design things right out of the box that were right, there would be no need for 3.5. They didn't rely on internal playtesting alone to balance it. They relied on player feedback. It would be contrary to the entire spirit of 3.5 if we did not thus take player feedback into consideration as a possibility to improve the game, or balance things. In short, many good DMs may think that material is broken because they haven't tried it and don't trust WotC. Many other good DMs are willing to give the Dev teams a chance and allow new things in the game. True. And many DM's don't allow things because they don't fit in their campaign... Or they're not comfortable enough with the rules that they're already using to add more new ones. Or they feel adding everything in would overwhelm them... Or they don't want the mechanic in their world... Or they know that the same 3 people don't develop everything, and that some might have it down better than others, or have weak areas... Or 5 of their 6 players want to play a warblade, and the campaign needs diversity, but it's not right to only tell 3 people no. And some people do allow them because they're afraid to tell their players no when they're not ready for it... Or that they care less about balancing and more about playing (while this isn't entirely bad, people ill-suited to balance should usually be sitting in the player's position). There are a lot of reasons, both for including and not. Don't just limit it to your view and the wrong view. For example, it's a rare D&D world where D20 modern fits in. Have I included an Antimatter gun in one of my games? Yes. Did it add anything? Not really, other than a few funny fights. Did it detract? No, but only because I got it back out of the game after the PC who wanted to see it had a few fights to play with it. Would I allow it in my average Faerun campaign? Nuh uh. Not happening. In my campaign settings, it's Dungeons and Dragons... Not Technos and Tasers.
Comus 06-23-07, 12:14 PM	The average campaign IS hindered by allowing anything and everything in. Hence, even yours, which features spells, swords, and AK-47's, is pending DM approval on books. That alone shows that you either may find something a flavor issue, or that you think that Wizard's may have let something slip through that is, shall we say, less than balanced. If you trusted WoTC developers fully to make all material balanced and compatible with your personal game, you should allow anything published by WotC for 3.5, right? No approval needed? My players have to approve everything through me, even core-only builds. Mostly because I like to know where they're going so I can include appropriate plot hooks. Flavor problem? Bam! Must have come from another planet/star system. That's a whole new place to explore, where the PCs are going to feel out of place and the new stuff, the 'problem' stuff, can shine. Instead of being 'this doesn't fit the game', it's 'your ways are not our ways, outlander'. Basically, it's not a matter of flavor or balance. I just like to keep on top of things. If they knew how to design things right out of the box that were right, there would be no need for 3.5. They didn't rely on internal playtesting alone to balance it. They relied on player feedback. It would be contrary to the entire spirit of 3.5 if we did not thus take player feedback into consideration as a possibility to improve the game, or balance things. You don't seem to have understood my argument. Between 3.0 and 3.5, WotC's dev teams learned a lot as to what's broken and what isn't. Now, a lot of stuff that seems broken is still in the game (polymorph, for example) - but that's typically for one of two reasons. Either it's an iconic part of the game, like polymorph, or it really isn't a huge issue in the metagame (like how powerful clerics and druids are - very, very few people actually go CoDzilla with them). Now, player feedback is important. You have to know if they're having fun. But it also varies from group to group, and from game to game. Think about what WotC has been publishing lately - very little of it causes balance issues. The things that do (like Planar Shepherd) tend to be things WotC has never tried before. They've got an area of design they're comfortable in, and within it they design well. The DM should always take the campaign and the players into account for what to allow... but he shouldn't disallow things because he's never tried them. True. And many DM's don't allow things because they don't fit in their campaign... And they can't change the flavor to fit? Lazy reason. Or they're not comfortable enough with the rules that they're already using to add more new ones. Better reason. The DM should be familiar with all rules he's using. I would tell the player he could use it once I'd familiarized myself with the rules. Or they feel adding everything in would overwhelm them... All the DM has to do is keep track of between 2-6 (on average) characters. That's only so many feats, classes, and spells. The DM doesn't have to make everything an integral part of the game world. It's okay for players to be somewhat unique, or to have learned their powers 'in a far-off land'. Or they don't want the mechanic in their world... I've seen very, very few mechanics that are problems in and of themselves. Planar Shepherd is the best example, probably, but I think that's because the guy who designed it didn't really take the time-distortion of the Eberron planes into account. Or they know that the same 3 people don't develop everything, and that some might have it down better than others, or have weak areas... Bad reason. Even a first-time designer for WotC has to prove his worth to a host of people before his work sees print. It's extremely unlikey to be too powerful, and too weak is rarely a problem. Or 5 of their 6 players want to play a warblade, and the campaign needs diversity, but it's not right to only tell 3 people no. Bad reason. What if 5 of 6 players wanted to be Clerics? Would you ban PHB or tell them they had to diversify? And some people do allow them because they're afraid to tell their players no when they're not ready for it... Or that they care less about balancing and more about playing (while this isn't entirely bad, people ill-suited to balance should usually be sitting in the player's position). Yes, some people do need to grow a pair. And yes, some people are more concerned with fun than balance. There are a lot of reasons, both for including and not. Don't just limit it to your view and the wrong view. It's not 'my view' and 'the wrong view'. All opinions are equally valid. I play with DMs that run almost core-only, for example. The important thing is to have fun with the game. For example, it's a rare D&D world where D20 modern fits in. Have I included an Antimatter gun in one of my games? Yes. Did it add anything? Not really, other than a few funny fights. Did it detract? No, but only because I got it back out of the game after the PC who wanted to see it had a few fights to play with it. Would I allow it in my average Faerun campaign? Nuh uh. Not happening. Ah, but the directions you could have gone with that gun. Where did it come from? Who else has had it? Who has heard of it, and wants to get their paws on it? What if the original owners come back? Lots of plot hooks you could have there. In my campaign settings, it's Dungeons and Dragons... Not Technos and Tasers. In mine, it's Swashbuckling and Spelljamming. More like Indiana Jones than Star Trek, all things considered.
Optimized_Commoner 06-23-07, 12:34 PM	Okay, firstly my premise before any discussion is that the objective of a game of D&D is for all players (including the DM) to have a good time. While other objectives are possible, that's not the angle I'm approaching this from. Under the standard model, where DMs have complete authority and players vote with their feet, the DM is responsible for choosing which books to include in the game in order to ensure the fun of everyone at the table. A given book may increase the fun of certain people, decrease the fun of certain people and/or be neutral in regards to a given person. The effect of certain books may be so strong that it could guarantee the fun of certain people or destroy the fun of certain people. The core books are designed to be as neutral as possible, in regards to personal taste (assuming that you have a group interested in D&D). This normally makes them a 'safe bet' and since they're more or less essential to the game, they are almost always included. Beyond that, the books vary considerably. When a player asks to use a book, they're usually saying "I believe this book will increase my fun" though the more charitable might be saying "I believe this book will increase person X's fun" and the more community minded might be saying "I believe this book increase everyone's fun". A DM should never include a book that destroys certain people's fun. They should only include a book that decreases certain people's fun if they know they can include other books to compensate and increase the fun of those people. With the two previous caveats a DM should attempt to include books that will increase certain people's fun and should always include books that will guarantee certain people's fun. Of course it's slightly more complex than that. The DM can also patch small problems within books through house rules and can create material from scratch with house rules. There are some schools of thought about the importance of people's fun, some say that the DM's fun is more important to compensate for the extra work they need to put into the game. Others suggest that the enjoyment of all players should be equally important. I personally lean mildly towards the idea that a DM's fun is more important, since a DM not having fun = no game. However there are many different views on this situation. I think that pretty much covers this topic completely.
danielinthewolvesden 06-23-07, 03:20 PM	Another common reason why DMs disallow material is that they are unfamiliar with it. This is frustrating because when one becomes familiar with new material they generally find it simple and easy to understand. However, this understanding take times. And some DMs simply do not have the time to familiarize themselves all the new material. Players in this case will just have to be patient as there is only one way for the DM to become familiar with new material. A common suggestion is for the player to lend the book to the DM for a period of time so that they may become familiar with it. This really isn’t fair as it assumes 4 things: 1) The DM has the time to read and become familiar with all the material covered in the time allotted. This may be the case, but with more and more DMs having families, jobs, school, and lives outside of the game this is not always the case. 2) That the DM is capable of memorizing everything they need to know about the rules to make fair ruling calls, again within the time allotted. Stopping to look everything up slows down the game, and isn’t fair to the other players. 3) That the DM has a desire to read that particular book when the player presents to them. DMing is still a volunteer job, and the DM not wanting to do even more extra work is understandable. 4) The DM will have access to the book whenever they need. From time to time the DM may want to use the book for NPCs, or just to check something in-between sessions. The best way to accomplish this is to own the book yourself. (I do my best DMing at 3 in the morning, aided by ice cream.) However many DMs do not have the funds available to buy every book a player could request. Right. I only disallow three WotC books: Magic of Incarnum, the book with the Truename mage, and Psionic. All three because I do not understand the system, and the last also because it does not fit my setting. If a player really, REALLY wante d a class from the first two, I would borrow the book and consider it. I actually do find the classes to be more or less equal- the Fighter whups the Wizard up thru level 4 at least and the Wizard is well known to Rule at higher levels, of course. The thing is- it is impossible to make them all equal at every level in every setting. (of course, some- like the CW Samurai- were just poorly designed)
maharai23 06-23-07, 03:26 PM	My players have to approve everything through me, even core-only builds. Mostly because I like to know where they're going so I can include appropriate plot hooks. Flavor problem? Bam! Must have come from another planet/star system. That's a whole new place to explore, where the PCs are going to feel out of place and the new stuff, the 'problem' stuff, can shine. Instead of being 'this doesn't fit the game', it's 'your ways are not our ways, outlander'. Basically, it's not a matter of flavor or balance. I just like to keep on top of things. Then, you're misusing terms. If you're not requiring approval, merely the opportunity to fully integrate, they don't really require "DM Approval", but merely "DM Knowledge". Fair enough. Now, player feedback is important. You have to know if they're having fun. But it also varies from group to group, and from game to game. Think about what WotC has been publishing lately - very little of it causes balance issues. The things that do (like Planar Shepherd) tend to be things WotC has never tried before. They've got an area of design they're comfortable in, and within it they design well. The DM should always take the campaign and the players into account for what to allow... but he shouldn't disallow things because he's never tried them. Depends. If he's not familiar with them, he's perfectly ok with doing just that. And they can't change the flavor to fit? Lazy reason. Ahem. My campaign world is No Magic. I am perfectly ok with barring Complete Mage, Complete Arcane, and Complete Divine. Is that lazy? Certainly not. Better reason. The DM should be familiar with all rules he's using. I would tell the player he could use it once I'd familiarized myself with the rules. Good for you. However, the DM is perfectly ok to prioritize his time on campaign development over optional rules familiarization. All the DM has to do is keep track of between 2-6 (on average) characters. That's only so many feats, classes, and spells. The DM doesn't have to make everything an integral part of the game world. It's okay for players to be somewhat unique, or to have learned their powers 'in a far-off land'. Emphasis mine. There's over 1,000 spells and easily over 500 feats in splatbooks. At least 20 base classes, and at least 150 PrC. I've seen very, very few mechanics that are problems in and of themselves. Planar Shepherd is the best example, probably, but I think that's because the guy who designed it didn't really take the time-distortion of the Eberron planes into account. Thus, 1 example of imbalance. Justification for reviewing everything for imbalance and/or theme. Bad reason. Even a first-time designer for WotC has to prove his worth to a host of people before his work sees print. It's extremely unlikey to be too powerful, and too weak is rarely a problem. AHEM PLANAR SHEPERD AHEM. Bad reason. What if 5 of 6 players wanted to be Clerics? Would you ban PHB or tell them they had to diversify? Can't ban core, buddy. Can't ban core. At that point, all I'll do is advise. Even so, when the new splatbook comes out, everyone wants to try it. The PHb's been out for a while. Less "new car" smell. Yes, some people do need to grow a pair. And yes, some people are more concerned with fun than balance. If they disagree with you, they're cowardly now? Mmm Hmmm, REAL MATURE. It's not 'my view' and 'the wrong view'. All opinions are equally valid. I play with DMs that run almost core-only, for example. The important thing is to have fun with the game. But some opinions come with your stipulation "they need to grow a pair." If all opinions are equally valid, does that mean that you too, need to grow something? Ah, but the directions you could have gone with that gun. Where did it come from? Who else has had it? Who has heard of it, and wants to get their paws on it? What if the original owners come back? Lots of plot hooks you could have there. Quite true. but it wasn't a major issue to the player, to the game, or to the campaign. It was tried, it was overbalanced for the theme of the world. Rather than redesign a world from the ground up, I eliminated the odd gun out. Balance restored. 100 plot hooks can be drawn from a trip to the fish market. In mine, it's Swashbuckling and Spelljamming. More like Indiana Jones than Star Trek, all things considered. Fair enough. Now accept that not all worlds are like yours, and that's a good thing. Variety breeds choices, and choices make the game a better experience for us all. The ability to play at a level that we're comfortable with. Some players don't WANT guns in their game. Is there no place for them at your table? Or would they be better seeking a game that doesn't use that book? Point made, I hope?
Optimized_Commoner 06-23-07, 03:28 PM	The thing is- it is impossible to make them all equal at every level in every setting. Practically, yes. Theoretically I see no reason why you couldn't construct some self-reinforcing system that worked based on continous input to calibrate and rebalance the class as you play... Sorry, system design is a hobby of mine, sometimes it's hard not to take any statement about "You can't do that in an RPG" as a challenge.
Woas 06-23-07, 03:42 PM	On_the_Wings, I approve your message. :thumbsup: I have a mantra as a DM that I picked up from someplace on the net or reading some advice column that is: consider yes. There really is no reason why a DM should deny the players basic building blocks to their game. It only strengthens it.
Optimized_Commoner 06-23-07, 04:00 PM	My campaign world is No Magic. (Offtopic) Wow. That must be difficult. I wouldn't have thought D&D would be well suited to such a game. (/offtopic)
Olskool 06-23-07, 04:30 PM	Individual DMs have always, and will always, ban stuff they're not comfortable with. That's their prerogative. No amount of whining about it on message boards is going to change that.
aotrscommander 06-23-07, 05:16 PM	I have never encountered the disallowing problem since I always have all the books of any system I plan to run (and system I don't plan to run, I just go with what the DM provides). I create lists of what is available (and the any mechanical of flavour changes thereof required); before it was simply me suggesting what was available. Listing makes things much easier for the everyone; there's a list of where the material is and it's enough to prod the players to go and have a look. I never flat-out ban any single source material; as a child of Rolemaster, the concept of allowing or disallowing whole books never occured to me before coming to these boards (As Rolemaster's various companion were impossible to use completely, owing to the fact there were large amounts of optional (i.e. replacement) rules.) Individual items I restrict (or allow) on the basis of their own merit; most of what I do restrict is that which grates on my sense of order. Anything I consider to be untidy or Too Stupid gets the boot. I can count on the fingers of one hand the amount of material I have restricted for purely mechanical reasons (e.g. FB, certain DMM combinations, CW Samurai because it's an affront to NPC classes, let alone PC classes). This approach seems to work, since I never have any complaints about what's available.
UltimateReality 06-23-07, 06:15 PM	Can't ban core, buddy. Can't ban core.Why?
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-23-07, 06:18 PM	Individual DMs have always, and will always, ban stuff they're not comfortable with. That's their prerogative. No amount of whining about it on message boards is going to change that. It's this kind of attitude that I'm trying to address. Firstly this theory that the DMs fun supposedly trumps everyone else's is high handed, and unfair. Quiet frankly when it occurs anywhere else its often called bullying. My message is simply: If as a DM your going to tell your friends they can't have their fun then you auto have a good reason for it. Further you should be able to justify that reason logically, and with more then, "I don't like it." Simply saying i don't like it, is the same as saying that your idea of fun is somehow better or more important then the players. Everyone says that if the DM isn't having fun then no one is having fun. But if the players aren't having fun then they leave. And a DM with no players is just some guy playing with himself.
aotrscommander 06-23-07, 06:26 PM	Can't ban core, buddy. Can't ban core. *Shrug* I ban/restrict ignore bits of Core just the same as the splatbooks (Death from Massive Damage, Spiked Armour, most of the exotic racial weapons, to name just bits of the PHB).
Comus 06-23-07, 07:53 PM	Then, you're misusing terms. If you're not requiring approval, merely the opportunity to fully integrate, they don't really require "DM Approval", but merely "DM Knowledge". Fair enough. No, it's DM Approval. If they haven't run it past me, they can't use it. Yes, my approval rate is, so far, 100%. And I don't see that changing. But they have to run it past me anyway. There is always the odd chance that I'll say 'no' or - and this has happened - 'X is nice, but Y is probably better. Y is more powerful and fits the flavor better'. Why is it that whenever I disagree with someone, it has to be because I don't understand? Are you saying I'm too dumb to grasp it, or you're too stupid to convey it properly? Either way, it's the wrong attitude to set. And while WotC did learn many things, they've also introduced new mechanics. These are subject to the same learning curve. I assume when someone disagrees with me and seems to misstate my argument that I did not present it well enough, and thus must attempt to do so again. Depends. If he's not familiar with them, he's perfectly ok with doing just that. Eh. I'm just looking at it from this angle - if you aren't willing to playtest something, and you aren't willing to let something in the game that hasn't been playtested... then you'll never get anything new in the game. Ahem. My campaign world is No Magic. I am perfectly ok with barring Complete Mage, Complete Arcane, and Complete Divine. Is that lazy? Certainly not. No Magic? You're banning most of Core. At that point, you're barely playing D&D. In fact, you're probably better off with another system, one designed more around a no-magic setting. But even then, what about reflavoring magic as something else? Alchemical tricks (it's not fireball - it's a grenade)? Martial arts (it's ki)? There's a lot of ways you could go with it. Good for you. However, the DM is perfectly ok to prioritize his time on campaign development over optional rules familiarization. Sure. But he should still seriously consider looking at the optional rules a player wants to use before just saying 'no'. Emphasis mine. There's over 1,000 spells and easily over 500 feats in splatbooks. At least 20 base classes, and at least 150 PrC. And he only needs to know the ones the players are using, was my point. That's a tiny fraction of the total. Thus, 1 example of imbalance. Justification for reviewing everything for imbalance and/or theme. Or just ask your players, honestly 'what is the most powerful thing this character can do?' One should still review, yes, but it's also important to know two things - what the player wants to use the mechanics for, and if they have interactions you didn't know about. AHEM PLANAR SHEPERD AHEM. I said there was a very reduced chance, not zero chance. Even Planar Shepherd is only broken because of time flow issues, and it'd take only a quick errata to fix it. It's not an issue with the class so much as the planes of Eberron. Anyway, I recognize there are broken things. Like Druids. I just don't fear them... I look on the CharOp boards instead and see how people break things. Best way to get a heads-up I've yet seen. Can't ban core, buddy. Can't ban core. At that point, all I'll do is advise. Even so, when the new splatbook comes out, everyone wants to try it. The PHb's been out for a while. Less "new car" smell. Can't ban core? This from the No Magic setting guy? Perhaps I should disregard everything you've said, then, as you're clearly speaking out of both sides of your mouth. If they disagree with you, they're cowardly now? Mmm Hmmm, REAL MATURE. If they're afraid, as you said, then yes, they are cowardly if they can't confront their players. There are a lot of people that can't confront others when they DM, and it's a problem because they're supposed to be in charge. But some opinions come with your stipulation "they need to grow a pair." If all opinions are equally valid, does that mean that you too, need to grow something? What I need to grow is away from this argument, because you aren't contributing anything except insults towards me. Quite true. but it wasn't a major issue to the player, to the game, or to the campaign. It was tried, it was overbalanced for the theme of the world. Rather than redesign a world from the ground up, I eliminated the odd gun out. Balance restored. 100 plot hooks can be drawn from a trip to the fish market. Yes. But as the gun was already in the game, even the removing of it could have been made a plot point. *shrug* Whatever. I'm not going to get into this. Fair enough. Now accept that not all worlds are like yours, and that's a good thing. Variety breeds choices, and choices make the game a better experience for us all. The ability to play at a level that we're comfortable with. Some players don't WANT guns in their game. Is there no place for them at your table? Or would they be better seeking a game that doesn't use that book? Point made, I hope? Is there no place for them? Anyone is welcome at my table that isn't disruptive to the game. As long as they can deal with the guns that are in my game, they can play. I'm not going to change it midway through just because one person doesn't like it.
Kradlo 06-23-07, 08:35 PM	The Game Master has the ultimate power of what is and is not allowed in his campaign. Players can suggest anything they like, but it's the GM that does all the work in the game, setting up the entire world and everything in it. The GM has the power and the responsibility to decide, hence the term, "Game Master." That said, Game Masters have varying attitudes regarding non-core material. Some lean towards the "less is more" style, sticking with core rules, and perhaps adding in a few non-core or homebrew additions. Some GMs favor a wide-open game, where the sky is the limit. Heck, I've played in games where you had Jedi knights alongside wizards and cyborgs. My own game leans toward the open approach. I own most of the WotC books, though I've not tried every race, class, feat, etc. If a player wants to try something, I'll usually allow it so long as he has the book and brings it to the game. This gives me a chance to see how the combo works in play. If I feel that the material is inappropriate to my campaign, or is unbalanced, I won't allow it. If game play shows it to be unbalanced, I'll either modify it for balance or ban it. Either way, I'll give the player in question the option to replace the feat/class/spell/whatever with something else. As an example, I had a recent game at the D&D Meetup. A player wanted to play a monk with the Vow of Poverty/Vow of Peace combo. The bonzai AC wasn't a problem, but the "calming aura" could make the game less enjoyable for the other players. I took a poll of the players to see if any objected. All were content to play with it, and so the character was allowed. His high AC was handy, but didn't help him when he walked into the gelatinous cube. :devil: My point is that the GM has the power to allow or disallow any material that he chooses. A good GM will listen to his players and take that into consideration when making his decision, but that doesn't mean he is a slave to their whims.
Cold Napalm 06-23-07, 08:59 PM	Can't ban core, buddy. Can't ban core. At that point, all I'll do is advise. Even so, when the new splatbook comes out, everyone wants to try it. The PHb's been out for a while. Less "new car" smell. Umm WHAT?!? Okay, barring the idiocy that is the planar shepherd, I'd much sooner ban druid over ANYTHING else in a splat book thank you very much. In fact for one of my games I did indeed ban the druid for balance issue while keeping most things in splat books and even then the cleric 20 was STILL the most powerful character. This was for CO type people. I had to ban druid because 1) they were all gonna be druid 20 (yes it is THAT good) and 2) I had no way to challenge that other then use druids all the time (damn CO people...and yes the druid is THAT good). And yes in this game it was a matter of I go, I kill something, the bad guy goes, a player dies...such is what happens to D&D when optimized to a point that you do 50ish damage at level 2. So basically if your not banning druid first, I laugh at your piddle I'm banning it for balance excuse since druid as the 100% mark means EVERYTHING fall under that...once again I am ignoring the existence of the PS (and ebberon stuff for the most case...yesh, I hear all this complaint of how FR has power creep and is bloated from all the years and ebberon manages to pass FR in a matter of a couple of years). But anyways I like TPK's idea of 100% and 0%. Using core as a guideline, that means that PS and healer fall over and under that mark :P .
Cold Napalm 06-23-07, 09:01 PM	Individual DMs have always, and will always, ban stuff they're not comfortable with. That's their prerogative. No amount of whining about it on message boards is going to change that. And the players always have the right to not play with such *******s. No amount of huffing and puffing of the ego will change that.
Neutronium_Dragon 06-23-07, 09:18 PM	> I've honestly yet to see someone who can't make a character concept using > core classes. If this was true then there'd be no need for all of the classes which were specifically added to allow concepts to be made workable when they weren't with the core ones. Core classes can cover common D&D archetypes - they become increasingly less viable as you move away from those common D&D archetypes. For many concepts, they're flat-out unworkable, especially if you aren't willing to scale pinnacles of absurdity in trying to match mechanics to theme, and do expect characters to be roughly equal in their viability at a given level (which many core-only "approximations" aren't). And don't give me the, "Oh, you only care about mechanics, which aren't drama queen enough for me," line. D&D is a game. It uses mechanics. If the character's mechanics don't match the concept, the character's concept isn't going to work.
danielinthewolvesden 06-23-07, 10:06 PM	Ahem. My campaign world is No Magic. Why the freaken heck are you playing DandFreakenD then?:rolleyes: :confused: Cold Napalm: Druid is very powerful. But WotC has nerfed wildshape, and the DM can limit what critters the PC's can turn into, and Druid sucks up until level 5 or 7. I suppose if you start at level 20, sure why not? And if there is only one divine caster the poor druid is almost forced into heal-bot, a role it is unsuited for. Admittedly, in a party of Druid, Cleric, Wizard & Rogue, the druid can likely do Tank (except for archery) better than most Warrior classes. Druid IS good, but not THAT good. Hardly anyone I know- even super powergamers- will play one.
Cold Napalm 06-23-07, 10:35 PM	Why the freaken heck are you playing DandFreakenD then?:rolleyes: :confused: Cold Napalm: Druid is very powerful. But WotC has nerfed wildshape, and the DM can limit what critters the PC's can turn into, and Druid sucks up until level 5 or 7. I suppose if you start at level 20, sure why not? And if there is only one divine caster the poor druid is almost forced into heal-bot, a role it is unsuited for. Admittedly, in a party of Druid, Cleric, Wizard & Rogue, the druid can likely do Tank (except for archery) better than most Warrior classes. Druid IS good, but not THAT good. Hardly anyone I know- even super powergamers- will play one. Actually started at level 1. But even then with animal companions, really kinda no brainer. Of course the fighter can do more damage at low levels (and the fighter/crusader/chivalier was doing 50 damage at level 2 mind you and at level 2 was the most powerful...but that didn't last long mind you). But in overall game time, we spent very little time at low levels since it's for CO types...lots of combat...lots of death and carnage (and you'd be surprise how little a CR 7 troll barbarian encounter means to a group of 6 level 2 optimizers). The druid with just one divine caster does indeed get stuck as a healbot in most normal games...but that is because the party is being kinda dumb and not realizing that you need less healing if the druid kills the enemies in round 1 or 2 (assuming the druid isn't being gimped overly much). Note that this wasn't a normal game...a party full of CO types is in no shape or form normal. BTW CO types mean RAW fanatical game (which kinda sucked to run, let me tell you) so the most I can do about wildshape they can change into was use the knoweldge checks (and guess what they had maxed...every last one of them). As for people not playing them often...meh. We play then often in my groups...and a party of 6 druids optimzied is not something I wanna deal with (I mean I can...I'll just send druids galore back at em...maybe something else at the pre uber brokeness stage of level 6+...but since level 1-5 last a whole 6 session, the window is kinda limited).
maharai23 06-23-07, 11:19 PM	No, it's DM Approval. If they haven't run it past me, they can't use it. Yes, my approval rate is, so far, 100%. And I don't see that changing. But they have to run it past me anyway. There is always the odd chance that I'll say 'no' or - and this has happened - 'X is nice, but Y is probably better. Y is more powerful and fits the flavor better'. So then, it's also to enforce the balance of the game, either to the effect of lower or higher power? You can't have it both ways. Either you allow the players anything, or you don't. If you have the possibility of no, then you are saying that WotC could produce something you'd ban, and thus, that you don't fully trust WotC. I assume when someone disagrees with me and seems to misstate my argument that I did not present it well enough, and thus must attempt to do so again. Then perhaps rather than stating that I didn't understand, perhaps a better way to phrase that, so it doesn't come across as a failing on my part, is that perhaps you were unclear, hmm? Eh. I'm just looking at it from this angle - if you aren't willing to playtest something, and you aren't willing to let something in the game that hasn't been playtested... then you'll never get anything new in the game. I'm willing to playtest things. I'm just not willing to playtest everything at once. My ideal method of playtesting is a few new rules at a time, to accurately judge them against established benchmarks of the game. No Magic? You're banning most of Core. At that point, you're barely playing D&D. In fact, you're probably better off with another system, one designed more around a no-magic setting. If most of the players are more comfortable and familiar with D&D than other settings, and they want to re-enact the battle of Thermyopylae, or perhaps prefer a heavily gladiator theme, great. I don't even have to ban core to do so. I merely have to assign all spells a 100% spell failure rate, arcane, and divine alike, all spell-like and supernatural abilities 100% failure rates, and remove any special quality which provides damage reduction/magic. This editing allows you to play a crackpot who BELIEVES he can do magic, but does not. He's a mage. I don't see why you'd want to, but it's allowed. If a player wants to hobble himself, fine. But they know beforehand. And if the players want D&D over another system, then that's fine too. What is D&D, really, except a set of rules? I really hate when people say it's not D&D... It's like saying that it's not a tuna fish sandwich unless you have egg. It's opinion. And if you choose not to call what someone else plays D&D, that's fine. WotC still gets the $$ for the rules... The players who play it call it D&D... So what does that entirely subjective, 3rd party opinion matter? But even then, what about reflavoring magic as something else? Alchemical tricks (it's not fireball - it's a grenade)? Martial arts (it's ki)? There's a lot of ways you could go with it. And there could be similar effects, if you modernized the world to include grenades, or if you were in a setting that had monks. Again, if you're going for a greek theme, and the battle of the Spartans, mystical monks and hand grenades are hardly fitting. Sure. But he should still seriously consider looking at the optional rules a player wants to use before just saying 'no'. Look, evaluate, and discard if inappropriate. Agreed. And he only needs to know the ones the players are using, was my point. That's a tiny fraction of the total. Really? Might he also need to know the appropriate counters for that? Such as monster entries in the complete psion? Or, if the player is stating that he wants psionics integrated into the world, the NPC's of the world with different psionic powers and abilities? No, you need to know much more. You need familiarity with the entire rules of that area. Or just ask your players, honestly 'what is the most powerful thing this character can do?' One should still review, yes, but it's also important to know two things - what the player wants to use the mechanics for, and if they have interactions you didn't know about. And I do this. But power is not my only deciding factor. It's not even my primary. Continuity is. In a rich and established world, suddenly allowing a flood of things significantly changes things. I said there was a very reduced chance, not zero chance. Even Planar Shepherd is only broken because of time flow issues, and it'd take only a quick errata to fix it. It's not an issue with the class so much as the planes of Eberron. If there is a 0% chance, I'll agree that you're right. If there is a 0.0000001% chance, I'll review every single thing and evaluate it for power, in addition to evaluating it to fit into a world where adding a new thing ISN'T as simple as making a new undiscovered planet. Anyway, I recognize there are broken things. Like Druids. I just don't fear them... I look on the CharOp boards instead and see how people break things. Best way to get a heads-up I've yet seen. Breaking is easy to deal with. Guns in 4th century mongolia isn't. Can't ban core? This from the No Magic setting guy? Perhaps I should disregard everything you've said, then, as you're clearly speaking out of both sides of your mouth. See above. Denying abilities does not deny classes. It may make them undesirable, but it does not make them illegal. If they're afraid, as you said, then yes, they are cowardly if they can't confront their players. There are a lot of people that can't confront others when they DM, and it's a problem because they're supposed to be in charge. I would say that the person afraid to say no is cowardly. But no more so than the person who's ever been too intimidated to step up to someone twice their size, ever held themselves back from something they wanted to say, on the grounds that someone would pound them for it, or ever been too nervous to talk to someone. Everyone does something cowardly. There's a difference between a specific instance and a way of being, as you describe. Less flaming and insulting, more speaking of your point. "Anyone who doesn't allow anything are doo doo heads" is not a valid arguement. What I need to grow is away from this argument, because you aren't contributing anything except insults towards me. Hello, Mr. Pot? News flash, you're black too. Yes. But as the gun was already in the game, even the removing of it could have been made a plot point. *shrug* Whatever. I'm not going to get into this. And my point is, anything can be a plot point. The gun didn't NEED to be. It was a couple session adventure/frolic/what have you, and didn't need to be a permanent addition. Thus, by my ruling, it wasn't. It didn't contribute anything that an arcane sword of power or a valuable ming vase couldn't do equally well. Is there no place for them? Anyone is welcome at my table that isn't disruptive to the game. As long as they can deal with the guns that are in my game, they can play. I'm not going to change it midway through just because one person doesn't like it. Exactly. And that's why different games exist. To campaign to different tastes. Everyone can win, when you don't say "OMG My way is the best and if you don't allow this then you are a coward and lame." Different strokes, different folks. You lose. Purely for the answer of... SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT ALL THAT STUFF. That's why. And if they don't, no amount of telling them that they're wrong or narrow minded will change that. In a game of power-hungry munchkins, sure, you've got a good point. In a game of players obsessed with feudal japan, you won't see the tommy gun coming up. Bottom line, it comes down to matching the right DM to the right players. Your taste is right for some. NOT FOR ALL. Others may not like your game, and that's ok. They can play their own. That's the beauty of D&D.
Cold Napalm 06-24-07, 03:46 AM	If most of the players are more comfortable and familiar with D&D than other settings, and they want to re-enact the battle of Thermyopylae, or perhaps prefer a heavily gladiator theme, great. I don't even have to ban core to do so. I merely have to assign all spells a 100% spell failure rate, arcane, and divine alike, all spell-like and supernatural abilities 100% failure rates, and remove any special quality which provides damage reduction/magic. This editing allows you to play a crackpot who BELIEVES he can do magic, but does not. He's a mage. I don't see why you'd want to, but it's allowed. If a player wants to hobble himself, fine. But they know beforehand. And if the players want D&D over another system, then that's fine too. What is D&D, really, except a set of rules? I really hate when people say it's not D&D... It's like saying that it's not a tuna fish sandwich unless you have egg. It's opinion. And if you choose not to call what someone else plays D&D, that's fine. WotC still gets the $$ for the rules... The players who play it call it D&D... So what does that entirely subjective, 3rd party opinion matter? Umm I'd just say that is a bad analogy. It's more like saying it's not a tuna fish sandwhich unless you have bread. Which it isn't. What you are playing is a d20 game. That is NOT D&D. Just like you can have tuna without bread...it's just not a tuna fish sandwhich anymore. Note that I have done what you are doing before, and I see nothing wrong with it, I just tell people ahead of time that the game is a d20 game and not D&D.
Tytalus 06-24-07, 06:45 AM	Umm I'd just say that is a bad analogy. It's more like saying it's not a tuna fish sandwhich unless you have bread. I'd call that a bad analogy. It's like saying if you play in a group of non-magic-using PCs in a setting (even a local one, like a small town) without magic, you are not playing D&D. That's just ridiculous.
Olskool 06-24-07, 08:18 AM	DMs should only consider adding a rules supplement to the game if they understand it well enough to run it, and if it makes the game closer to their original vision of what it should be. DMs should never give in to pressure to change their rules or allow the new extra base class du jour. If a player can't respect that, they're obviously not a team player. Other people's fun will invariably be considered irrelevant compared to their own. Players like this invariably make the game less fun for everyone and should never be tolerated. Fortunately they're easy to spot before they become a problem. They're the ones who whine incessantly about their "creativity" being stifled when you don't let them play a psionic half dragon half half beholder werewolf ghost. Those are the people you don't want in your group.
Pfisiar 06-24-07, 09:02 AM	I'd call that a bad analogy. It's like saying if you play in a group of non-magic-using PCs in a setting (even a local one, like a small town) without magic, you are not playing D&D. That's just ridiculous. Magic is an intrensic part of D&D. So many mechanics are based off of casting, magic item creation, atifact retrieval, and such that removing Magic removes at least half of what D&D is. Sure, a no-magic campaign can be fun. But a no-magic campaign ceases to be D&D.
Forgember 06-24-07, 10:37 AM	Why is it that whenever I disagree with someone, it has to be because I don't understand? Are you saying I'm too dumb to grasp it, or you're too stupid to convey it properly? It cool if I put this on my sig?
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-24-07, 10:58 AM	DMs should only consider adding a rules supplement to the game if they understand it well enough to run it, and if it makes the game closer to their original vision of what it should be. DMs should never give in to pressure to change their rules or allow the new extra base class du jour. If a player can't respect that, they're obviously not a team player. Other people's fun will invariably be considered irrelevant compared to their own. Players like this invariably make the game less fun for everyone and should never be tolerated. Fortunately they're easy to spot before they become a problem. They're the ones who whine incessantly about their "creativity" being stifled when you don't let them play a psionic half dragon half half beholder werewolf ghost. Those are the people you don't want in your group. Now what I don't understand is that why a player has to "team player" by going along with whatever their told. However the DM on the other hand is the undisputed ruler of the game. Why is the DM exempt from being a team as well? Is this hobbsian type social contract between DM and player really necessary? And why does it have to be so one sided?
Olskool 06-24-07, 11:22 AM	Now what I don't understand is that why a player has to "team player" by going along with whatever their told. However the DM on the other hand is the undisputed ruler of the game...why does it have to be so one sided? It has to be one sided because that's just the way the game works. When a player makes a decision, then rolls the dice to determine the results of that decision, who does he look to for confirmation? The DM. In effect, the entire game is just the players trying to do stuff and asking the DM if they succeed or not. If no one is in charge, communicating what the results are, then the game goes nowhere. If you're going to resent the peson who's communicating these results, then you should just find someone else to fill the role. I honestly don't understand why someone would trust a person enough to put them in a position of authority over the game, and then turn around and try their best to circumvent the authority they themselves have granted. That just seems stupid to me. The DM is the final arbiter of the rules because someone has to be. The game doesn't work without someone filling that position. Dms don't grab power because they're megalomaniacal (unless they're poorly skilled and bad DMs, but I'm not considering them here) the game itself needs someone to be in "power" or it can't be played.
Roog 06-24-07, 12:01 PM	It has to be one sided because that's just the way the game works. When a player makes a decision, then rolls the dice to determine the results of that decision, who does he look to for confirmation? The DM. So when the GM makes a descision, who does he look to for confirmation? The Players (Sure they hardly ever fail to confirm - but once every so often the players say "hey, didn't I disintegrate him last round" or something similar, and the GM's descision is not confirmed.)
Archangel62 06-24-07, 12:03 PM	The big thing is this, the DM should have an understanding of what they use in the game, if only to make sure that they and the player don't screw up somewhere during ability interactions. However, that doesn't make the DM king tyrant overlord of the game, like it or not the players deserve a say in what is going on and need to be able to argue their perspectives to the DM. The reason is simple, the DM is no more important to the process than the players both sides need to respect and listen to each other. If the DM puts himself on a little private throne then he's already showing that he thinks that no matter what the players say or do that he knows better and that he won't let them question him or his views. This viewpoint is a bad idea for a game but more importantly it's bad for any kind of friendship or group which is what D&D is most games are between friends and frankly while the game is going the DM might be the arbiter of the rules and ruler of the universe it isn't just their game and if the players walk the universe ends..
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-24-07, 12:14 PM	It has to be one sided because that's just the way the game works. When a player makes a decision, then rolls the dice to determine the results of that decision, who does he look to for confirmation? The DM. In effect, the entire game is just the players trying to do stuff and asking the DM if they succeed or not. If no one is in charge, communicating what the results are, then the game goes nowhere. If you're going to resent the peson who's communicating these results, then you should just find someone else to fill the role. I honestly don't understand why someone would trust a person enough to put them in a position of authority over the game, and then turn around and try their best to circumvent the authority they themselves have granted. That just seems stupid to me. The DM is the final arbiter of the rules because someone has to be. The game doesn't work without someone filling that position. Dms don't grab power because they're megalomaniacal (unless they're poorly skilled and bad DMs, but I'm not considering them here) the game itself needs someone to be in "power" or it can't be played. Ok sure. But why does that translate into all aspects of the game. It makes sense that you roll your attack, and then ask the DM to compare that attack to the oppents AC. But I don't see how this translates to the metagame level. In the metagame we aren't are characters, and we aren't in character. In fact we are a bunch of friends hanging around the table. Yet for some reason one us is in charge, and the rest of us are subjects. Really why is the DMs idea of fun more important, or more right then anyones else's? Now before any one jumps up and down shouting that DMs do more work, and they decide the setting. You'll note that I covered the setting in my OP. Here I'll refresh it for you: Switching gears for a moment, suppose a DM disallowed something because it did not fit the flavor of the world. This is perfectly valid. One would not expect to play a Jedi in a Star Trek campaign. Nor a ninja in a Pirates of the Caribbean campaign. If this situation comes up, we must first Identify it by determining why the rule was not allowed. Then we must prove that the flavor of the rule could work in the campaign. Or, failing that, the mechanics could be re-flavored to work in said world. But we must realize that not everything will work everywhere, and maybe this isn’t the campaign for our concept. On that note, the DM should also realize that when their players request something they are also letting the DM know what they would find fun. Thus, if an entire party wanted to play mecha pilots, maybe the standard medieval fantasy game is not a good fit. I'm not saying that everything is a fit in every world. Although that certainly might the case. What I am saying is that when you, as DM, are going to tell a player, "No you can't have that." You should be able to explain why. And further be able to prove and justify that line of reasoning. For example if something doesn't fit in the setting then you should be able to explain exactly why it doesn't fit. Further you must also be able to justify why its mechanics can't be reflavored to fit. So for the gun in 4th century Mongolia for example you might take the approach that gun powder doesn't exist in this setting, as it is trying to be historically accurate. Now the player may point out that the Chinnesse used a something like a primitive rocket to kill the Huns. As a DM you could allow that, (I'd call it a comprise) or you could try and explain why that doesn't work either. However if your running your 4th century Mongolia campaign, and everyone wants to be pirates in 17th century Caribbean, then maybe you auto to look at switching settings. Another reason that i didn't cover why something is disallowed would for the sake of everyone else. In this instance what the person is requesting will take away the fun of other people at the table. A good example of this is the backstabbing PC. But again if your going to deny someone something because of that reason you should be able to explain why, and how it will be not fun for the rest of the group. At the end of the day, when you tell someone they can't play what they want, you are denying them their fun. And if your going to to that then you should have good, justifiable reason for it. Simply saying, "Because i don't like it." Is the same as saying, "because my idea fun is better then yours."
Olskool 06-24-07, 12:35 PM	At the end of the day, when you tell someone they can't play what they want, you are denying them their fun. And if your going to to that then you should have good, justifiable reason for it. Simply saying, "Because i don't like it." Is the same as saying, "because my idea fun is better then yours." Again, if a player can only have fun by playing one particular type of character, that's not a player I want in my games. A game can't function if the players don't trust the ref. All this "my DM is stifling my fun and creativity" angst can be easily avoided by not playing with a D bag DM. None of my players question the limits I place on splatbook and supplemental rules in my game because they know I'm a good DM. They wouldn't have made me their DM if they thought I was just out to trample their fun. I can only assume that if you've had these problems in your games, the problem isn't that your options have been limited, the problem is simply that you have a bad DM. The designers of 3rd edition have themselves admitted that trying to play the game using every available optional rule is an exercise in futility. It would be an undecipherable mess of a kitchen sink of a nightmare to try and run. Dms have to limit what rules are used. That's part of their job. Part of your job as a player is to let them do their job, and not argue with every decision that's made. It's a waste of time. Why argue about irrelevant aspects of the game when you're at the table? Time at the table is better spent playing the game than arguing about it. Arguing about irelevant aspects of the game are what the message boards are for.
Cold Napalm 06-24-07, 01:59 PM	Again, if a player can only have fun by playing one particular type of character, that's not a player I want in my games. A game can't function if the players don't trust the ref. All this "my DM is stifling my fun and creativity" angst can be easily avoided by not playing with a D bag DM. None of my players question the limits I place on splatbook and supplemental rules in my game because they know I'm a good DM. They wouldn't have made me their DM if they thought I was just out to trample their fun. I can only assume that if you've had these problems in your games, the problem isn't that your options have been limited, the problem is simply that you have a bad DM. The designers of 3rd edition have themselves admitted that trying to play the game using every available optional rule is an exercise in futility. It would be an undecipherable mess of a kitchen sink of a nightmare to try and run. Dms have to limit what rules are used. That's part of their job. Part of your job as a player is to let them do their job, and not argue with every decision that's made. It's a waste of time. Why argue about irrelevant aspects of the game when you're at the table? Time at the table is better spent playing the game than arguing about it. Arguing about irelevant aspects of the game are what the message boards are for. Okay...feel free to let only obient servants into your game if thats what you want I guess. I tend to play with friends myself instead of slaves. The game requires the DM to be the ref true. But the ref doesn't MAKE the rules, he enforces them. The rules of the game is made by either 1) a sanctioning body (i.e. NFL) and 2) the players involved (for pick up games, think we wanna play tag football instead of NFL stanadard rules). Nowhere does a ref go you the player must now play flag football. Now since the DM in this case is a player as well as the ref, I'm not saying he should get no say in the rules matter, just that his say is the same as everyone elses say.
Olskool 06-24-07, 02:19 PM	Okay...feel free to let only obient servants into your game if thats what you want I guess. I tend to play with friends myself instead of slaves. The game requires the DM to be the ref true. But the ref doesn't MAKE the rules, he enforces them. The rules of the game is made by either 1) a sanctioning body (i.e. NFL) and 2) the players involved (for pick up games, think we wanna play tag football instead of NFL stanadard rules). Nowhere does a ref go you the player must now play flag football. Now since the DM in this case is a player as well as the ref, I'm not saying he should get no say in the rules matter, just that his say is the same as everyone elses say. I play with friends as well, not slaves. Insult me as much as you like, but leave my players out of it since they're not here to defend themselves. Since we're friends, they trust me , as DM, to make restrictions and adjustments to expedite ease of play. If they thought I were arbitrarily imposing limits to ruin their fun, I doubt they'd play under me in the first place. They trust me not to be a jerk because we're friends. I'm sorry if you don't have that same level of trust and comfort with your friends. Players and DMs need to have a certain level of trust in eacj other to play this game. Without that, your groups disfunctional social dynamic will make the game difficult to play. And then what classes are allowed and disallowed will be the least of your problems with the game. Basically, don't play with jerks, and childish power struggles like this won't be an issue.
Cold Napalm 06-24-07, 02:29 PM	I play with friends as well, not slaves. Insult me as much as you like, but leave my players out of it since they're not here to defend themselves. Since we're friends, they trust me , as DM, to make restrictions and adjustments to expedite ease of play. If they thought I were arbitrarily imposing limits to ruin their fun, I doubt they'd play under me in the first place. They trust me not to be a jerk because we're friends. I'm sorry if you don't have that same level of trust and comfort with your friends. Players and DMs need to have a certain level of trust in eacj other to play this game. Without that, your groups disfunctional social dynamic will make the game difficult to play. And then what classes are allowed and disallowed will be the least of your problems with the game. Basically, don't play with jerks, and childish power struggles like this won't be an issue. Oh and here we go again. Once again, why can't you trust your players to make decision that won't trample your fun? Why do they have to trust you but you don't have to trust them? Trust is a two way street. When I DM I trust that my players (except the CO people group...but thats a whole other set of issues right there) to make characters without tampling on my fun as a DM. When I play, I expect the DM to trust me to not break his fun using a base class/PrC/feat/whatever. If the DM expect me to trust him, yet won't return that trust by letting me use what would make me have more fun without a GOOD reason, then that trust is only one way and it's not trust at that point, it's a dictatorship.
Olskool 06-24-07, 02:50 PM	Oh and here we go again. Once again, why can't you trust your players to make decision that won't trample your fun? Why do they have to trust you but you don't have to trust them? Trust is a two way street. When I DM I trust that my players (except the CO people group...but thats a whole other set of issues right there) to make characters without tampling on my fun as a DM. When I play, I expect the DM to trust me to not break his fun using a base class/PrC/feat/whatever. If the DM expect me to trust him, yet won't return that trust by letting me use what would make me have more fun without a GOOD reason, then that trust is only one way and it's not trust at that point, it's a dictatorship. And yet again, I do trust my players. I trust them to take responsibility for their own fun nd everyone else's. And I trust them to abide by my decisions as the game's referee. And I trust them not to act like spoiled children when I lay out the rules for what's permitted and what isn't. I trust my players with a lot, and they never disappoint me. Our games are great as a result
AffableDoomwalker 06-24-07, 03:10 PM	Woah woah woah... a DM... has to change their flavor, their campaign setting flavor... say... in order to... say... accommodate some twit who wants to play a necropolitan? Wrong. No. The player can achieve anything they want with a concept if they use their freaking brain. Anything. There is no question, no ifs, no ands, no buts. The COMPLEAT LOL splatbooks, in my experience, take away more flavor than they add -good example here: when strength and charisma modifiers add to will/reflex saves, that isn't good flavor, that's five week old sat-out-in-the-sun sauerkraut- mmmm, flavor. Someone wants to play a human who traces his lineage to dragons? Can do. Dragon Disciple is for you (and the payoff is so sweet!). Want to be a high-adventure swashbuckler? Try throwing some levels in fighter, rogue, and Duelist. Want to do something A that B's your C? Class D can achieve it. Splatbook "Flavor" is BS. Its all mechanics.
Cold Napalm 06-24-07, 04:00 PM	And yet again, I do trust my players. I trust them to take responsibility for their own fun nd everyone else's. And I trust them to abide by my decisions as the game's referee. And I trust them not to act like spoiled children when I lay out the rules for what's permitted and what isn't. I trust my players with a lot, and they never disappoint me. Our games are great as a result Umm that doesn't sound like a lot of trust there. It's basically you do what I say or your not trustworthy?!? Of course you would say your games are great, if everything in life worked like that, I would think life is great too...hey everything I want is done and who cares what anyone else wants. If they want something different from me, then they aren't trustworthy and shouldn't get it anyways?!? No really, I can't believe why you can't see this as being inherinently wrong way to treat friends. You get EVERYTHING. I'm sorry but I give kids more trust and credit then you do your players.
Lanky Ogre Baggy Pants 06-24-07, 04:16 PM	Someone wants to play a human who traces his lineage to dragons? Can do. Dragon Disciple is for you (and the payoff is so sweet!). Want to be a high-adventure swashbuckler? Try throwing some levels in fighter, rogue, and Duelist. Want to do something A that B's your C? Class D can achieve it. Splatbook "Flavor" is BS. Its all mechanics. So if I want to be descended from dragons the only option I have is to start as a sorcerer, and then take a specific PrC that doesn't advance my casting? Ummm, good bye. I'm assuming your referring to the draconic heritage feats, in which case a single feat is much less of a character commitment than a 10 level PrC. Maybe they want to do something else with their character. Maybe being draconic isn't the central tenant of their character. No where is TPK saying that you have to change your campaign flavor. He is just saying that you need to look at the item in question and determine if it fits, or can fit. If there are no undead, and no possible way for anything resembling undead to fit in your campaign, then fine, disallow undead. But if you are playing in medieval europe and someone wants to play ninja (class), talk with them and the flavor can be changed to fit a thief/assassin that can turn invis/go ethereal. D&D is cooperative, and therefore nobodies fun should be more important, sometimes the DM may say, "Can you have fun this way?" But he should never say "This is how I have fun, so I don't care."
danielinthewolvesden 06-24-07, 04:21 PM	So if I want to be descended from dragons the only option I have is to start as a sorcerer, and then take a specific PrC that doesn't advance my casting? Ummm, good bye. I'm assuming your referring to the draconic heritage feats, in which case a single feat is much less of a character commitment than a 10 level PrC. Maybe they want to do something else with their character. Maybe being draconic isn't the central tenant of their character. " There are a dozen ways to do this is you add Races of the Dragon, Dracoomicon and Dragon magic.
Cold Napalm 06-24-07, 04:21 PM	Someone wants to play a human who traces his lineage to dragons? Can do. Dragon Disciple is for you (and the payoff is so sweet!). Want to be a high-adventure swashbuckler? Try throwing some levels in fighter, rogue, and Duelist. Want to do something A that B's your C? Class D can achieve it. Splatbook "Flavor" is BS. Its all mechanics. Um wait wait wait...you think the dragon disciple is a viable option?!?! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA okay I think your done now.
Olskool 06-24-07, 04:22 PM	Umm that doesn't sound like a lot of trust there. It's basically you do what I say or your not trustworthy?!? Of course you would say your games are great, if everything in life worked like that, I would think life is great too...hey everything I want is done and who cares what anyone else wants. If they want something different from me, then they aren't trustworthy and shouldn't get it anyways?!? No really, I can't believe why you can't see this as being inherinently wrong way to treat friends. You get EVERYTHING.. I do get EVERYTHING I want out of the game. So do my players. I'm a DM. It's not my job to coddle my players. It's my job to make a kickass campaign. My players undertand that. They cooperate with each other and they co operate with me. We have an excellent group dynamic. You just don't want to believe that. Not every D&D group is the disfunctional ball of power struggles and barely contianed resentment that you seem to think they are. Just because you've had to put with autocratic DMs you seem to assume that every DM that won't cater to your every whim is an autocratic jerk. that's simply not the case. Just because my players trust me doesn't make them "obedient slaves". just because I don't consult with my players like some kind of focus group before I decide what kind of game I want to run doesn't make me a "dictator". Honestly. If I were more full of myself I'd come up with a logical fallacy about it and name it after myself. That seems to be the thing to do on these boards.
Lanky Ogre Baggy Pants 06-24-07, 04:23 PM	There are a dozen ways to do this is you add Races of the Dragon, Dracoomicon and Dragon magic. I was commenting on what affabledoomwalker said about dragon disciple.
Olskool 06-24-07, 04:27 PM	Um wait wait wait...you think the dragon disciple is a viable option?!?! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA okay I think your done now. What you did right there? That little act of "I know the rools beter so I kan laff att yoo" snobbery? That just proved his point about splatbook fanatics.
WolfHati 06-24-07, 04:31 PM	Look, don't rip on other people's social groups because they don't like to do exactly the same thing as you. That's not showing anyone trust and respect. As for the issue at hand, I think the DM has every right to restrict what may and may not be in the game. Sometimes flavor reasons are difficult to give a logical explanation for, and when it comes down to it, it probably isn't that much more than a simple "I don't like it." There's no need for a whole ton of psychoanalysis. I know from experience that if I let the players take things that run counter to what I feel is the flavor of my setting, I won't enjoy it, which means I won't be as inspired to come up with cool ideas for a storyline, we will play less often, and in the end, nobody will have as much fun. I, of course, am open to all sorts of character ideas, but there are some mechanics I just flat out disagree with. As mentioned before, anything that changes how basic restrictions in the rules work, basically anything that changes what stat goes where other than weapon finesse (as dex for to hit almost makes more sense than strength anyway), animated shields, natural spell, wild armor (sorry druids), basically anything else that nullifies the trade-offs you would otherwise have to make. I also change things that seem silly or ridiculous to me-I give armor spikes a reach of 0' (there's no way you get to hit people 5' away with your shoulder), spiked chains don't threaten at 10', despite being able to attack there, manyshot is not actually loading several arrows into your bow at once, merely grabbing a handful of arrows and nocking and firing them in rapid succession machine gun style, basically anything that makes combat unconvincing, and makes it really hard to suspend disbelief. Of course that's if my players feel like running a serious game. Some games that get run are just off the wall silly, and in that case, why bother with restrictions?
Roog 06-24-07, 05:27 PM	The COMPLEAT LOL splatbooks, in my experience, take away more flavor than they add -good example here: when strength and charisma modifiers add to will/reflex saves, that isn't good flavor, that's five week old sat-out-in-the-sun sauerkraut- mmmm, flavor. What, like the Paladin?
maharai23 06-24-07, 08:15 PM	Umm I'd just say that is a bad analogy. It's more like saying it's not a tuna fish sandwhich unless you have bread. Which it isn't. What you are playing is a d20 game. That is NOT D&D. Just like you can have tuna without bread...it's just not a tuna fish sandwhich anymore. Note that I have done what you are doing before, and I see nothing wrong with it, I just tell people ahead of time that the game is a d20 game and not D&D. Can you have a Dungeon without magic? Hmm, I guess you can. Can you have a Dragon without magic? Hmm, they'd lose many of their powers, but it could likely be done, yes. Wow, I guess you can have Dungeons AND Dragons without magic. Amazing. Answer me this. What was the first D20 game released to the public? If I go by the rules of that game, even going so far as to use all their tables for values of goods, bonuses and penalties to defense for that equipment, and the like, am I playing that game, even if I introduce different rules for one aspect of the game? It would be easier to argue that it isn't D&D without combat, as that takes up about 60% of the focus of the books. Long and short of it, D&D isn't magic. D&D isn't combat. D&D isn't roleplaying. D&D is a set of rules, no more, no less. And if I want to apply those rules to a campaign setting where the entire world is covered in a dead magic zone, is that suddenly not D&D any longer? Hardly. That's your opinion. That's not fact. When you get right down to it, the answer to what d&d is, is a set of rules. Whether you try to claim it's just D20, or it's D&D, it's still roleplaying in a medieval setting using the DMG, Monster Manual, and Player's Handbook. That's enough to be D&D to my group... And really, we don't give a flying flip about your opinion.
maharai23 06-24-07, 08:16 PM	It cool if I put this on my sig? Go for it. :)
maharai23 06-24-07, 08:26 PM	Once the game is being played, the DM is the final arbiter of all things in the world. His/her decision is absolute, and it is indeed the players that must abide by it. Outside the game, they are all friends, subject to whatever else that means. One of the things friendship is to me is looking out for my friends. So, when playing a game like this, I design my world around my players... Last time, I told my players I had 3 campaign setting ideas envisioned. I gave the broadest possible overview (city-based politicking, standard dungeon-crawls in a jungle setting, and night-of the-living-dead theme). Players mostly supported one of the choices, I went with it. Now, I run it. Outside of game, players talk to me about character concepts, among other things, and I assist them in making those concepts happen. Inside game, they play their characters, and I play the world. Roleplaying (and Rollplaying) is about matching compatible players and compatible DM's. That's true, no matter WHAT game you play. If a player doesn't like high fantasy, he's not going to want to join the "anything goes" dm. He's going to want to join the one with the low-magic world. If a player really likes cracking his character for combat, he's not going to want to be in the world of the DM that's heavy in roleplaying focus. Are either player above bad? Is either DM above bad? No to all. They just don't mesh well. That's what the game's really about. Having fun. Meshing.
Tytalus 06-24-07, 10:43 PM	Magic is an intrensic part of D&D. So many mechanics are based off of casting, magic item creation, atifact retrieval, and such that removing Magic removes at least half of what D&D is. Sure, a no-magic campaign can be fun. But a no-magic campaign ceases to be D&D. Note that you portrayed your opinion as a fact. Whatever makes up the essence D&D is entirely subjective. Whenever you ban/restrict some of the rules, someone will claim it ceases to be D&D. What if you ban the druid because of its power? Is it still D&D? What if you remove the other primary casters? All casters? Where exactly is the critical breaking point? And how can you prove it (since you did formulate your opinion as a fact, there must be objective facts supporting it). "At least half of what D&D is" is not a such a fact, but the way. Given the non-magic-using PC party of first-level characters. Nobody has a magic item (yet, perhaps). They are adventuring in the wilds or passing through small villages. No magic there. Still D&D? Note that nothing of the core rules was banned, it simply didn't come into play. Magic might exist in the world, or it may not - it simply doesn't affect this game of D&D.
Maekrix_Waere 06-24-07, 11:11 PM	I believe that the DM is allowed to reject any book he wants...However, he had better have a good reason for doing so. For example, let's take maharai's "No Magic" setting. I see that as a perfectly viable reason to reject any of those Magic-Based supplements. However, it would also be a very viable reason to not expect me to show up and play that campaign, as I would likely not have very much fun in it. On the other hand, rejecting the Complete Arcane because it is "broken" is, IMO, not a viable reason, unless you have unchallengable proof to back it up. Rejecting Drow of the Underdark because there are no Drow in your campaign (Why not?) is also not a viable reason, because there are several feats in it that would still provide a benefit to characters. (Master of Poisons[?], for example.) If I, personally, am DMing, you can expect a "Wide-Open" approach when it comes to supplements...mainly because I own 36 supplements. Am I willing to look through every single one of them to make sure everything you've done with your build is legal, and, as such, a viable choice to play in my campaign? If you are able to do that (How do you use both the BoED and BoVD in one character? :confused: ) and you tell me where each thing came from, I will definently do it. Finally, I would also like to add that I make my campaigns based on what my players want to do. As the DM, whatever my players want to do, I can find a way to make it fun for me as well.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-24-07, 11:18 PM	As for the issue at hand, I think the DM has every right to restrict what may and may not be in the game. Sometimes flavor reasons are difficult to give a logical explanation for, and when it comes down to it, it probably isn't that much more than a simple "I don't like it." 1There's no need for a whole ton of psychoanalysis. I know from experience that if I let the players take things that run counter to what I feel is the flavor of my setting, I won't enjoy it, which means I won't be as inspired to come up with cool ideas for a storyline, we will play less often, and in the end, nobody will have as much fun. 2 I, of course, am open to all sorts of character ideas, but there are some mechanics I just flat out disagree with. As mentioned before, anything that changes how basic restrictions in the rules work, basically anything that changes what stat goes where other than weapon finesse (as dex for to hit almost makes more sense than strength anyway), animated shields, natural spell, wild armor (sorry druids), basically anything else that nullifies the trade-offs you would otherwise have to make. 1: You'll note that I already covered flavor a couple of times now. Sometimes flavor just doesn't match. But if it doesn't match then you should be able to explain why. "Psychoanalysis" isn't necessary, but logic is. I mean really anywhere else you go your expected to be able to explain your opinions and judgment calls rationally, and use more then, "I don't like it, cause, hmm I don't." Thats perfectly valid for you not to play something. But to deny it for your friend? really all you are saying is that you know what makes the game more fun for them, better then they do. I don't think I need to piont out the arrogance there, do I? 2: I find this actually offensive. Your basically saying that you can't have fun unless you as DM get your way, all the way. And if you don't you'll sabatouge the game to make sure no-one else has fun either. Thats really childish, and well manipulative. And really, we don't give a flying flip about your opinion. We technically don't care about yours either. The rest of us are just too polite to point it out. Outside the game, they are all friends, subject to whatever else that means. One of the things friendship is to me is looking out for my friends. So, when playing a game like this, I design my world around my players... If you can do this why is considering what your players find fun, or what mechanics they want to represent their flavor is so hard? You said they are your friends, and you valued their opinions. Why then can't you explain to them why your letting them have what they believe to be fun for their character? What they world isn't enough for you? You have to control their PCs too? I'm simply saying that when you tell a player they can't represent their PC with the mechanics they want you should be able to justify it. Your able to justify why your changing the RAW when you do right? Why not when you bring out the ban hammer?
Optimized_Commoner 06-24-07, 11:23 PM	and you tell me where each thing came from, I will definently do it. You should download the index (http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/index.php). Makes it easier to find what you're looking for.
DFoster 06-25-07, 12:23 AM	Having read this thread from front to back I'd like to posit some questions specifically to Cold Napalm, TPK and Olskool but everyone should feel free to answer. I'm mainly curious about the answers, but I think it could also point to a fundamentally difference in the way some DMs set up campaigns. Let us suppose I were going to run a hypothetical campaign, I decide that I want this campaign to focus on a bunch of psychic people born rather surprisingly in a town out in the boondocks of the world where magic is more myth and legend then actual fact. Initially this will pose several interesting things, 1) for the short term there will be no to limited availablity to magical items (as you'd have to get out of the boondocks for that, of course once you do the reason for you being in the boondocks in the first place is going to come after you but that's another problem), and 2) ALL the PCs MUST be a psionic class (at least initially in time you can multiclass out if you want but to start with your a psion, wilder, psychic warrior, etc). I then check around my friends to see if anyone is interested in the campaign and lets assume I get a fair amount of interest enough to actually run the game. Would you consider me to have limited my players options? If not why does this not limit the options but banning a splatbook does? What would you think would be a fitting response if one of my interested players tries to hand in a Wizard, Artificer or some other no psychic class, in spite of the fact they were clearly told in advance of the theme and plot of the game? What would you say if I said to that player, "Thanks for the character but as I said before you have to be a psychic character, so you have two options you can either remake your character, or you drop out of the game, no harm, no foul."? If it's acceptable for me to do this, why wouldn't it be acceptable for another DM to decide that the ToB or some other book wouldn't be appropriate for his game? If it's not acceptable for me to do this, why isn't it? After all I have say four other players perfectly willing to play within the plot I outlined in advance. PS. In case your wondering I set up campaigns by coming up with a plot outline then recruiting interested players from a pool of potentials. If a particular player isn't interested in a particular idea of mine, that's fine there will be other games in the future, and perhaps he'll end up playing with a different DM for a while instead one that is running a game more his style. If I can't find enough interested players I just go back to the drawing board to make up a new plot until I get one that enough of the potential players are interested in.
Optimized_Commoner 06-25-07, 12:32 AM	I know it's offtopic but I've got to ask... Why do people in other parts of the world call it a tuna-fish sandwich? Is there some kind of non-fish tuna sandwhich that it needs to be differentiated from? Because around here we just call it a tuna sandwhich.
Optimized_Commoner 06-25-07, 12:43 AM	Let us suppose I were going to run a hypothetical campaign, I decide ...blah... lets assume I get a fair amount of interest enough to actually run the game. All sounds good so far, you've got a solid campaign concept and a bunch of people who think it sounds like an awesome game. Does life get better than this? Would you consider me to have limited my players options? Well together you and the players have limited their options. They limited them when you approached them about the game and they said, "that sounds awesome, I want to play in that game." They could have just as easily said, "no thanks, I don't like psionics but let me know if you're running a more open game." What would you think would be a fitting response if one of my interested players tries to hand in a Wizard, Artificer or some other no psychic class, in spite of the fact they were clearly told in advance of the theme and plot of the game? Fitting response, "uh dude... you remember this is a -psionics- based game, right?" If it's acceptable for me to do this, why wouldn't it be acceptable for another DM to decide that the ToB or some other book wouldn't be appropriate for his game? It is acceptable for you to do that, and it's acceptable for another DM to decide that the ToB isn't appropriate for their game. However, assuming the objective is for everyone to have fun, it may not be an efficient way of reaching that objective depending on the circumstances.
Maekrix_Waere 06-25-07, 01:10 AM	Would you consider me to have limited my players options? If not why does this not limit the options but banning a splatbook does? Undoubtedly. You are giving them a choice between a psionic character and no character. They may WANT to be a psionic character, but you have still limited their choices. That fact does not change, no matter what they want to play. Also, if you pitched this idea to me, I would ask, "Why can't we be psionic, but take a nonpsionic class? We could have been born psionic, but our characters chose to never develop their talent, instead focusing on something else." Would that character be banned? I find that a very viable roleplaying reason to have a nonpsionic class, Ranger, for instance, or Paladin, or Cleric, or (:yuck:) Bard. What would you think would be a fitting response if one of my interested players tries to hand in a Wizard, Artificer or some other no psychic class, in spite of the fact they were clearly told in advance of the theme and plot of the game? What would you say if I said to that player, "Thanks for the character but as I said before you have to be a psychic character, so you have two options you can either remake your character, or you drop out of the game, no harm, no foul."? If it's acceptable for me to do this, why wouldn't it be acceptable for another DM to decide that the ToB or some other book wouldn't be appropriate for his game? If it's not acceptable for me to do this, why isn't it? After all I have say four other players perfectly willing to play within the plot I outlined in advance. The player is at fault because they already agreed to make a psionic character in your all psionic campaign. If you ban the ToB, and tell that to your characters, and they agree, and one comes with a ToB character, they are at fault because they already agreed. I would NEVER play in a psionic exclusive campaign, and I would never (want to) play a melee fighter in a non-ToB campaign, and, as such, would not have agreed to participate. Despite my opinions, though, if the hypothetical player agreed to participate, and showed up with something contradictory, then they are the one at fault.
Cold Napalm 06-25-07, 01:31 AM	I do get EVERYTHING I want out of the game. So do my players. I'm a DM. It's not my job to coddle my players. It's my job to make a kickass campaign. My players undertand that. They cooperate with each other and they co operate with me. We have an excellent group dynamic. You just don't want to believe that. Not every D&D group is the disfunctional ball of power struggles and barely contianed resentment that you seem to think they are. Just because you've had to put with autocratic DMs you seem to assume that every DM that won't cater to your every whim is an autocratic jerk. that's simply not the case. Just because my players trust me doesn't make them "obedient slaves". just because I don't consult with my players like some kind of focus group before I decide what kind of game I want to run doesn't make me a "dictator". Honestly. If I were more full of myself I'd come up with a logical fallacy about it and name it after myself. That seems to be the thing to do on these boards. Umm you NEVER said that you consult your players BEFORE making your rules. Not once in all the threads I have had this discussion with you. That is basically what me and TPK is saying. If you consult your group and then come up with well this is what I think the group wants in terms of what they said (and not everyone is gonna get what they want usually), then fine. That good. Your discussion before this point has been I'm the DM I get to do what I want and the players can just suck it. Even if that is not what you do, it is what you typed and we can only judge from what you type.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-25-07, 01:37 AM	Let us suppose I were going to run a hypothetical campaign, I decide that I want this campaign to focus on a bunch of psychic people born rather surprisingly in a town out in the boondocks of the world where magic is more myth and legend then actual fact. Initially this will pose several interesting things, 1) for the short term there will be no to limited availablity to magical items (as you'd have to get out of the boondocks for that, of course once you do the reason for you being in the boondocks in the first place is going to come after you but that's another problem), and 2) ALL the PCs MUST be a psionic class (at least initially in time you can multiclass out if you want but to start with your a psion, wilder, psychic warrior, etc). I then check around my friends to see if anyone is interested in the campaign and lets assume I get a fair amount of interest enough to actually run the game. Would you consider me to have limited my players options? If not why does this not limit the options but banning a splatbook does? Yes but again it is for flavor reasons. And further your players have agreed that all want to play this flavor, and are willing to play with the restrictions. It would a different matter entirely if you had tried to force your all psionics all the time game with out any player imput entirely. What would you think would be a fitting response if one of my interested players tries to hand in a Wizard, Artificer or some other no psychic class, in spite of the fact they were clearly told in advance of the theme and plot of the game? What would you say if I said to that player, "Thanks for the character but as I said before you have to be a psychic character, so you have two options you can either remake your character, or you drop out of the game, no harm, no foul."? If it's acceptable for me to do this, why wouldn't it be acceptable for another DM to decide that the ToB or some other book wouldn't be appropriate for his game? If it's not acceptable for me to do this, why isn't it? After all I have say four other players perfectly willing to play within the plot I outlined in advance. Firstly I'd like to point out that you have a valid justified reason for not allowing wizards. Its an all psionics game. Again I'm not advocating that all books be allowed in all games. I'm simply saying that when you say no, you have to have a reason. In this case your reason is, "This is a psionic game." Simmilarily we wouldn't necessarily think that it was bad reason by you can't play a Jedi in 4th century Mongolia. Especially when all the players agree they want to play in 4th century Mongolia. However if the player were able to make a case for the wizard, it should be listened to, and fairly considered. As for the no ToB. Firstly we need to know what that reason is. If it is it's borken, then you should be able to demonstrate that it is indeed more powerful then the 100% powermark, or below the 0% mark, for your game. If you can't then your reason of it's broken is faulty. If your reason is that it does not fit the flavor of the game, then you should be able to explain how. Further the player should be able to demonstrate how it either does, or could be reworked to fit the flavor. Like with the wizard example, perhaps he "casts spells" using his mind, like a psion, only using the vasien system. Maybe he is a young wizard visiting his family while on summer vacation from wizard school. If you don't allow ToB because it will detract from others fun. Then you should again be able to explain how, and why. If you don't allow ToB because you can't be arsed to learn how the rules work. Then fair enough, but at least have the stones to say to your player, " I don't understand how this works, and I can't be bothered to learn." Again I'm not saying that a DM can't bam source material. I'm saying they need to A have a good reason, and B be able to justify that reason. I know it's offtopic but I've got to ask... Why do people in other parts of the world call it a tuna-fish sandwich? Is there some kind of non-fish tuna sandwhich that it needs to be differentiated from? Because around here we just call it a tuna sandwhich. Were I'm from we call it a tuna salad sandwhitch. But then a again we make ours with mayo, and celery, and scallions. I also use mushrooms. the wife likes cinimon in hers. P.S I is drunk right now... yaa keep that in mind.
Cold Napalm 06-25-07, 01:38 AM	What you did right there? That little act of "I know the rools beter so I kan laff att yoo" snobbery? That just proved his point about splatbook fanatics. What kind of crackpot world do you live in where spending 10 levels on a PrC to basically get a +3 ecl template even remotely equals viable?!? Okay so the PrC gets a few extra things, like a few extra bab...oh wait but I'm missing out of 7 levels worth of class features. Yeah that 2 extra BAB is so worth 4d6 sneak attack. No really just using the half dragon template is just a much MUCH better idea then using the DD and even then the half dragon template is generally a weak mechanically anyways. The prestige class a is poorly done one. It's not mechanically viable as you will just become a drain on the party. Even more so then a straight fighter.
Cold Napalm 06-25-07, 01:43 AM	Having read this thread from front to back I'd like to posit some questions specifically to Cold Napalm, TPK and Olskool but everyone should feel free to answer. I'm mainly curious about the answers, but I think it could also point to a fundamentally difference in the way some DMs set up campaigns. Let us suppose I were going to run a hypothetical campaign, I decide that I want this campaign to focus on a bunch of psychic people born rather surprisingly in a town out in the boondocks of the world where magic is more myth and legend then actual fact. Initially this will pose several interesting things, 1) for the short term there will be no to limited availablity to magical items (as you'd have to get out of the boondocks for that, of course once you do the reason for you being in the boondocks in the first place is going to come after you but that's another problem), and 2) ALL the PCs MUST be a psionic class (at least initially in time you can multiclass out if you want but to start with your a psion, wilder, psychic warrior, etc). I then check around my friends to see if anyone is interested in the campaign and lets assume I get a fair amount of interest enough to actually run the game. Would you consider me to have limited my players options? If not why does this not limit the options but banning a splatbook does? What would you think would be a fitting response if one of my interested players tries to hand in a Wizard, Artificer or some other no psychic class, in spite of the fact they were clearly told in advance of the theme and plot of the game? What would you say if I said to that player, "Thanks for the character but as I said before you have to be a psychic character, so you have two options you can either remake your character, or you drop out of the game, no harm, no foul."? If it's acceptable for me to do this, why wouldn't it be acceptable for another DM to decide that the ToB or some other book wouldn't be appropriate for his game? If it's not acceptable for me to do this, why isn't it? After all I have say four other players perfectly willing to play within the plot I outlined in advance. PS. In case your wondering I set up campaigns by coming up with a plot outline then recruiting interested players from a pool of potentials. If a particular player isn't interested in a particular idea of mine, that's fine there will be other games in the future, and perhaps he'll end up playing with a different DM for a while instead one that is running a game more his style. If I can't find enough interested players I just go back to the drawing board to make up a new plot until I get one that enough of the potential players are interested in. If that is how it went, then cool. You the DM and the players got together and think this is cool and you wanna play it. What happens when they aren't interested? Or kinda interested but want minor changes? That is what this discussion is about. If you as a DM come up with something that perfectly or near perfectly enough fits your players, then fine, no worries. This is about when that doesn't happen.
maharai23 06-25-07, 04:29 AM	If you can do this why is considering what your players find fun, or what mechanics they want to represent their flavor is so hard? You said they are your friends, and you valued their opinions. Why then can't you explain to them why your letting them have what they believe to be fun for their character? What they world isn't enough for you? You have to control their PCs too? I'm simply saying that when you tell a player they can't represent their PC with the mechanics they want you should be able to justify it. Your able to justify why your changing the RAW when you do right? Why not when you bring out the ban hammer? Yes, I justify why I change core rules. I don't always go into the whys of why specific things are banned (one of my campaigns - again, brought about by players - would be completely destroyed by PC and NPC controlled undead. Thus, I told players they would not get any spells to create, control, or summon undead, no items that did the above, and any class or ability that did it would not be allowed. When asked why, I stated that it was unbalancing for the campaign. The players got no further information, no further proof, because ultimately, to do so would have spoiled the campaign and worsened their experience. If a play group is made up of friends, and the DM is supposed to trust the players, should not the players also trust the DM, and not require a detailed 5 page proof on why something is not allowed? I mean, I can see it for "this is too powerful", but campaign or theme based reasons need to be taken at face value. Even so, when you have a counter arguement for why it should be allowed, you should have your ducks in a row, and should be able to lay out why. Personally, I don't usually ban much that the players want. But I only allow one new book into a campaign at a time, until I've tested and evaluated it, and no longer consider it new. Some of my campaigns, however, are more restrictive, and I tell my players so. I don't usually give a lot of detail why, because they know in the past, looking back on it, that everything I've restricted was for good reason. Everything.
Olskool 06-25-07, 08:10 AM	Umm you NEVER said that you consult your players BEFORE making your rules. I don't consult them before setting limits. I don't think I should have to and neither do my players. Thet're not the ones inventing the setting after all. And none of them has any desire to act as an impromptu focus group.I just inform them what the limits of the game are and they accept them. If they had any questions about it, of course I'd listen to them. But they don't. Because they know I'm running the show. If they weren't happy with the way the show was being run, they'd vote with their feet.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-25-07, 10:31 AM	Yes, I justify why I change core rules. I don't always go into the whys of why specific things are banned (one of my campaigns - again, brought about by players - would be completely destroyed by PC and NPC controlled undead. Thus, I told players they would not get any spells to create, control, or summon undead, no items that did the above, and any class or ability that did it would not be allowed. When asked why, I stated that it was unbalancing for the campaign. The players got no further information, no further proof, because ultimately, to do so would have spoiled the campaign and worsened their experience. For the sake of argument we will assume that in that instance undead were unbalancing, for whatever reason. In that case you were perfectly justified in banning said mechanics. Thus you have a good and can explain it to your players when asked. Thus you meet the requirements for everything I'm talking about. The only cleave it that I would add is that you listen to your players, and admit when you are wrong. Like if a player were able to porvide sufficient proof that undead was not in fact unbalancing for that game. Assuming they could, for the sake of argument. If a play group is made up of friends, and the DM is supposed to trust the players, should not the players also trust the DM, and not require a detailed 5 page proof on why something is not allowed? I mean, I can see it for "this is too powerful", but campaign or theme based reasons need to be taken at face value. Even so, when you have a counter arguement for why it should be allowed, you should have your ducks in a row, and should be able to lay out why. No argument here. However it is normally expected that a player have their ducks in a row. The same should be true for the DM. Personally, I don't usually ban much that the players want. But I only allow one new book into a campaign at a time, until I've tested and evaluated it, and no longer consider it new. Some of my campaigns, however, are more restrictive, and I tell my players so. I don't usually give a lot of detail why, because they know in the past, looking back on it, that everything I've restricted was for good reason. Everything. Again as long both sides have justifiable reasons for what, and why they want to do what they want to do that is cool. Not allowing new source material because your unfamilar with it is understandable.
Comus 06-25-07, 11:53 AM	Would you consider me to have limited my players options? Yes. Extensively. What would you think would be a fitting response if one of my interested players tries to hand in a Wizard, Artificer or some other no psychic class, in spite of the fact they were clearly told in advance of the theme and plot of the game? "Hm. This isn't a psionic class. You know psionic class X is almost the same thing, right? Well, if you still want to do this, let's hear your justification for it." Note that there are many good justifications. Such as... Barbarian: My character is a psychic. He looks like a frail man, wields his sword with close-range telekinesis (high strength), has ablative psychic shields (High HP and DR), and can enter an autohypnotic trance (rage). Bard: My character is also psychic. He can set up telekinetic resonance to boost his allies in combat (inspire courage), he knows a limited number of powers (spells), though they work differently because he stores PSPs in crystals embedded in his skin (spell slots), and he has access to a huge pool of subconscious knowledge (bardic knowledge). And so forth. I could turn any PHB class into a very psionic-sounding class without changing any mechanics. What would you say if I said to that player, "Thanks for the character but as I said before you have to be a psychic character, so you have two options you can either remake your character, or you drop out of the game, no harm, no foul."? I'd ask why he couldn't just change the flavor to make it acceptable. If it's not acceptable for me to do this, why isn't it? Because there are a near-infinite number of things you can do in D&D. Almost any concept can be done in core, but many of those concepts are in name/fluff alone, not in mechanics. If you can have your cake (fluff) and eat it too (mechanics), then you have a much better time than if you have a good idea and can't use it because you can't figure out a way to make it balanced within the rules you're using. Now, I might still play in an XPH-classes only game, in the same way I might play in a Core-only game. I would just much rather have the option of playing other classes, especially if I had good justifications for why it would fit the game.
Cold Napalm 06-25-07, 12:29 PM	I don't consult them before setting limits. I don't think I should have to and neither do my players. Thet're not the ones inventing the setting after all. And none of them has any desire to act as an impromptu focus group.I just inform them what the limits of the game are and they accept them. If they had any questions about it, of course I'd listen to them. But they don't. Because they know I'm running the show. If they weren't happy with the way the show was being run, they'd vote with their feet. Umm your being HIGHLY inconsistant since you said you do consult them and now you say you don't. Make up your mind already. If your players have no desire to have any input into their games, then fine that is YOUR player's choice. I'm sorry but my players actually care about what and where they play. Also this attitude of I can do whatever I want and if they don't like it, then they can walk is a reason why many a games comes to a screaching halt. I mean honestly, I didn't accept this in gygaxian era of D&D so why would I accept this now?!?
solbergb 06-25-07, 01:48 PM	Unless you're just running a published campaign, the DM creates the setting and therefore only he can say what will and will not fit into the campaign. What Cold Napalm seems to misunderstand is that when the DM says "hey, I have an idea for a new campaign, do you want to play?" this isn't an invitation to brainstorm a new campaign. This is "I have a campaign already, are you interested in playing. Here's what I can tell you about it without giving spoilers to make characters that fit the world." Then there is some give and take, as players introduce something that doesn't fit well. Quite often something on the "NPC only" list ends up as a "PC outcast/renegade" because PC's often play against type and there is room for negotiation. But you don't tend to get any PC's that don't fit the world at all, or you shouldn't. In that situation (campaign and story ideas already existing in head of DM, just needs players), the players either are interested in the setting or aren't. Those that can't make a character to fit the setting probably aren't someone you want in the game. There is a different situation which is more like, "Hey, I want to run D&D. Tell me what characters you guys want to play and I'll build a campaign around it". In that scenario, the DM is mostly looking for bad party dynamics when rejecting character ideas or rejecting source material he either doesn't like or doesn't have time to research (he is after all going to have to go build a campaign from scratch, working in the PC's). You can't compare the two situations. They aren't even remotely the same. Both require mutual trust between players and the GM.
Gleepwurp 06-25-07, 02:32 PM	From my experience, reasonable people who play games together don't need to fight about it. If they are reasonable people, they work out some sort of compromise. In my opinion, a player who was unwilling to accept that the DM has final say over what source books can or cannot be used wouldn't be a good fit at my table. That might make some people think I am an "autocratic" DM or I run a bad campaign. I did have a player quit my campaign a few years ago because he didn't like my take on the rules. But the other players seem happy so I guess I am doing OK; at least for my group. When I am a player, I accept the limitations of the campaign set by the DM. I've been playing for quite a while and this has been the way we have always done it.
OravennasBrother 06-25-07, 04:19 PM	I have found that, given the ratio of players to DM's it is quite possible for DM's to be choosy about who they allow into their campaigns. Players who challenge the DM on which supplements will be allowed are apt to find a cool reception at my table. When a new player enters he/she plays under the established rules for the current campaign. With me that means Core only, and frequently several other limitations (Human only, perhaps, or no-spellcasters, or whatever fits the game my established players chose) and the new player can ACCEPT those limitations or NOT PLAY. Giving in to some new whiner will just irritate the established crew, who have a good chemistry. I'm not going to cater to one new player at the expense of all my established group. When the next campaign is up for discussion the new player can make it clear what they like, but if the consensus of EVERYONE else is opposed to their desires they still won't get to override the majority. Frequently, when reading the posters on these pages, I am inclined to suspect that the "When I DM I allow ANYTHING" crew don't actually DM very often.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-25-07, 04:26 PM	Frequently, when reading the posters on these pages, I am inclined to suspect that the "When I DM I allow ANYTHING" crew don't actually DM very often. Actually I run a weekly game, and have been doing so for the last 6 years.
Cold Napalm 06-25-07, 04:52 PM	I have found that, given the ratio of players to DM's it is quite possible for DM's to be choosy about who they allow into their campaigns. Players who challenge the DM on which supplements will be allowed are apt to find a cool reception at my table. When a new player enters he/she plays under the established rules for the current campaign. With me that means Core only, and frequently several other limitations (Human only, perhaps, or no-spellcasters, or whatever fits the game my established players chose) and the new player can ACCEPT those limitations or NOT PLAY. Giving in to some new whiner will just irritate the established crew, who have a good chemistry. I'm not going to cater to one new player at the expense of all my established group. When the next campaign is up for discussion the new player can make it clear what they like, but if the consensus of EVERYONE else is opposed to their desires they still won't get to override the majority. Frequently, when reading the posters on these pages, I am inclined to suspect that the "When I DM I allow ANYTHING" crew don't actually DM very often. Okay it is one thing to enter an existing game and try to push what you want. It's an ESTABLISHED game. It's assumed that the other players have meshed to play what they want already so it's a matter of respect that in that case you play by the rules that is already in place. This is not about THAT situation Umm I DM 2 games ATM and I generally allow everything and the kitchen sink. I have run limited to x games after talking with my players before so I have no issue with if you and your player want core only, or no ToB or whatever the case might be. What this issue is about is when the DM says it all and the players can either suck it up or walk (BTW any DM that pulls that on me, I walk. I'm lucky, I live in a game rich area). Oh and since our area has no real lack of DM who are considerate enough to think of their players as actual people with their own wants and desires, the ones that take the hard line don't get to be DM for long. I feel sorry for people who live in areas where this isn't true...but then again you can just DM yourself until those DM learn better when people go oh cool this DM actually listens to me?!? Rock!
Kursk 06-25-07, 05:44 PM	DMs, from time to time, ban books for various reasons. And that is certainly their perogative to do so. To wit, every additional book contains the disclaimer that one should talk to one’s DM beforehand as they may allow all, none, or part of the additional material held within. That being said, there are many reasons why a DM should allow the extra material. At the end of the day, DMs are going to do what they want despite what posters here think. The best way to handle if you are a player that doesn't like their DMs rules is to start your own game. Problem (if it ever was one) solved.
Olskool 06-25-07, 06:03 PM	Umm I DM 2 games ATM and I generally allow everything and the kitchen sink. So what? You could go around beating up nuns. It doesn't mean that I should that. I'm not trying to tell you not to allow the daily churning of supplemental material that WOTC releases from it's bowels. I'm just saying don't be mad at DMs that prefer not to do that.
UltimateReality 06-25-07, 06:24 PM	I have found that, given the ratio of players to DM's it is quite possible for DM's to be choosy about who they allow into their campaigns. Players who challenge the DM on which supplements will be allowed are apt to find a cool reception at my table.So if the market was flooded with DMs, so to speak, such that there was actually a demand for players, do you think more DMs would open up supplements to potential groups? Would you? Just because it's a seller's market, does it mean we should price fix or gouge our customers? I'm not going to cater to one new player at the expense of all my established group.And that's something different altogether: newbie joining established group. If you were to get together an entirely new group of players, wouldn't all of them have equal say (as compared to each other)?
Cold Napalm 06-25-07, 09:13 PM	So what? You could go around beating up nuns. It doesn't mean that I should that. I'm not trying to tell you not to allow the daily churning of supplemental material that WOTC releases from it's bowels. I'm just saying don't be mad at DMs that prefer not to do that. Don't you realize how evil nuns are?!? Have you never been to catholic school?!? Joking aside...WTF man. This was a reply to somebody who basically made the accusation that if you allow everything your don't DM. Umm...right. No, false, wrong, go to jail, do not pass go, no cookie for you. Oh and since you seem to be of the I can do whatever I want in my game and it's the only way to play camp anyways...WTF dude. I'll allow everything if I want. You can continue to play with an iron fist with your players. I will contine to refuse to play with DMs like you. I will contine to give advice to STOP DMs from playing like you and you can advocate your way of life all you want. It's a free country. The person reading can do what the hell they want at the end of the day. I am NEVER gonna agree with your stance of DM dominance and I doubt you will ever agree with my stance of actually being nice to your friends. So since your saying that I shouldn't be mad at douche bag DM, why don't you butt out and leave us kitchen sink DM alone too. If your really of the let everyone play their own, then your post really doesn't reflect it. Take your own advice.
Optimized_Commoner 06-26-07, 12:28 AM	So if the market was flooded with DMs, so to speak, such that there was actually a demand for players, do you think more DMs would open up supplements to potential groups? Would you? Just because it's a seller's market, does it mean we should price fix or gouge our customers? Lol, economics of D&D. While I'm sure the number of players and DMs out there have naturally influenced the games that I've run over the years it's never really been something I've considered consciously. There are two reasons why I end up DMing: The first is when I have a brilliant idea that I really want to turn into a roleplaying game or want to playtest a new system/setting I've written. In which case it's pretty much an 'in or out' level of negotiation. The idea is the reason I'm running the game, so I'm not willing to change it. (come to think of it though, I've never had someone opt out...) The second (and vastly more common) is when I'm sitting around with a bunch of friends and someone says, "I want to roleplay, O.C. run a game for us." (apparently I'm the designated DM). In which case my response is usually, "Okay, what kind of game does everyone want to play?"
Roog 06-26-07, 04:15 AM	At the end of the day, DMs are going to do what they want despite what posters here think. The best way to handle if you are a player that doesn't like their DMs rules is to start your own game. Problem (if it ever was one) solved. If we had a DM with that attitude in our game, then next week he can find a new group (if they want to DM) - we have plenty of other people who want to DM. Problem (if it ever was one) solved.
Olskool 06-26-07, 07:10 AM	Don't you realize how evil nuns are?!? Have you never been to catholic school?!? Oh and since you seem to be of the I can do whatever I want in my game and it's the only way to play camp anyways...WTF dude. I'll allow everything if I want. You can continue to play with an iron fist with your players. I will contine to refuse to play with DMs like you. I will contine to give advice to STOP DMs from playing like you . Never been to catholic school. Maybe that's why I don't have automatically have a problem with all authority figures. And please read my posts. I didn't say you weren't allowed to run a monty haul campaign if you wanted to. I just said that I think my way of playing is better than yours. If I didn't think that, something would be wrong. Every DM should think the way they DM is the right way. If they don't think that, then they should adjust their style accordingly. Encourage people not to play D&D like me. That's your opinion and that's fine. Just don't act shocked when someone gives you that same treatment back. Because I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't play Like you do. And that's fine too.
maharai23 06-26-07, 07:38 AM	I know it's offtopic but I've got to ask... Why do people in other parts of the world call it a tuna-fish sandwich? Is there some kind of non-fish tuna sandwhich that it needs to be differentiated from? Because around here we just call it a tuna sandwhich. Hahahahaha.... Thank you. I really needed a good laugh. I never really considered it. I've always called it Tuna Fish. Perhaps from the joke about the piano and the fish? I believe it was on the Muppets once, or maybe Muppet Babies. Either way, it was the Fozzie character that said it. I'm sure the joke has older roots, but I've not delved much into the secretive black workings of the cabal of bad jokes. Either that, or to differentiate from Tuna Salad. Then again, some here who've seen me argue may very well claim I'm redundant. If that be the case, then my use of "Tuna Fish" is an excellent support.
maharai23 06-26-07, 07:40 AM	Never been to catholic school. Maybe that's why I don't have automatically have a problem with all authority figures. And please read my posts. I didn't say you weren't allowed to run a monty haul campaign if you wanted to. I just said that I think my way of playing is better than yours. If I didn't think that, something would be wrong. Every DM should think the way they DM is the right way. If they don't think that, then they should adjust their style accordingly. Encourage people not to play D&D like me. That's your opinion and that's fine. Just don't act shocked when someone gives you that same treatment back. Because I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't play Like you do. And that's fine too. Yes, but every human should have the mindset that their way is the best they've discovered so far. Always keep an open mind to new possibilities. Shake things up a bit. Keeps everyone on their toes.
maharai23 06-26-07, 07:41 AM	If we had a DM with that attitude in our game, then next week he can find a new group (if they want to DM) - we have plenty of other people who want to DM. Problem (if it ever was one) solved. I envy your area. I'm my immediate area's only game that I know of.
Roog 06-26-07, 07:54 AM	I envy your area. I'm my immediate area's only game that I know of. I mean in my group (5 out of 7 want to run games), however the other groups I know each have several poeple who want to GM.
Olskool 06-26-07, 08:54 AM	I am NEVER gonna agree with your stance of DM dominance and I doubt you will ever agree with my stance of actually being nice to your friends. Even you have to admit that's just a matter of perspective. I could just as easily say: I am NEVER gonna agree with your stance of DM submission and I doubt you will ever agree with my stance of showing your friends any respect at all.
Kursk 06-26-07, 11:04 AM	If we had a DM with that attitude in our game, then next week he can find a new group (if they want to DM) - we have plenty of other people who want to DM. Problem (if it ever was one) solved. Sounds good. After DMing for 25+ years I've lost one or two players at the most, so from my experience it is not a problem. You obviously have had a different experience and have to bend to your players will as they see fit. As long as they game is good it doesn't matter.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-26-07, 11:24 AM	Even you have to admit that's just a matter of perspective. I could just as easily say: I am NEVER gonna agree with your stance of DM submission and I doubt you will ever agree with my stance of showing your friends any respect at all. One may suppose that if one truely respected ones friends, then explaining to them why you disallow what you do shouldn't be that hard. I mean you either have a reason, or you don't. And if you don't then your being an asshat about it. If do then there is no reason why you can't explain it.
OravennasBrother 06-26-07, 12:07 PM	I mean in my group (5 out of 7 want to run games), however the other groups I know each have several poeple who want to GM. Are these DM's who will go the distance or are these "One Shot Wonders?" There are rather a few OSW in my neck of the woods, but they all fold after one (or in RARE Cases two) game. NO ongoing campaign there. I even had the experience of a new guy telling me "I want to DM but have no clue where to start" who begged for help. I put more work into getting his campaign off the ground than he did, and after the FIRST Game he went all whiny "That didn't go like I wanted I'm gonna stop DMing." So now when someone asks for help DMing I have a single page I print out with a few simple directives because once burned and all that.
Kursk 06-26-07, 12:07 PM	One may suppose that if one truely respected ones friends, then explaining to them why you disallow what you do shouldn't be that hard. I mean you either have a reason, or you don't. And if you don't then your being an asshat about it. If do then there is no reason why you can't explain it. How about, I think X material sucks?
Roog 06-26-07, 12:16 PM	Are these DM's who will go the distance or are these "One Shot Wonders?" There are rather a few OSW in my neck of the woods, but they all fold after one (or in RARE Cases two) game. NO ongoing campaign there. I even had the experience of a new guy telling me "I want to DM but have no clue where to start" who begged for help. I put more work into getting his campaign off the ground than he did, and after the FIRST Game he went all whiny "That didn't go like I wanted I'm gonna stop DMing." So now when someone asks for help DMing I have a single page I print out with a few simple directives because once burned and all that. Two GMs who run games ranging from planned one shots to long term (serveral years) games. Two GMs who run games ranging from planned one shots to medium term (multiple sections lasting 2-6 months each) games. One GMs who is just starting to GM, but his current game should last several months at least. One GMs who is a "One Shot Wonder", so I did not count him. One new player who has not been playing long enough to try GMing.
solbergb 06-26-07, 12:53 PM	One may suppose that if one truely respected ones friends, then explaining to them why you disallow what you do shouldn't be that hard. I mean you either have a reason, or you don't. And if you don't then your being an asshat about it. If do then there is no reason why you can't explain it. Sometimes there is a reason - the explanation will spoil the story arc. In that situation the GM has to say "I can't tell you why, but there is a reason. Trust me". I had trouble with that for a while when I was running Ars Magica...all of the players were analyitic geeks and several had recent experiences with GM's that played fast and loose with rules. I run a very consistent world in any game I play (the rules stay the same from session to session, Pc's and NPC's play by the same rules) but they didn't know me well enough yet to trust that. So when strange things started happening they wanted to know the game mechanics behind them and I had to pull the "trust me, it is all legal, but I can't tell you how it is done because that would be spoilers" line. In my games, if the worldlaws appear to be violated...that's a clue that something is up or things are not as they appear.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-26-07, 01:26 PM	How about, I think X material sucks? So your idea of fun is somehow better then all of your friends? I know your more important than they are? their only aloud to play things you yourself would? So if all you and friends decided to go out for drinks, would you force them to only drink what you like? Its their character, why can't you let them present it with the the mechanics they choose? Sometimes there is a reason - the explanation will spoil the story arc. In that situation the GM has to say "I can't tell you why, but there is a reason. Trust me". I can't think of a single instance were book X is disallowed, or feat X is disallowed because of secret story reasons. As for not explaining the NPCs build, well that is completely unrelated to what we're talking about. Unless you disallow your players from using the same mechanics as the NPCs, should they happen to choose them because of coincidence. But that would be too silly for words to express.
Kursk 06-26-07, 01:31 PM	So your idea of fun is somehow better then all of your friends? I know your more important than they are? their only aloud to play things you yourself would? No, not really. But if I'm going to incorporate material into my game world, then I sometimes choose to not include what I think is crap. Others may like it and use in their game. When it comes down to it, anyone can start a campaign world and include whatever they want. Since my players aren't prisoners they have 100% freedom as it is. Freedom of choice.
Sisial 06-26-07, 01:57 PM	Personally I think the DM's power to disallow is one of the key elements that makes DnD fun. A DM might limit what classes and races are available, not include some particular magic items in the game, or maybe even control which spells are available at any time for the magic user to learn. IMO this only causes the players to think in new and creative ways, and isn't imagination and creativity the life blood of DnD? Of course I realize that this isn't everyone's cup of tea. As I posted on a different forum a while back many of my players back in high school seemed to disagree on what made a game of DnD fun, with my own personal expectations. A fellow DM ran a game and which involved many of my players and they were quite taken by the fact that he gave them whatever they wanted. Powerful artifact weapons? Check. Status as physical manefestations of evil concepts (or at least avatars)? Check. No need to actually roll to complete feats of magnitude (like slaughtering the entire town guard)? Check. And what he had, which my friends loved by the way, was a campaign where the plot was developed by the characters fighting each other for power, killing everything around them, and not really adventuring at all. If that's what you like cool. That is what comes from limitless DnD. Now that is an extreme case. I would say about the epitomy of limitless DnD. I ran a campaign where aspects of all books, and all things were incorporated. The limiting factors? The character backgrounds, the fact that they were level 3 when they began (in terms of what kind of equipment they could have, and what experiences they could have had), and the particular location in my world that they were in at any given time. I even allowed them to work up races for themselves with my supervision. It actually ran pretty well and I was really proud of the world I had created. I don't think it detracted from the realism, and it was lots of fun to have such a motley crew of PCs. The only problem I had was that it was hard to keep track of everything sometimes. In this way I can understand how, as a player it's fun to make your character as unique and personal as possible. I can also understand, but don't personally condone how, as a player, it's fun to make your character as incredibly powerful as possible. It feels like your winning the game, because you easily overcome every challenge. To me though, DnD is sweeter when every challenge truly is a challenge, and sweeter yet when it takes some serious team work and thought. So how is all this theory applied to practice? What the DM says goes. A good DM can work with his players to help them make their characters more personal, but a DM doesn't need to bend at all, and players should be able to live with that. If they can't they've got to go find a new DM who will let them play a level 5 CE character wearing mithril full plate, weilding a +12 vorpal greatsword, and slowly awaking to the fact that they are the avatar of Asmodeus. Your choice. I've made mine.
CCS 06-26-07, 03:21 PM	For example suppose I wanted psionics, and said no play a wizard. I then ask why psionics is not allowed. If you say because its over powered, you had best be able to prove that, that is the case. Similarly you should be justify why it doesn't fit into the setting. The converse is also true. I should be able to show why it isn't over powered, and how it does fit into the setting. I would never tell you to play x. Assuming you make a valid selection from the races/classes being allowed in the campaign in question, I don't care what you run. And I'll never tell you that psionics are over-powered. Because honestly? I have no idea if psionics are or aren't(nor do I care). I can tell you this though. You'll never run a psionic in any game I DM. Why? Because I don't like psionics. I never have. I don't think they fit well flavour wise in most D&D type games, and I know they don't fit my own style. I don't need any more justification than that. So I don't care what you're argument is, psionics are still not an option in my campaigns.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-26-07, 03:36 PM	No, not really. But if I'm going to incorporate material into my game world, then I sometimes choose to not include what I think is crap. Others may like it and use in their game. When it comes down to it, anyone can start a campaign world and include whatever they want. Since my players aren't prisoners they have 100% freedom as it is. Freedom of choice. I would never tell you to play x. Assuming you make a valid selection from the races/classes being allowed in the campaign in question, I don't care what you run. And I'll never tell you that psionics are over-powered. Because honestly? I have no idea if psionics are or aren't(nor do I care). I can tell you this though. You'll never run a psionic in any game I DM. Why? Because I don't like psionics. I never have. I don't think they fit well flavour wise in most D&D type games, and I know they don't fit my own style. I don't need any more justification than that. So I don't care what you're argument is, psionics are still not an option in my campaigns. It these kind of attitudes that are really arrogant, and what I'm getting at. Your disallowing because your sense of fun is somehow better then your supposed friends. You don't like, sure whatever, then don't play a psionic character. Your the DM, well don't make any NPC psions. But when you say to a player, "you can't play X because I think it is crap." You are basically saying they have to play what you like, and only what you like. And that friends is incredibly selfish. I would be the exact same as a DM telling you that you can only play dwarven fighters, because everything else is crap. This my way or the highway attitude of DMing is highhanded, and abusive. It must stop. I really wonder why it is tolerated in this hobby, and no were else. Seriously what would you if you were at a movie, and one of your friends insisted that you only see the movies he wants, and if you don't then he is leaving, and the rest of you can walk home (him being the one who drove you all to the theater)? Or maybe your out with your SO, and she tells you that you will go to all of the stores she wants to visit, but none of the ones you want, because your stores are boring and suck. Object to it, and well you can find a new SO.
CCS 06-26-07, 03:41 PM	[QUOTE=On_the_wings_of_TPK;12833612] My message is simply: If as a DM your going to tell your friends they can't have their fun then you auto have a good reason for it. Further you should be able to justify that reason logically, and with more then, "I don't like it." Simply saying i don't like it, is the same as saying that your idea of fun is somehow better or more important then the players. Yeah, well, sometimes "I don't like it" IS the answer. I can expound upon why I don't like it, but in the end it's still the same answer. And it is NOT the same as saying my fun is better/more important than yours. But since you can't force me to DM (& therefore play with) something I don't like, our fun is going to have to be seperate.....
Kursk 06-26-07, 03:43 PM	It must stop. :rofl: I really wonder why it is tolerated in this hobby, and no were else. It is when the game is fun for the players. When it isn't the DM has no players. If that were to happen to me I'd make needed changes or stop DMing.
Comus 06-26-07, 04:19 PM	It is when the game is fun for the players. When it isn't the DM has no players. If that were to happen to me I'd make needed changes or stop DMing. As rebuttal, I cite the number of players that come to these boards and complain that they aren't having fun, but don't want to confront their DM. There is a percentage of players that aren't leaving games they do not enjoy. TPK asked why it's tolerated in this hobby. The answer is simple - the kind of people that are generally attracted to it are not good at dealing with others. They can't confront others, and I'd say most of that type are too afraid of losing friends to even complain. Some are probably even afraid to suggest things that they'd find entertaining.
Kursk 06-26-07, 04:34 PM	As rebuttal, I cite the number of players that come to these boards and complain that they aren't having fun, but don't want to confront their DM. There is a percentage of players that aren't leaving games they do not enjoy. Maybe, but probably not. I've know DMs who couldn't keep players because it wasn't fun. On the other hand I play with adults who are professionals & executives so maybe my group isn't the normal socially inept stereotypes.
OravennasBrother 06-26-07, 05:10 PM	TPK asked why it's tolerated in this hobby. The answer is simple - the kind of people that are generally attracted to it are not good at dealing with others. They can't confront others, Those must be the ones who never visit these boards.
Saytr 06-26-07, 05:16 PM	My 2 cents on the original post. When I DM and someone comes to me and says "I want to do this" I simply ask them "Why?" If he has a good reason, OK. If his reason is "I want to do 300 points of damage a round" the answer is "No". If I suspect the reason is just to be overpowered, I ask more questions like "What are you planning to do with this?" until I get a good answer. If it's a roleplay reason but it doesn't fit the campiagn I'll say why. "They'll find out you're evil eventually and probably kick you out of the group. I won't stop them and I'm not running a separate campiagn for 1 guy." If he still wants to do it, he can. Maybe he'll make it work. I won't have much sympathy if he complains about it later. If someone wants a PrC just for his character. He writes it up. I review it. Not the other way around. If it works and he has a good reason, OK. Basically I just make it very clear what I will do and won't do and why. They can tell me what type of game and I'll provide scenarios and ask them what they do. If someone wants to do something weird by themselves and it will take up a lot of game time I'll simply say that it will take a lot of game time but he can do it if he wants. He has to deal with everyone else not playing. Sometimes they support him. If he's just being a pain he understands that he's being selfish when everyone browbeats him and he stops. It's not really nessessary to ban anything except a powergaming situation. Players can usually take responsibility and keep themselves in line as long as everyone knows what's going on and they understand that it's OUR game not MY game. ~
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-26-07, 08:00 PM	Yeah, well, sometimes "I don't like it" IS the answer. I can expound upon why I don't like it, but in the end it's still the same answer. And it is NOT the same as saying my fun is better/more important than yours. But since you can't force me to DM (& therefore play with) something I don't like, our fun is going to have to be seperate..... Exactly, you don't like, so it won't happen around. What your friends think, or want be dammed. Your fun, and your happiness is more important, so they don't really matter all that much. As long as you can admit that, which you have in a manner of speaking, then I guess i will leave you to your gaming.
Roog 06-26-07, 08:12 PM	Sounds good. After DMing for 25+ years I've lost one or two players at the most, so from my experience it is not a problem. You obviously have had a different experience and have to bend to your players will as they see fit. As long as they game is good it doesn't matter. Not so much bend to, as respect.
Vaelan 06-27-07, 04:18 AM	Not so much bend to, as respect. You've been here a few days, at the very least. You should know by now that actual discussion doesn't happen here. People just oversimplify, exaggerate, or just plain fabricate and attribute new, ridiculous arguments to viewpoints they don't agree with. Kursk: your posts make it obvious that your reading comprehension needs a bit of work, since the comments you are responding to directly refute your responses. You need to take more time to try to understand what On_the_wings_of_TPK is actually saying.
TwistedPuppy 06-27-07, 08:26 AM	Exactly, you don't like, so it won't happen around. What your friends think, or want be dammed. Your fun, and your happiness is more important, so they don't really matter all that much. As long as you can admit that, which you have in a manner of speaking, then I guess i will leave you to your gaming. Respect and consideration is a two way street. In these forums I see them expected - indeed, demanded - of the DM, but not of players. Maybe I'm just lucky or simplistic, but I've always dealt with players who agree that it is up to the DM to decide what is or is not allowed in a given setting. The caveat is that when someone else DMs, the other gives him/her the same consideration and respect they received. Example: I'm in a game where the DM does not allow elves or PrCs, and used 3.0 versions of spells. An elf would have been perfect for one of my character concepts, but I dealt with it and came up with a different fun character to play. He has wanted to try playing a psion, but I don't have psionics in my setting, so he picked another character and didn't argue or try to convince me that psionics would be great etc. That is consideration: we treated each other the way we expected to be treated.
OravennasBrother 06-27-07, 09:20 AM	Respect and consideration is a two way street. In these forums I see them expected - indeed, demanded - of the DM, but not of players. Oh there's a fix for that perception. Don't visit the "What's a Player to do?" boards.
TwistedPuppy 06-27-07, 09:55 AM	Oh there's a fix for that perception. Don't visit the "What's a Player to do?" boards. Perhaps I didn't make it clear: I meant WotC forums in general.
Gleepwurp 06-27-07, 10:12 AM	As a player, I've quit games before because I didn't like the crowd at the table -- in one case a couple of the players were extremely obnoxious and rude and I just didn't find it fun. I was invited to join another campaign that involved what I thought of as a really railroad plot that just didn't seem like my cup of tea so I declined to join. But I have never refused to play in someone elses game because the DM didn't want to allow me to use a specific splatbook. From 1st edition onwards, it's been the DM's prerogative of what to allow and what not to allow. I've played in games where everyone had to make a human PC; elves and dwarves were all NPCs and the DM had reasons for doing so. Some DMs rewrite some of the races to suit their world. Or make other rules changes. In my opinion, this is all good providing the DM is fair and makes the game more about player actions and choices. To me, that's the key. As a player I'll try my hand at any race/class providing that I feel like my player character can make choices in game that affect outcomes. The games that I find frustrating are the ones in which the PCs can't do anything meaningful in the context of the game world... or the ones in which the behavior of the DM and/or the players is offputting. But I play with folks I consider friends these days so the latter problem doesn't really come up. But as DM I'm just not going to allow a player to create WHATEVER character he wants from whatever splatbook and the effect upon my campaign or everyone else's fun be damned. D&D is and has always been a collaborative game of fantasy. The boring, bad or frustrating games I have been involved in (as a player and a DM) have usually been ones in which people refuse to collaborate and work within the campaign framework set by the DM. Reasonable people will find a way to compromise and the world doesn't have to come to an end just because the DM tells a player that a certain race, class or book are not allowed.
Gleepwurp 06-27-07, 10:13 AM	That is consideration: we treated each other the way we expected to be treated. Quoted for truth
Optimized_Commoner 06-27-07, 10:38 AM	I've been discussing this from my perspective as a DM. I'm going to switch over to my experiences as a player to illustrate another side of this argument that hasn't been covered yet. When I play a game, I hate having the wrong character. My friends make jokes about how frequently I change my characters, I even had a friend tell me I can't play in his next game unless I can promise to stick to the one character. However nothing sucks more than creating a character and discovering that what you want to do with your character isn't going to fit in with the rest of the group. Maybe you're not as optimized as everyone else, maybe you're more optimized and maybe you're playing a nice-guy character in an evil group or vice versa. There are hundreds of ways it can happen but it's usually not very enjoyable, especially in the long run. You're stuck with the horrible question, "Why is my character travelling with these people?", which just ruins your enjoyment of a game. One, very effective way of solving this problem is having a DM issue some guidelines, set certain limits and negotiate some of the more extreme concepts. When this happens, you find that you have a group which makes sense and is involved in the story without tearing itself apart at the seams. When I think back to the games I really enjoyed, they had a central premise to them which integrated into both the mechanical and story-based aspects of the characters with a strong group dynamic uniting them. When I think of the games where the DM said, "yeah play whatever you want" they usually ended up pretty badly. Clearly it's not always like that, but it has been a bit of a trend in my experience.
OravennasBrother 06-27-07, 01:07 PM	Perhaps I didn't make it clear: I meant WotC forums in general. Well you know, there are a lot more players than DM's, regardless of what may get posted when people are asked. And the players think in player perspective (generally "I want MORE") so it does come up across the boards, but on "What's a Player to Do?" it seems a bit more pronounced.
Lanky Ogre Baggy Pants 06-27-07, 01:54 PM	In regards to allowing books I think it also needs to be clarified what venue the game is being played in. If the game is a play by post, or an advertised game at a game shop, then the DM can just state want they want to run and allow and let people join who want to follow those guidelines join. If the game is a group of friends who are getting together to play, then there should be some communication amongst everyone and a campaign idea should be arrived on that everyone will enjoy. Even if that starts with the DM saying "I would like to do X, and include A, B, and C, but not M and N," then the players can agree, or throw in their suggestions.
Dontgothere 06-27-07, 02:21 PM	The same old tired argument brought up by the same group of people over and over and over and over and over and over....
solbergb 06-27-07, 02:43 PM	I can't think of a single instance were book X is disallowed, or feat X is disallowed because of secret story reasons. Well then, perhaps I've seen more situations than you have come up in nearly 30 years of gaming playing all kinds of game systems. In the original GDQ series, 1st edition, the existance of Drow and their mechanics was a closely guarded secret in the original tournament runs and indeed, the conditioning the party to fight giants for 3 adventures usually caused the party to fall apart when they first hit the drow - your spells, tactics and approach for that were very different. In modern terms, there would be some "underdark" suppliment that would have been forbidden for fear of spoiling the adventure. The the deep gnomes, the Kuo-Toa and the cultural factions and two religions followed by the Drow were central to the experience and incharacter knowledge of all that actually does reduce the challenge by quite a bit. In the case of Ars Magica, Hermetic magic worked a certain way, but the plot had two NPC's that had different magical styles, both of which could have been considered the building blocks of what became the Hermetic style (both were ancient, preserved much past even wizardly lifetimes due to events both had participated in). The mechanics behind the styles would have given away too much about the actual history of the NPC's and their roles. In the case of a 3.5 D&D campaign my wife and I built - mechanically "core" but with different "flavor text" for racial cultures and many classes, there were some organizations with access to core and, if we were to do it again, noncore feats/prc's/spells. Use of those abilities is a clue as to who is behind what plot, should you learn about either the abilities or the organizations ingame. A PC could only have those abilities by belonging to the organization, and as most of them were secret society-type groups (whether or not they were "in power" or "rebels") they don't divulge their secrets to fledgling adventurers, even if the adventurer was a low tier member of the group somehow. Some plots were even driven by large scale use of some of these capabilities. As an example, black onyx was considered a strategic material by most organized societies and previous wars made it pretty rare. An ability to make stronger undead with the same amount of onyx or spawn undead without onyx changes the equation considerably and changes the correct response to a situation by the PC's. To choose yet another campaign - Living Greyhawk, the worlds largest shared D&D campaign has a small list of things reserved for NPC's only and an even smaller list of things that pretty much you won't see in the game oncamera. Most of these are either stuff that doesn't fit into Flanesse (most "eastern" themed classes and PRC's, or setting-based stuff that isn't Greyhawk setting) but some are tied to the fact that PC's can't be evil and some are tied to how they were used in the past by PC's or authors to trivially break the EL system. A simple example would be the Awaken spell, which in theory a druid (PC or otherwise) could use at no EL cost to greatly enhance his combat power far beyond what the spell slot requires. Another is Destruction - banned primarily because the campaign structure prohibits a PC from purchasing a true rez at any cost. (I've seen one access to the spell ever in 3 years of active play, for only one deaths occurring in adventure) In LG, it isn't plot reasons that keep you from having a certain spell/feat/prc, it's usually campaign structure reasons. A shared campaign with tens of thousands of players and thousands of GM's which requires us to play by core rules+FAQ and gives us only the option of banning or allowing an rules item (no "houseruling" unless the rules text is "grey") can't just let stuff into the campaign without some oversignt - you're not just giving it to one PC, you're giving it to everyone who plays the adventure, or possibly everyone in the campaign.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-27-07, 02:47 PM	And heres the crux of the matter. When a DM insists that his/her story line be followed with out any variation then we call it rail roading, and bad DMing. When a Dm uses rule, or other wise insists on out following the RAW, s/he must have a good reason, or we pull out the hammergun. If a player were to come onto these boards complaining that their DM forced them to play character X, the DM would be crucified. Heck even they get too ban happy, and touch the sacred cow that is core, we call them poor DMs. Yet when they want to disallow a source book it is perfectly acceptable to do so. Whenever, and however they feel like. They need not rime, nor reason to do so. I don't understand why that is. Now of course a player should be able to demonstrate why siad material fits into the world, or why it isn't broken, or what not. But that is already expected of the player. It would be like me starting a post on why a DM should apply the rules consistently to their NPCs as well as PCs. Of course the players have to apply the rules to their PCs as well. Of course the players should be able to prove their point, in that book X isn't broken, can fit into the world, won't detract from anyone else's fun. So lets look at some of the reasons why things are not aloud. 1) Its broken: it did not receive much discussion here, so I won't spend too much time on the it. Now if a DM says book X is broken, they should be able to say why. A player should be able to prove why not as well. To make this simpler I propose a simple comparison. I called it the rule of 100% and 0%. Compare the item to the most powerful, similar item in the campaign. So compare magic items to magic items, feats to feats, and classes to classes, etc. If it is better then the 100% mark then it is over powering, and the DM is right. If it is not then the player is right, when he says that it is not overpowered. If it is worse then the 0% mark then, then it is too weak to be playable. (I think i may have a player who is playing a build that may fall below the 0% mark in my game. I'll need his sheet to compare, and will talk to the other players about it.) 2) Flavour: It does not fit my world. Again this is, or could be, a valid reason. If we're playing in a world were all elves became extinct a millinia ago, then playing an elf isn't going to happen. However the DM should be able to say why the player, can't play what they want. Such as, all elves died a millinia ago. the converse is also true, a Player should be able to demonstrate why the mechanics could work in the sitting. "Its not an elf, it is just a really dextrous human, who is kinda frail." 3) "Because I don't like it." This is probably the worst reason of all, and frankly is a poor excuse for being a jerk. Suppose you and your S.O are shopping in the mall. You want to go the hobby store. You S.O says, "No we aren't going their because I think it is a crappy store, and I don't like it." Then when you object she says, "Well your free to find another S.O. But as long as your with me, we won't ever go to the hobby store." This reason further exaggerates the disparity between DM and player, on the meta game level. Suppose your BBEG is a psionic class, with a none standard race. What would do if a player said, "I don't like psionics. Your BBEG is unacceptable, you'll have to remake him." Oh but your the all powerful DM and can do whatever you like. As someone already stated, its a two way street. If you can tell a player they can't play what they want to because you don't like it, then there is no reason why they can't do the same. Unless your somehow more important then they are. (I can conceive of a game with out a "DM", but not with out "players") 4) "Because I'm not familiar with the rules" Perfectly reasonable, and acceptable. As DM you are reasonable for making rules judgments. And if those judgments are to be educated in the least, then you should be familiar with the mechanics in the game. Say if a player is going to use psionics, and over channel, then you should know what over channeling does. However there is no reason why you can't say to a player, "I'm sorry I don't know the rules for that, so it is not allowed." Further if you aren't going to bother learning the rules for something, then have the courtesy to tell them, and tell them why. A simple, "I'm too busy with X" should suffice. 5) "Because it won't fun for the rest of the players." No one likes a party bomb. And no one likes the character that uses mechanics which force restrictions on them, or imposes something on the game that don't like. Such as the Pking back stabbing rogue. We know these things come up, and when they do we can also explain why it won't be fun for the rest of the group. "I don't think the group would like you killing them in their sleep, and running off with their lute. Group what'd you think?" In short, I'm not saying a DM has to allow everything. All I'm saying is that when don't allow stuff they should have a good why they aren't. And if they do have a good reason, then explaining said reason shouldn't hard at all. Similarly the player should be able to explain why something is a good fit for the game.
Andorxor 06-27-07, 03:17 PM	2) Flavour: It does not fit my world. Again this is, or could be, a valid reason. If we're playing in a world were all elves became extinct a millinia ago, then playing an elf isn't going to happen. However the DM should be able to say why the player, can't play what they want. Such as, all elves died a millinia ago. the converse is also true, a Player should be able to demonstrate why the mechanics could work in the sitting. "Its not an elf, it is just a really dextrous human, who is kinda frail." Sometimes you can't tell them why,without spoiling mayorpoints of the campaign. If every paladin of pelor was secretly replaced with a blackguard,it isn't posible to tell the player why he can't be a pelor paladin,without a very high risk of metagame.
Comus 06-27-07, 03:26 PM	Sometimes you can't tell them why,without spoiling mayorpoints of the campaign. If every paladin of pelor was secretly replaced with a blackguard,it isn't posible to tell the player why he can't be a pelor paladin,without a very high risk of metagame. But you could tell the player "Because of events in this plot arc, Paladins of Pelor aren't available for player use." Of course, I would allow the player to be a paladin of pelor, but tell him if he wanted to play it, he would have to have been out of local circulation for a while - from a far-off land, wrongly imprisoned for years, recently rescued from flesh to stone, etc. It'd add a much more personal side to the enemy, and give him a reason to really hate them.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-27-07, 03:36 PM	In the original GDQ series, 1st edition, the existance of Drow and their mechanics was a closely guarded secret in the original tournament runs and indeed, the conditioning the party to fight giants for 3 adventures usually caused the party to fall apart when they first hit the drow - your spells, tactics and approach for that were very different. In modern terms, there would be some "underdark" suppliment that would have been forbidden for fear of spoiling the adventure. The the deep gnomes, the Kuo-Toa and the cultural factions and two religions followed by the Drow were central to the experience and incharacter knowledge of all that actually does reduce the challenge by quite a bit. You don't actually have to ban anything to do this. If the players are requesting something like your secret underdark book, then chances are that they already know about it, and thus will not have that "incharacter, out of character" surprise. Further as player, I'd be kinda a ****** if you said no to something, then it started pooping up, because that would indicate that A) what i wanted exists in the world, and B) it seems to be balanced as well. As a DM I would advise you that the best way to do what your proposing would be find something your players haven't heard of before, or are unfamiliar with and use that. Then refuse to tell them what it is. Or better yet homebrew something, and then not tell them. I'm not saying that you have give away the BEGG's build or anything like that, and further with all the suplements, and third party stuff, and homebrew on these boards, you can't find something that your party hasn't heard of then something is wrong. In the case of Ars Magica, Hermetic magic worked a certain way, but the plot had two NPC's that had different magical styles, both of which could have been considered the building blocks of what became the Hermetic style (both were ancient, preserved much past even wizardly lifetimes due to events both had participated in). The mechanics behind the styles would have given away too much about the actual history of the NPC's and their roles. This sn't a case of banning anything. Again by either finding new mechanics, making up your own, or reflavoring, you'd accomplish the same thing. Further if your players are going to metagame, then banning books won't help this. It will in a sense give them a hint as to which book to look in. In the case of a 3.5 D&D campaign my wife and I built - mechanically "core" but with different "flavor text" for racial cultures and many classes, there were some organizations with access to core and, if we were to do it again, noncore feats/prc's/spells. Use of those abilities is a clue as to who is behind what plot, should you learn about either the abilities or the organizations ingame. A PC could only have those abilities by belonging to the organization, and as most of them were secret society-type groups (whether or not they were "in power" or "rebels") they don't divulge their secrets to fledgling adventurers, even if the adventurer was a low tier member of the group somehow. Some plots were even driven by large scale use of some of these capabilities. As an example, black onyx was considered a strategic material by most organized societies and previous wars made it pretty rare. An ability to make stronger undead with the same amount of onyx or spawn undead without onyx changes the equation considerably and changes the correct response to a situation by the PC's. Tthe first have of that is reasonable. "Hey Joe, the only necromancers in the world are part of organization X." Thats a flavor reason. And there isn't a reason why you can't say that to a your player. Unless your really don't trust them, but then if you don't trust them why are you playing with them? The second part of this, with the player having to be of a certain power level, I have no problem with that. But you'll need good communication skills. You'll have to explain to Joe that ways of X are closely guarded secrets, and he would have to be a high ranking member to have them refueled to him. Now if Joe still wants to do that after you've explained whats involved with then why not? This of course assumes Joe can't come up with a good reason why mechanics X can't be reflavored into something else that has nothing to do with organization X. To choose yet another campaign - Living Greyhawk, the worlds largest shared D&D campaign has a small list of things reserved for NPC's only and an even smaller list of things that pretty much you won't see in the game oncamera. Most of these are either stuff that doesn't fit into Flanesse (most "eastern" themed classes and PRC's, or setting-based stuff that isn't Greyhawk setting) but some are tied to the fact that PC's can't be evil and some are tied to how they were used in the past by PC's or authors to trivially break the EL system. A very valid, and good reason why something would not be allowed. Why can't you explain it to a player again? A simple example would be the Awaken spell, which in theory a druid (PC or otherwise) could use at no EL cost to greatly enhance his combat power far beyond what the spell slot requires. Another is Destruction - banned primarily because the campaign structure prohibits a PC from purchasing a true rez at any cost. (I've seen one access to the spell ever in 3 years of active play, for only one deaths occurring in adventure) Again power reasons are valid. All I'm saying is that if your going to disallow something solely because it is overpowered then you should have no trouble proving that. A good example is the awaken bat. No other LA + 0 race that I'm allowing grants more then a +4 to anything, let alone a stated used by casters as their primary casting stat. (+6 to wisdom) In LG, it isn't plot reasons that keep you from having a certain spell/feat/prc, it's usually campaign structure reasons. A shared campaign with tens of thousands of players and thousands of GM's which requires us to play by core rules+FAQ and gives us only the option of banning or allowing an rules item (no "houseruling" unless the rules text is "grey") can't just let stuff into the campaign without some oversignt - you're not just giving it to one PC, you're giving it to everyone who plays the adventure, or possibly everyone in the campaign. I'm not sure i get the point of this. If something is good for one player, then it is good for all the players. If it isn't then explaining why shouldn't too hard.
Aryxbez 06-27-07, 03:41 PM	In short, I'm not saying a DM has to allow everything. All I'm saying is that when don't allow stuff they should have a good why they aren't. And if they do have a good reason, then explaining said reason shouldn't hard at all. Similarly the player should be able to explain why something is a good fit for the game. But what if someone can't really come up with a good reason to disallow it? For example, I don't allow Psionics, because it doesn't fit my view of fantasy, more like X-men to me than D&D. Also I don't wish to have to remember all the psionic stuff they can do, seeing how I can have trouble with spells at times. Of course luckily no one in my group really wants psionics anyways, although If I presented it to them, I'm sure someone would be interested.
Kursk 06-27-07, 03:47 PM	Hmm you play with adults, yet you can't act like one. I find that odd. Typical. Once your argument falls apart resort to personal attacks. :rolleyes:
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-27-07, 03:51 PM	But what if someone can't really come up with a good reason to disallow it? For example, I don't allow Psionics, because it doesn't fit my view of fantasy, more like X-men to me than D&D. Also I don't wish to have to remember all the psionic stuff they can do, seeing how I can have trouble with spells at times. Of course luckily no one in my group really wants psionics anyways, although If I presented it to them, I'm sure someone would be interested. Theres actually two reasons in there. One good, and the other not so good. The good one being you can't keep track of the rules well enough to accurately make a rules call on it. Fair enough, just be honest when you say that. The second would be that it isn't fantasy enough for you. I would ask you how you would feel if one of your players told you that your BBEG wasn't fantasy enough for them. More X-men. And asked you to rebuild it, or remake it. Thing is, if you have no good reason to disallow it then why are you disallowing it? We say that a player who whines for book X is being immature, but a DM who bans book X just to get their way is being just as immature.
Malindle 06-27-07, 03:53 PM	Huh. Touchy subject. Honestly the original post is as much an open ended statement as a query. I mean, there are so many variables. Personally? As my groups primary GM... whenever the hell I feel like banning stuff. Now that's not to say that I do so willy-nilly, but i've been in several games in the past where players wanted nifty things, be certain things, and was allowed... When they should have been BANNED immediately, for at least a temporary duration. The reasons have been gone over in previous posts, but ultimately the GM is right to do what he thinks is best. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't, and you should always keep dialogue open with your players. In my experience there is give and take at the gaming table, but ultimately its the GM who has to take a RESPONSIBILITY to keep things flowing smoothly, and make sure everyone has fun. No one else really has the absolute NECESSITY of putting in the WORK that a GM has to, except for behavioral requirements. I.E. the GM has to do all the work, and all the players have to do is not be a jerk. And there's the key... You as a player are trusting the GM to help you have fun. You are giving them power, because you believe it'll work out. So who are you to turn around and say "No, you can't stop me from doing this, this, this or this. But you still need to entertain me." I've seen players act like that, and frankly, i'm not your monkey.
Comus 06-27-07, 03:57 PM	But what if someone can't really come up with a good reason to disallow it? For example, I don't allow Psionics, because it doesn't fit my view of fantasy, more like X-men to me than D&D. So what if I called it spell-point sorcery instead of psionics? Powers have generally the same effects as spells, after all. As I've said again and again, the flavor can be changed easily and isn't a valid reason to disallow.
Andorxor 06-27-07, 04:13 PM	And than the player throws the XPB at the GM,because he wants the flavor.
Aryxbez 06-27-07, 04:22 PM	So what if I called it spell-point sorcery instead of psionics? Powers have generally the same effects as spells, after all. As I've said again and again, the flavor can be changed easily and isn't a valid reason to disallow. I'm not sure on this one, I guess if it was just sorcery, then why not just play a sorceror, Wizard, or any other spellcaster? Sadly I just can't seem to come up with some paragraph of a reason, Not that I want to be some tyrant DM or anything. I just simply don't find Psionics part of my fantasy world. Besides, Normal magic I'm sure does everything spellcaster fans would want. Theres actually two reasons in there. One good, and the other not so good. The good one being you can't keep track of the rules well enough to accurately make a rules call on it. Fair enough, just be honest when you say that. The second would be that it isn't fantasy enough for you. I would ask you how you would feel if one of your players told you that your BBEG wasn't fantasy enough for them. More X-men. And asked you to rebuild it, or remake it. Thing is, if you have no good reason to disallow it then why are you disallowing it? We say that a player who whines for book X is being immature, but a DM who bans book X just to get their way is being just as immature. 1. First off, I don't really have problem with the Rules, maybe those occasional technicalities or something. Otherwise I at times can have problems with the whole knowledge of spellcasters. 2. Well I doubt that would happen, mostly because my villian all make sense within the setting, like DRAGONs in Dungeons and Dragons game, seems to make sense to me. A cult of Tiamat? well makes sense seeing how we all know the name of the game. Mostly that what would it change to? Otherwise probably be nothing else for it to change to. If they think a Dwarf is not fantasy, then what should it be? 3. Although not directed at me, I will just say, that I don't really do things because I said so reason. That something that won't fit the world, like Psionics, where could it spawn from? I don't think psionics is from divine power, gifts from the planes, or anything I can think of it as it's origins. So I guess what I am saying is, that you don't need psionics when you can just be a Wizard with Telekinesis spell.
Erelamar 06-27-07, 04:23 PM	The core principle the OP is pushing here is fairness. For the record, D&D is not game particularly well adapted to that theme (poor, poor Fighters). Let us remember that D&D is not a miniature war game. Every player does not bring a 1000-point army to the table and start rolling to see where terrain is placed. D&D is a role-playing game and inherent to that system is the figure of the DM and the power s/he wields. It is true that the entire relationship between the players and DM is one of trust. That equation is: Players -> DM = Trust. Not the other way around. Players are not trustworthy in the least. Most are greedy, selfish, and apt to metagaming (subconsciously or otherwise). After all what is roleplaying if not the means to make your character aware of metagame knowledge? Most would rather see the BBEG fight take two rounds with not a single hit point of damage to their side if possible, probably in the vain attempt to appear awesome. They want the accumulation of power (access to all supplements) so that encounters are easier, and if that is not the case then they want access so that they hit some mythical “sweet-spot” on damage or hit points or saving throws so as to be unmatched. Seldom do players think what all this does to the DM. The more deadly the players are allowed to become the more work the DM is forced to do per encounter. I have heard of a lenient DM who let his players have everything they want and he was forced to spend over eight hours outside every game just min/maxing his encounters so that they might give a fleeting challenge. DMs have to work enough on designing story, NPCs (background, appearance, and motivation), setting, and every fight the players ever face. Now it is nice if they can simply flip open a monster manual and use something out of there, but let’s face it a party of PCs built the way they want to be built is probably going to tear through anything not worked on out of the Monster Manual.
solbergb 06-27-07, 04:46 PM	general response to "on wings of TPK"s last posting. GDQ series - I expect players to firewall OOC knowledge if they happen to know about it and restrict themselves to what the player knows. The underdark races/cultures/religions in GDQ were unknown to surface dwellers until the events of the series played out. That means they can't be part of a PC background and can't even be part of what in modern terms would be a knowledge skill check - not that any mechanic like that existed in 1st edition. By presenting an "allowed list" of options, the PC's aren't so much banned from Underdark, they're banned from anything not on the list. So they don't get the clue that "gee Brad banned Complete Underdark, I bet we're fighting drow!" In 1st edition, at the time GDQ came out that was the PHB and only the PHB. Even the monster manual and DMG were "secret" although in reality there was usually just players separating IC and OOC knowledge. During the series you could of course decide to use Drow equipment, sleep poison, play factions off against each other, etc. You probably could even choose to join one of the religions, although that's unlikely for most parties. But until that contact is made, all that stuff is off limits. Ars Magica - pretty much everything outside of what the equivalent of the players handbook provided was non-Hermetic magic. PC's were hermetic mages, they didn't get to do that stuff. They also didn't get to get power from diabolic or divine sources beyond feat-like talent stuff (all of which was in the basic book - the stuff that could rival a mage in power was elsewhere). Ars Magica didn't have balanced parties, it had mages, companions and grogs - players rotated which type of char they'd play from adventure to adventure. The point was - as the GM, aside from letting them try to simulate an effect using the hermetic magic paradigm, letting them understand too much about how an effect really was done mechanically gave too many clues about who was doing it. They really did have to trust me. 3.5 homebrew campaign - barring the right IC knowledge skills, contacts or whatever, most organizations kept their secret spells/feats/prc's...secret. A PC doesn't know that the Tattooed Kobolds are really a pyramid scheme with liches at the top, wealth for phylacteries going up the chain, consumables going down the chain unless they learn it from a Tattoed Kobold, and even then they won't get the whole picture until they work their way to the major players. They probably won't even know that there is a central force driving all the different tatooed kobold tribes, who seem to be fierce rivals with each other. They may suspect the existance of a Craft Magical tattoo-type feat, similar to craft scroll or potion for a less advanced culture but given that you needed draconic bloodlines to make the blood-based ink, even learning it won't be very useful without a pet dragon or kobold or a big vat of magically preserved dragon blood. That's just one example. And as there is a finite number of organizations, they won't cover every possible rules option out there. So a player wanting an "off the list" rules option can't be told if it is off the list for campaign reasons, "flavor" reasons or "balance" reasons. Because if it is for campaign reasons, he just learned that it is in fact in the campaign somewhere. Which is more information than he should have. Living Greyhawk: The big difference between access in a gigantic shared campaign and access in a home campaign is the DM in a home campaign knows his players and has a good idea what directions his characters can develop. If the guy who wants to take leap attack isn't also somebody who can get "pounce" someday it's safer to let it into the campaign and refrain from building a pouncemonster as an NPC. In a campaign with very limited central control, you will very rapidly get characters who can dish out 200 points of damage in a pounce at about level 11, and incidently have air walk, swift fly, woodland stride, freedom of movement and blindsense to avoid most impediments to charging. You will also get authors creating NPC's that do that to the characters at about PC level 8, where even the strongest character with highest possible AC will still die to a charge from that guy, every time. So what may not be "unbalanced" in a home campaign might have to be banned in a large, shared campaign.
solbergb 06-27-07, 04:58 PM	That equation is: Players -> DM = Trust. Not the other way around. Yeh. No matter what, if the DM wants to make the game unfun, turn the party into victims instead of heroes, he can. It doesn't matter what he does or doesn't allow. If he's a jerk, his game will suck. If you trust your DM enough that he won't hose you, what's the big deal with trusting him on campaign restrictions, sight unseen. Doing so means he can actually have some surprises down the line and can have some control over the flavor of the campaign. Why is it so hard to pick a character concept that fits the world and is natural there? Most of us can come up with more than one character we'd like to play. It isn't "you can't play the character you want to play" it is "of the characters you'd like to play, please pick one that fits within the boundaries the DM has established for PC's in his campaign" Some people never get it. It's like the guys in Living Greyhawk that decide to roleplay characters that are unlikely to bite at any hooks that are typical in Living Greyhawk adventures. Why did you decide to roleplay a jerk who wouldn't join fellow adventurers on typical adventures? This is a setting where most cash isn't paid up front, it's paid "in kind" by looting your enemies. Playing a mercenary in that setting who won't work if not paid up front is just plain stupid, just as stupid as playing a Paladin in a setting where chaotic and evil acts will be required to succeed on a typical adventure is stupid. Find another character idea!
Comus 06-27-07, 05:08 PM	I'm not sure on this one, I guess if it was just sorcery, then why not just play a sorceror, Wizard, or any other spellcaster? Lots of reasons. Maybe they want an MP system instead of spell slots, for example. Or maybe they just want to try something different, purely to have fun. Sadly I just can't seem to come up with some paragraph of a reason, Not that I want to be some tyrant DM or anything. I just simply don't find Psionics part of my fantasy world. Besides, Normal magic I'm sure does everything spellcaster fans would want. Does everything as long as you want to play with the spell slot system. I'm not going to tear into this too much, though - I'm sure both of us realize that there are a lot of ways I could take 'everything spellcaster fans would want' and run with it. You're not really wrong, though - you can achieve any concept with core. Here's an interesting question, though... which would you rather have - a Sorcerer who said his power came from the force of his mind and gave all his spells pseudo-scientific names, or a Psion that read a lot of books, wore a big pointy hat, owned a pet cat, and was generally indistinguishable from the stereotypical wizard? 2. Well I doubt that would happen, mostly because my villian all make sense within the setting, like DRAGONs in Dungeons and Dragons game, seems to make sense to me. A cult of Tiamat? well makes sense seeing how we all know the name of the game. Mostly that what would it change to? Otherwise probably be nothing else for it to change to. If they think a Dwarf is not fantasy, then what should it be? "A cult of Tiamat? That's so lame. There are too many dragons and stuff. I don't like the flavor. Change it to cultists of the Great Old Ones - that fits my view of the campaign better." 3. Although not directed at me, I will just say, that I don't really do things because I said so reason. That something that won't fit the world, like Psionics, where could it spawn from? I don't think psionics is from divine power, gifts from the planes, or anything I can think of it as it's origins. Psionics, by default flavor, is the power of the mind. It comes from oneself instead of an outside source. It is no divine gift, nor is it the arcane learning of secrets and ways to twist the laws of the universe wizards use - nor the instinctual knowledge of it that Sorcery comes from. It is personal power, instead of reliance on outside forces... By default flavor, anyway. I usually reflavor it, and everything else, to fit my needs. So I guess what I am saying is, that you don't need psionics when you can just be a Wizard with Telekinesis spell. If I want the flavor, then that isn't going to help me - you said you wouldn't allow the flavor. If I want the mechanics, that won't help me there either - wizards and psions are very different. That only helps if my concept is 'a spellcaster'.
Malindle 06-27-07, 05:30 PM	By default flavor, anyway. I usually reflavor it, and everything else, to fit my needs. If I want the flavor, then that isn't going to help me - you said you wouldn't allow the flavor. If I want the mechanics, that won't help me there either - wizards and psions are very different. That only helps if my concept is 'a spellcaster'. (Not nitpicking you - just choosing this as a point towards the discussion) But the GM doesn't want that flavor in their game. What right do you have to ignore his decision? In a Pseduo-Grecian (Hellenistic?) setting, where the DM has stated "You're from a little village, Greek Gods are worshipped, Demihumans aren't from around there" what right does the player have to go "I'm playing a Ninja! Katana and chopsticks and all! I uh... washed up on shore."
Malindle 06-27-07, 05:33 PM	That equation is: Players -> DM = Trust. Not the other way around. Players are not trustworthy in the least. Most are greedy, selfish, and apt to metagaming (subconsciously or otherwise). After all what is roleplaying if not the means to make your character aware of metagame knowledge? Most would rather see the BBEG fight take two rounds with not a single hit point of damage to their side if possible, probably in the vain attempt to appear awesome. They want the accumulation of power (access to all supplements) so that encounters are easier, and if that is not the case then they want access so that they hit some mythical “sweet-spot” on damage or hit points or saving throws so as to be unmatched. Seldom do players think what all this does to the DM. The more deadly the players are allowed to become the more work the DM is forced to do per encounter. I have heard of a lenient DM who let his players have everything they want and he was forced to spend over eight hours outside every game just min/maxing his encounters so that they might give a fleeting challenge. DMs have to work enough on designing story, NPCs (background, appearance, and motivation), setting, and every fight the players ever face. Now it is nice if they can simply flip open a monster manual and use something out of there, but let’s face it a party of PCs built the way they want to be built is probably going to tear through anything not worked on out of the Monster Manual. Word. Players are generally NOT trustworthy. If given an option to improve, no matter how wacky, they WILL take it. If they found a Helm of Brilliance shaped like a giant light-bulb, that repeatedly attracted lightning bolts from the heavens (with a potential to harm the party) to power it, SOMEONE would wear it all the freaking time.
UltimateReality 06-27-07, 05:38 PM	If you trust your DM enough that he won't hose you, what's the big deal with trusting him on campaign restrictions, sight unseen.If you trust your players enough that they won't try to hose your campaign, what's the big deal with trusting them on non-core material when they bring it to you ahead of time and explain what they want and why? Look, we're all walking pretty close to the "how important is the DM vs. players" and "how important is The Vision of the Campaign(tm) vs. What the Players Want to Do" lines. These are arguments we just don't want to get into if we want this thread to stay unlocked. As for this players are untrustworthy: do you guys only run at cons and gaming stores or something? I game with my friends. They don't try to break my game cuz, you know, they like me and respect the time I put in trying to make a fun game for them. Who are you people playing with?!
Renvale999 06-27-07, 06:06 PM	A DM can disallow any book he chooses, he doesn't need a player's permission, or any one elses. You don't like it, put in the hours of work for a game yourself. "Oh I'm being unfair?" Go find another game if you don't like it. Nuff Said.
OravennasBrother 06-27-07, 06:13 PM	And heres the crux of the matter. When a DM insists that his/her story line be followed with out any variation then we call it rail roading, and bad DMing. So is this saying "Either the DM gives an explanation I (not necessarily referring to the poster quoted) PERSONALLY ADMIT IS ACCEPTABLE or THE DM IS A BIG POOPYHEAD (and BTW I (not necessarily referring to the poster quoted) never find DM reasons Valid for denying me what I want) 1) Its broken: Now if a DM says book X is broken, they should be able to say why. A player should be able to prove why not as well. To make this simpler I propose a simple comparison. And who decides what is Over the 100% mark? 2) Flavour: It does not fit my world. Again this is, or could be, a valid reason. If we're playing in a world were all elves became extinct a millinia ago,.... a Player should be able to demonstrate why the mechanics could work in the sitting. "Its not an elf, it is just a really dextrous human, who is kinda frail." So play a HUman with Dexterity 14 and Constitution 8 - there done. 3) "Because I don't like it." This is probably the worst reason of all, and frankly is a poor excuse for being a jerk. What reason does the player have? Right "Because I don't like IT" where IT is playing by the same restrictions as all the other gamers in the group. What would do if a player said, "I don't like psionics. Your BBEG is unacceptable, you'll have to remake him." Oh but your the all powerful DM and can do whatever you like. The payer is free to WALK away if they don't li9ke the campaign. Right but despite claims to the contrary, there aren't enough DM's to go around and the player walking out may have trouble finding another game. In short, I'm not saying a DM has to allow everything. All I'm saying is that when don't allow stuff they should have a good why they aren't. And if they do have a good reason, then explaining said reason shouldn't hard at all. Unless the contentious player decides to be a horses behind about it and "counters" every reason given with a "BUT I THINK....." Don't like my rules - fine, don't play at my table. Simple. Effective. Fair.
Malindle 06-27-07, 06:27 PM	As for this players are untrustworthy: do you guys only run at cons and gaming stores or something? I game with my friends. They don't try to break my game cuz, you know, they like me and respect the time I put in trying to make a fun game for them. Who are you people playing with?! I game with my friends, whom are all great people that i'm happy to know. However, some of them are very different from each other, and from what they want in a game. They're all willing to play, and want to have fun. But sometimes some of them are as much about Rollplaying as Roleplaying. The thing is, that not everyone is perfect, and sometimes people don't know that they've taken things too far. They're playing the game, after all, to have fun, and sometimes fun is not having to worry about how you are impinging upon the DM's setting, and just to do what you do best. No one wants to suck. And part of that, is making yourself cool. Players i've seen tend to get stuck in that mindset however, and play something so they can be COOL(tm) via mechanics, rather than personality. Because personality is hard to bring to the table appropriately all the time, but mechanics are laid down in stone. This does include my friends. Dozens of games, six times as many charachters. And you know what? I've never seen anyone play a bard but once.
Archangel62 06-27-07, 06:35 PM	(Not nitpicking you - just choosing this as a point towards the discussion) But the GM doesn't want that flavor in their game. What right do you have to ignore his decision? In a Pseduo-Grecian (Hellenistic?) setting, where the DM has stated "You're from a little village, Greek Gods are worshipped, Demihumans aren't from around there" what right does the player have to go "I'm playing a Ninja! Katana and chopsticks and all! I uh... washed up on shore." Your katana is a bastard sword, your 'ninja' is a master trickster, blessed with power by the fey to cause mischief wherever you go. Your 'ki pool' is not ki but in fact based entirely on their investment of energies into you, spend too much of it and it is cut out but provided that you remain an amusing entity they can refresh this energy, this gift they grant you, the next day. Those chopsticks...well I suppose that it's entirely possible that a small trick was played on YOU, you believe that they are proper utensils, but guess what, in fact they are just sticks. have fun :D
Comus 06-27-07, 06:36 PM	(Not nitpicking you - just choosing this as a point towards the discussion) Noted. And appreciated. But the GM doesn't want that flavor in their game. What right do you have to ignore his decision? The flavor is the one thing I'd disallow. It's the thing that makes the most sense to disallow. I argue against banning mechanics because you don't like the flavor that has been attached to them. I argue just as much if someone says "No, you can't do X with Class Y. Class Z was designed to do X. Even if Y fits your concept better and Z is terribly designed, Z already has flavor X, so it is the only thing that can represent flavor X." In a Pseduo-Grecian (Hellenistic?) setting, where the DM has stated "You're from a little village, Greek Gods are worshipped, Demihumans aren't from around there" what right does the player have to go "I'm playing a Ninja! Katana and chopsticks and all! I uh... washed up on shore." As a side story, I once played a Yakuza ninja in Deadlands. It was great fun, and my character was actually pretty sound - I found a way to have it make sense. But let me tell you, nothing is scarier than realizing Kung-Fu doesn't work very well against Voodoo Zombies. Dual-wielded gatling pistols, though... Also, Renvale - I do put in the hours and DM. But I also want to play D&D. I should have the right to request anything I want. The DM can say No, but he'd better have a decent reason, and he'd better be a reasonable person about it. The DM should respect his friends enough to tell them why he won't allow something in the game. If he wants to run core-only for a simple game, that's actually a good enough reason for me, especially if he's a new DM. But I also expect him to follow the same rules. I donno where I'm going with this, at this point. I guess I'm just bothered by the idea of players having to ditch a group instead of having everyone work together to have a fun game. And about people not being able to play characters they want to play, because the DM is unwilling to work with them to fit them into the world.
UltimateReality 06-27-07, 07:17 PM	sometimes some of them are as much about Rollplaying as Roleplaying.I dunno, I've always found that if my players want to start an arms race with their characters...I can beat them. If I couldn't, I suppose I'd have to live and learn and get better at it. The thing is, that not everyone is perfect, and sometimes people don't know that they've taken things too far. They're playing the game, after all, to have fun, and sometimes fun is not having to worry about how you are impinging upon the DM's setting, and just to do what you do best.So you sit him down and say "hey dude, stop being a disruptive asshat, yo?" Or you make your campaign setting robust enough to handle this sort of stuff. (I like to call it "natural consequences". It works well on my PCs.) Players i've seen tend to get stuck in that mindset however, and play something so they can be COOL(tm) via mechanicsI still think power level and respect for the DM's setting/campaign are two separate things. I have had people play incredibly powerful things in my campaigns -- I just increased the world's power level to match. And if I want a lower-powered game, I say so, and let them know that X books/classes/feats/whatever are overpowered for this setting. They understand and make stuff within the rules or, if they're jonesing for a high-power fix, run their own campaign alongside mine. I've never seen anyone play a bard but once.I'm a bard fangirl. And our group plays them occasionally. I'd have to say the class that sees the least play in our group is the sorceror. Don't waste your time arguing with TPK. Obviously his DM once told him he couldn't play Optimus Prime in a Greyhawk campaign, and he's had a bug up his butt about it ever since.LOLOL. We've never played Greyhawk. And he once told a player he could not invent battlemechs in ancient Greece. Oh, and his current Eberron campaign just had a House Cannith dungeon with a mecha suit in it. So I don't think that's the problem. When players want characters with significantly different flavour from the campaign setting, you can do a few things about it: 1. say yes and watch them stick out like a sore thumb. 2. apologize and say not for this campaign, but you'll keep it in mind for next, or perhaps they could change the flavour thusly. basically, say no and look for a compromise. 3. expand the flavour of your setting/campaign to include the player's idea. Maybe expanding your horizons might be a good thing, mm? Maybe you'll still ultimately choose not to expand the setting, but dismissing player input out of hand is hardly the mark of a good DM.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-27-07, 09:31 PM	But the GM doesn't want that flavor in their game. What right do you have to ignore his decision? And what right does the DM have to tell a player that their version of fun, sense of fantasy, or whatever is somehow better than theirs? That equation is: Players -> DM = Trust. Not the other way around. i don't think i could Dm for players I didn't trust. really, that seems kinda silly if you think about, and i thought trust was always a two way street. How can ask someone to trust me, if I'm not willing to extent the same to them? Yeh. No matter what, if the DM wants to make the game unfun, turn the party into victims instead of heroes, he can. It doesn't matter what he does or doesn't allow. If he's a jerk, his game will suck. Same is ture on the players end of things. If the player is intent on being an asshat, then they'll make the game suck too. If you trust your DM enough that he won't hose you, what's the big deal with trusting him on campaign restrictions, sight unseen. Doing so means he can actually have some surprises down the line and can have some control over the flavor of the campaign. If you trust your players enough they won't hose you either. Whats the big deal with listening too them? the only reason I can think of for this much resistance to the notion that a DM should be accountable to their players, is that you guys have to have this unlimited power to do whatever you want. Are we talking about a game, or some kind of juvenile power struggle? Why is it so hard to pick a character concept that fits the world and is natural there? Most of us can come up with more than one character we'd like to play. It isn't "you can't play the character you want to play" it is "of the characters you'd like to play, please pick one that fits within the boundaries the DM has established for PC's in his campaign" Why is it so hard to let players play the characters they like? Maybe whats aviable isn't what they want to play. Maybe they want to try something new. Maybe find the mechanics of what your presenting boring, or other wise don't like the restrictions. Some people never get it. It's like the guys in Living Greyhawk that decide to roleplay characters that are unlikely to bite at any hooks that are typical in Living Greyhawk adventures. Why did you decide to roleplay a jerk who wouldn't join fellow adventurers on typical adventures? This is a setting where most cash isn't paid up front, it's paid "in kind" by looting your enemies. Playing a mercenary in that setting who won't work if not paid up front is just plain stupid, just as stupid as playing a Paladin in a setting where chaotic and evil acts will be required to succeed on a typical adventure is stupid. Find another character idea! What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? No really, a player playing a disruptive character has nothing to do with its mechanics. I can make a core only character who only works when he is paid up front, and further rolls a d6 every time he takes a watch, on the result of a six he kills the party in their sleep and runs off with their gear. But that isn't the point, and regardless of mechanics the character is bad, and I'm an ass for playing it. Word. Players are generally NOT trustworthy. If given an option to improve, no matter how wacky, they WILL take it. this seriousely makes me wonder what *******s you play with. I trust my group, and have no problems with them making over powered pun-puns. Maybe your playing with the wrong crowd? If they found a Helm of Brilliance shaped like a giant light-bulb, that repeatedly attracted lightning bolts from the heavens (with a potential to harm the party) to power it, SOMEONE would wear it all the freaking time. Lifes too short to game with morons dude. This reminds me of the time that I handed my party and artifact that was powered by gems. It was stupid strong in that it cut through armour, and natural armour bonuses, could change energy type, the works. they got rid of it because it attracted some unwanted attention. A DM can disallow any book he chooses, he doesn't need a player's permission, or any one elses. You don't like it, put in the hours of work for a game yourself. "Oh I'm being unfair?" Go find another game if you don't like it. Nuff Said. Right, well this both manipulative, and arrogant. This my way or the high attitude is nothing short of black mail, and being childish. So is this saying "Either the DM gives an explanation I (not necessarily referring to the poster quoted) PERSONALLY ADMIT IS ACCEPTABLE or THE DM IS A BIG POOPYHEAD (and BTW I (not necessarily referring to the poster quoted) never find DM reasons Valid for denying me what I want) Sometimes you have to agree to disagree. In the event of the two parties not being able to reach a comprise then I would recommend a third party arbiter. perhaps the rest of the group, or these boards. And who decides what is Over the 100% mark? The same people who decided that 6 is more then 4? It really isn't that hard to figure out, unless your intentionally being a douge. What is the strongest thing I can do in the campaign. What is the strongest thing I can do with X. Is X stronger the than the strongest thing in the campaign, yes or no? Heres lets give it a try: Sue wants to play a sword sage. i think it is overpowered. We determine what the strongest class in current game is. Since I'm allowing the PHB unchecked it is either druid, or cleric. We'll go with druid. Both have d8 hit die, and 2 good saves, the swordsage has more skill/level but a shorted class skill list. The sowrdsage is also proficient with more weapons. So the sword sage has a sleight edge there. sword sage has some nifty abilities like wisdom to AC, and evasion and a few bonus feats. Druid has poison immunities, and nifty things like trackless step. The druid also gets an animal companion, which is more powerful then any feat, or ability (not counting maneuvers yet) the sword sage has. The druid definitely has the advantage here. So far their even. sword sage has those maneuvers, that they get per encounter. There pretty cool. Druid has druid spells. Both greatly improve your combat out put. However the swordsage gets them a lot more times perday, almost unlimited. However druid spells are more powerful, and last longer, and can be swapped out for summon natures alley. Again I'd say the druid has a sleight advantage here, but for the sake of argument will say their even. Druid still has wildshape. A major ability that is usable X/day, but lasts for hours. The sowrdsage is out of abilities at this point. Advantage druid. Conclusion the druid is more powerful then the swordsage, by quiet abit. Therefor I am incorrect when I say that swordsage is too powerful for my game. As it falls under my 100% mark. So play a HUman with Dexterity 14 and Constitution 8 - there done. Yes that is one way of doing it, but certainly not the only way. Which is kinda my piont. There are many ways to accomplish things, and many ways to flavor something, so why ban it? What reason does the player have? Right "Because I don't like IT" where IT is playing by the same restrictions as all the other gamers in the group. Two things: First as I already said a player should have a good reason too. Secondly, what does Right does the DM have to arbitralily deny things? So whos idea of fun takes precedence? The player isn't forcing the DM to play something they may not want to, why should the DM force their beliefs on a player? The payer is free to WALK away if they don't li9ke the campaign. Right but despite claims to the contrary, there aren't enough DM's to go around and the player walking out may have trouble finding another game. I'm calling BS on that one. We both know there are plaenty of DMs and players to go around. But again that isn't the point. Why they my way or the highway attitude? With your friends of all people? Seriousely why do you have this inability to compromise, or even listen to what your friends have to say? Unless the contentious player decides to be a horses behind about it and "counters" every reason given with a "BUT I THINK....." Unless the contentiouse Dm is going to ban everything out of hand with bothering to lookat it, or listen to the player..... We can go around this circle all day, or agree that players and DMs both have equal ability to be a horses arse. Or we could just assume that not every DM and player on the earth is a prick. Don't like my rules - fine, don't play at my table. Simple. Effective. Fair. arrogant Abusive Manipulative highhanded. In short bullying your friends into doing what you want them to.
Gleepwurp 06-27-07, 09:40 PM	time to 'unsubscribe' this thread...
Roog 06-27-07, 10:20 PM	A DM can disallow any book he chooses, he doesn't need a player's permission, or any one elses. The question is not the GM's power to ban, its that some poeple seem to feel the the GM doesn't need to justify or explain his actions. You don't like it, put in the hours of work for a game yourself. If the GM is not an asshat he will have a good reason for anything he bans. Why not tell the players what the reason is? "Oh I'm being unfair?" Go find another game if you don't like it. Well, if being unfair is a "feature" of your campaign, not explaining things to the players would help you do that. And if your players don't appreciate the effort you put into being unfair, you should find others who do.
Andorxor 06-28-07, 01:21 AM	And what right does the DM have to tell a player that their version of fun, sense of fantasy, or whatever is somehow better than theirs? Instead the problemplayer gets the right to tell everyone at the table his character is more unique because it breaks the stadard of the setting.That his ninja is 3x as cool as them,because they where stupid enought to make greek heros for a game in greece.Or you got a game in greece with ninja from the east,jedi from the secret jedi academy in the jungle of a lost continent,superhero from another world and pseudonatural beast from the abyss.
Aryxbez 06-28-07, 01:43 AM	"A cult of Tiamat? That's so lame. There are too many dragons and stuff. I don't like the flavor. Change it to cultists of the Great Old Ones - that fits my view of the campaign better." I am assuming you are giving an example, well in fact there is someone in my group that loves the whole cthulu stuff, In fact probably would have used that instead if I could sum up ways to find things that are crazy like cthulu cults, and if the guy in charge of everything was kinda a Dragon. Maybe I would go and have both cults. Besides, this is the first time I have done something with cults in my whole campaign. Other than that, I guess really this is an endless discussion, really all my point is that sometimes a DM won't be able to come up with some big dynamic reason. Also I am not saying everything they say should be without reason, I just think it should be allowed among anyone on the occasion. Otherwise, if there is no psionics in my campaign, then it will literally not be in my campaign, NPCs will not use it, neither will my players. I make sure that if a NPC can use something, so should the players, unless of course it is some item that has the unholy magical property, and the party is good, then that would mean it would hurt them, otherwise be allowed to use it. After your response I will probably just leave this thread.
UltimateReality 06-28-07, 01:55 AM	Instead the problemplayer gets the right to tell everyone at the table his character is more unique because it breaks the stadard of the setting.That his ninja is 3x as cool as them,because they where stupid enought to make greek heros for a game in greece.Or you got a game in greece with ninja from the east,jedi from the secret jedi academy in the jungle of a lost continent,superhero from another world and pseudonatural beast from the abyss.Nope. That's disallowable for flavour reasons. Most reasonable people would agree that those characters sretch believability and should be reserved for another campaign. If the player's such a problem and talking to him hasn't helped, boot him from your game. Look, we all know players could turn out to be douches. But how many of you would continue to play with them once you discovered their true colours? And does that mean you have to be a preemptive jerk, just in case? "The players COULD have a player vs. DM attitude, so I should beat them to the punch." WTF?
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-28-07, 02:10 AM	Instead the problemplayer gets the right to tell everyone at the table his character is more unique because it breaks the stadard of the setting.That his ninja is 3x as cool as them,because they where stupid enought to make greek heros for a game in greece.Or you got a game in greece with ninja from the east,jedi from the secret jedi academy in the jungle of a lost continent,superhero from another world and pseudonatural beast from the abyss. suppose a DM disallowed something because it did not fit the flavor of the world. This is perfectly valid. One would not expect to play a Jedi in a Star Trek campaign. Nor a ninja in a Pirates of the Caribbean campaign. If this situation comes up, we must first Identify it by determining why the rule was not allowed. Then we must prove that the flavor of the rule could work in the campaign. Or, failing that, the mechanics could be re-flavored to work in said world. But we must realize that not everything will work everywhere, and maybe this isn’t the campaign for our concept. On that note, the DM should also realize that when their players request something they are also letting the DM know what they would find fun. Thus, if an entire party wanted to play mecha pilots, maybe the standard medieval fantasy game is not a good fit. I am assuming you are giving an example, well in fact there is someone in my group that loves the whole cthulu stuff, In fact probably would have used that instead if I could sum up ways to find things that are crazy like cthulu cults, and if the guy in charge of everything was kinda a Dragon. Maybe I would go and have both cults. Besides, this is the first time I have done something with cults in my whole campaign. Cults are lame and over done. You should do something better. But no cults, and dragons are stupid, so don't use them either. Actually on top of that i would perfer it you restricted your BBEG to just the MM1, and 3. Oh yaa, and I really think the idea behind abberations is stupid as well. I mean really, alien master minds? This is fantasy, not scif-fi so none of them either. Point is if you can say no psionics, because its not fantasy enough, then in theory a player could have the same feelings about one of your BBEGs. And since that would detract from their fun, along the same lines as their psionic character would detract from yours, then they should be able to tell you what source material, and guide lines you have to follow with your BBEGs. So is "I don't like it" really that good a reason? Even if it is turned on your BBEG? Other than that, I guess really this is an endless discussion, really all my point is that sometimes a DM won't be able to come up with some big dynamic reason. Also I am not saying everything they say should be without reason, I just think it should be allowed among anyone on the occasion. Otherwise, if there is no psionics in my campaign, then it will literally not be in my campaign, NPCs will not use it, neither will my players. I make sure that if a NPC can use something, so should the players, unless of course it is some item that has the unholy magical property, and the party is good, then that would mean it would hurt them, otherwise be allowed to use it. After your response I will probably just leave this thread. My point is equally simply. If you don't have a reason for disallowing something, then you really have no reason. And if you have no reason then your banning stuff on a whim, and for no reason other than you feel your sense of fun is more important then everyone else's at the table. Which really is at the end of the day an abuse of power, and not really fair. Which leaves use with the question of whether fairness is a part of your game, or not. And if it isn't then nothing I can post will change that, so I wish you happy gaming.
Elsydeon 06-28-07, 02:52 AM	Frankly, the GM's job is the hardest. Why don't players get equal say in what's allowed in the game? Well, I've run a game or two, as have most of the people I game with. If you don't LIKE the setting you're working on (making up plots, coming up with locations and politics, or whatever) you're miserable. The game will fizzle out. So the GM's fun isn't more important in theory. In practice, they're the ones spending the most time with this stuff if they do ANY prep work for games, so they get to make calls. In some very high percentage of situations the GM would be happier as a player. Just like groups need a healer. A lot of people hate playing healers. But somebody's got to do it (or that's the common perception, anyway) so someone sucks it up when they would rather play something else. Not always the case, but usually it is. Try running games for settings you actively dislike, with classes you dislike, etc. See how long it lasts.
WolfHati 06-28-07, 04:16 AM	Two sessions. I ended up liking the setting, my players ended up playing WoW. :P
OravennasBrother 06-28-07, 09:28 AM	Instead the problemplayer gets the right to tell everyone at the table his character is more unique because it breaks the stadard of the setting. That does seem to be the goal of some players. I have friends with whom I game, but sometimes they Move, or their wife has a baby and they have to stop gaming, or their new job is permanently during our game time and no new time will work for the rest of the group and then.... I have to find a new player. ONE Who won't disrupt my game. And all the whiny babies who tell me "I have to have book X to make an effective Y" are a waste of my time. I play core, so do my friends. But the DM's ARE scarce enough that a new player may agree, during phone or e-mail conversations, to respect my rules, then show up and change their tune. Apparently in the belief that they can "convince" me to "see the light" if they just waste my gaming time. Doesn't matter to me if it's a cry for some non-core book, or they take exception to Point Buy (meaning they want to roll until they get UB3R attributes) or they REALLY REALLY REALLY want to play Everrubbishon. Same thing each time. I show them the door and try to find a different replacement for the one open slot. And I never run out of applicants.
Renvale999 06-28-07, 09:53 AM	If the GM is not an asshat he will have a good reason for anything he bans. Why not tell the players what the reason is? I give them a reason but I don't sit there and let them argue that it's not a good decision. My decisions are final, period. If I ban something, it's because I've read every single thread on the forums, both here and other sites. I've talked to other gamers at local gaming stores...and I've play tested it myself( I know this sounds crazy, but if someone wants to play a prestige class (or use a feat or spell from splat book A), I have my roommate roll up a character with max levels in the that PRC (or with the feat or spell in question) and then fight a few monsters of equal CR to see if they are balanced or they are not. If I ban something, it's for a d*mn good reason and I honestly don't need to explain myself or go into detail how I researched it...just sit down and let's play, cause you've got a world to save.
UltimateReality 06-28-07, 10:06 AM	I'm going to present a slightly different perspective now. I'm going to propose that all the reasons for disallowing something that were presented in the OP come down to DM preference. Allow me to explain... 1. flavour reasons. This is the most obvious. If I don't like guns, I'm not going to disallow them because I don't like them. I'm going to play a setting where guns don't fit the flavour. The DM usually decides the campaign world, and if it's homebrew, players really have no rebuttal for "it's not in the flavour", because DMs rarely hand out campaign setting length books that detail everything in the world. It makes it harder for a player to reflavour things so they fit with the minute area of the world s/he knows about. 2. balance reasons. To this I simply ask, who decides what the 0% and 100% mark are? The DM. The math does itself after that point, but someone still has to set the boundary marks of "acceptable" power level. That person is almost always the DM. 3. don't know the material. I may really be busy, but come on. Even if I'm working 80 hour+ weeks, I get coffee breaks. It doesn't take that long to read a book. And I'm somehow still finding time to prep and run a session within that schedule too. I think some of the issue people may have with saying "'I don't like it' is a bad reason" is that the above are mostly DM preference too. The only way to rectify this situation (if you feel it needs rectifying) is to look at these sorts of DM executive decision-making powers and redistribute them in a more collaborative manner. Note that I am not advocating we all should do this. I'll be the first to say some (even most?) games need that executive authority gathered in one place. But some games don't. If the idea of these decisions being made based on your DM's preference bugs you but you like the idea of collaborative roleplaying even less, you should at least try some polite feedback and suggestions/requests for the kind of game you want to play in. If your preferences are radically different from the DM's of the majority of the groups, you have two options if you respect the people you're playing with: try to figure out a compromise, or find a group/DM that's more compatible with your preferences. (As a side note, some DMs like playing in certain types of campaigns that they wouldn't DM. The extra DMing tasks they have to do make that sort of game unenjoyable for them to DM, but they have no problem playing in it. This is not hypocritical.) I also think most anti-DM-reason people are overstating their position. I highly doubt you explain your views on these things to your friends in such a confrontational manner as you use here. I suspect a lot of you either ask explicitly for feedback, know your group so well you incorporate their tastes anyway, or just go with your preferences because you've asked them if they have strong preferences and they said no. Correct me if I'm wrong.
LCD2YOU 06-28-07, 10:10 AM	After all the posts and rants it comes down to these three things about the DM and the world they made. 1: The DM can banning anything from the game they want. 2: The DM can change anything the want. 3: The DM can add anything they want. The best way I can think of the Player/DM relationship is a vacation resort. Here the DM is a resort owner and the players are the guests. Guests go to resorts to have fun. The DM as the owner gets a type of currency for having a successful resort. Face it, how many DMs don't beam when a player goes, "Wow, the was the best game ever, even better than the one a few weeks ago."? Addulation is a great form of payback from having players in their "resort" give high fives to their world. If the players don't like it, the resort has rules that are too many, not enough or change daily etc., they're free to leave. With no players the DM's resort is not a resort, but a bunch of empty buildings. Players are free to find another resort. So it is in the best interest of the DM to take into mind their guests' requests. At the same time the players should realize that many establishments can and will refuse service. Usually though it is one player who wants to have things their way. They try to browbeat the other players into seeing their way, read they want it to go in their character's best interest always regardless of others' feelings on the subject. Basically they want to run the game from behind the throne but not be the DM (and put up with a jerk like themselves). Of course there are wanna be DMs who should never get behind a screen that have played for years with a bunch of spineless players as well. So if the DM has a resort that sucks and there are no players, then he has no game. Beyond that, they can build their resort as they see fit.
Roog 06-28-07, 10:16 AM	I give them a reason but I don't sit there and let them argue that it's not a good decision. My decisions are final, period. If I ban something, it's because I've read every single thread on the forums, both here and other sites. I've talked to other gamers at local gaming stores...and I've play tested it myself (I know this sounds crazy, but if someone wants to play a prestige class (or use a feat or spell from splat book A), I have my roommate roll up a character with max levels in the that PRC (or with the feat or spell in question) and then fight a few monsters of equal CR to see if they are balanced or they are not. If I ban something, it's for a d*mn good reason and I honestly don't need to explain myself or go into detail how I researched it...just sit down and let's play, cause you've got a world to save. The thing is, now that you tell us about the work you put in, that sounds like a pretty reasonable reason to ban. However before you said that, and when you say "and I honestly don't need to explain myself", it gives a (probably incorect) impression of a ban-happy GM (but thats the nature of the forums). Personaly I would prefere (as GM or Player) to give the player a bit more of a chance to persuade the GM to change their mind, or talk about it later.
Lanky Ogre Baggy Pants 06-28-07, 02:33 PM	After all the posts and rants it comes down to these three things about the DM and the world they made. 1: The DM can banning anything from the game they want. 2: The DM can change anything the want. 3: The DM can add anything they want. The best way I can think of the Player/DM relationship is a vacation resort. Here the DM is a resort owner and the players are the guests. Guests go to resorts to have fun. The DM as the owner gets a type of currency for having a successful resort. Face it, how many DMs don't beam when a player goes, "Wow, the was the best game ever, even better than the one a few weeks ago."? Addulation is a great form of payback from having players in their "resort" give high fives to their world. If the players don't like it, the resort has rules that are too many, not enough or change daily etc., they're free to leave. With no players the DM's resort is not a resort, but a bunch of empty buildings. Players are free to find another resort. So it is in the best interest of the DM to take into mind their guests' requests. At the same time the players should realize that many establishments can and will refuse service. Usually though it is one player who wants to have things their way. They try to browbeat the other players into seeing their way, read they want it to go in their character's best interest always regardless of others' feelings on the subject. Basically they want to run the game from behind the throne but not be the DM (and put up with a jerk like themselves). Of course there are wanna be DMs who should never get behind a screen that have played for years with a bunch of spineless players as well. So if the DM has a resort that sucks and there are no players, then he has no game. Beyond that, they can build their resort as they see fit. The only way that DM should be compared to a resort is if the DM is find in a similar way as a resort. I.e. something like roleplaymarket, or an announcement board at your FLGS. In that case the DM is perfectly within their rights to announce, at the beginning, what all of the rules are, and then take no discussion. Any players found have already agreed that they would like to play under those rules. If, on the other hand, the players and DM are otherwise friends, and decide to start playing D&D together, the above discussions and communications should come into effect. Primarily everybody's fun is equal.
solbergb 06-28-07, 03:08 PM	If you trust your players enough that they won't try to hose your campaign, what's the big deal with trusting them on non-core material when they bring it to you ahead of time and explain what they want and why? Bottom line is that players may not have sufficient context to know whether or not a noncore thing will fit into the campaign. They have only a narrow view of what's going on. I don't actually object to them asking - plenty of stuff may fit in fine beyond the "campaign groundrules", they just need to be able to walk away if the answer is no, without demanding an explanation. Explanations may give away too much.
Comus 06-29-07, 01:14 AM	I don't actually object to them asking - plenty of stuff may fit in fine beyond the "campaign groundrules", they just need to be able to walk away if the answer is no, without demanding an explanation. Explanations may give away too much. I think it's unreasonable to refuse to give an explanation. But you might have a point, depending on the game you run - so can you give an example of a time where you (have/hypothetically would) disallow something and refuse to give an explanation? I can't think of any reason not to tell your friends why they aren't allowed to use something, even if it's a simple explanation instead of a full one.
OravennasBrother 06-29-07, 10:02 AM	I think it's unreasonable to refuse to give an explanation. My explanation is always the same. I only play with books I own. I refuse to waste money purchasing anything beyond the three core books. So if it isn't in core I don't let it in. If you can't accept that explanation play at another table.
solbergb 06-29-07, 10:10 AM	I gave several examples above. But conceptually it is just this. Some things in your campaign have restricted access because they're either newly researched or are the special, closely guarded advantage of some faction or geographic region. Other things have restricted access because they don't fit the flavor, and some open up options that you just don't want to see in the campaign at all, PC or NPC. (eg, I might decide nobody can do close wounds, delay death, frenzied berserker, revivify, last breath, cocoon or any other spell that undoes a death during a combat or allows somebody to survive past 10 hitpoints because the spells/effects violate the idea that dead is dead without significant divine power AND out of combat time) The problem is if you say "You can't have that, because only Monkey Style Practitioners of the 6th rank can do that" or even "it's in the campaign but you have to encounter the folks who know how" then the player knows stuff he shoudln't know about what's out there. If instead you say that it violates flavor or cosmology then the player might learn something different about the campaign that they shouldn't know yet. Spell research is like that too. Part of the research is "is this possible at all". That's skipped if the player absolutely knows it can't be done, or if he knows somebody can do it. Also you write yourself into a corner that way. Perhaps the god of death can on a one-shot basis grant delay death because the PC's somehow ended up in a situation where that god owes them a death, and your god of death is highly lawful and always pays his debts. If you've announced that such effects are absolutely banned, you don't have the flexibility to adjust to changing events in the campiagn. The idea is to have the campaign not be an open book. I don't care if the player recognize a monster or a technique once it's "in play" but they shouldn't start out knowing what they're up against, unless they achieve this knowledge by incharacter activities (research, observation, improving knowledge skills, whatever).
Caelic 06-29-07, 10:26 AM	Is there no place for them? Anyone is welcome at my table that isn't disruptive to the game. As long as they can deal with the guns that are in my game, they can play. I'm not going to change it midway through just because one person doesn't like it. Comus, You do realize that, despite the fact that you've taken the position of "A DM should always be open to changing his campaign at player request," you've just taken exactly the position that most conservative DMs take when they refuse to allow a given class/rule/book? It goes both ways. If "I'm not going to change it midway through just because one person doesn't like the fact that guns are in the game" is an acceptable position, then so is "I'm not going to change it midway through just because one person doesn't like the fact that guns aren't in the game." Something to consider.
Caelic 06-29-07, 10:46 AM	In the metagame we aren't are characters, and we aren't in character. In fact we are a bunch of friends hanging around the table. Yet for some reason one us is in charge, and the rest of us are subjects. Really why is the DMs idea of fun more important, or more right then anyones else's? Let me pose you this question, TPK. Suppose I decide to cook dinner for a group of friends. I know what I can cook well, and so I go out and buy the ingredients for a meal I know I can cook well. In the middle of cooking, one of my dinner guests shows up early and sticks his head into the kitchen. Guest: "Hey, y'know what you should serve for dinner? Haggis." Cook: "Uhm, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm already working on Chicken Marsala." Guest: "Oh, but you don't know what you're missing! Haggis would really add to the meal. You shouldn't be afraid to try new things!" Cook: "I'm not afraid to try new things...really. But I really don't want to start experimenting with a new dish which might or might not turn out well and then serve it to my guests. Maybe at some point down the road I'll serve haggis, but not right now. At any rate, I'm already in the middle of cooking the meal, and I don't have the ingredients for haggis at any rate." Guest: "Oh, they're not all that expensive! You could run out and buy them right now! Or I could run out and buy them, and you could pay me back!" Cook: "No. Sorry, but I'm serving Chicken Marsala tonight." Guest: "But haggis is what I want. You're taking away from my dining experience. Why is your idea of what should be served more important than mine?" Now: in the situation above, I think most people would agree that the guest is being rude. Sure, the cook would be well advised to have a general idea of his dinner guests' preferences beforehand--if a guest absolutely hates a given food, or has allergies to it, that can ruin a dinner--but we don't normally consider it reasonable for guests to demand changes to the menu. Note that I'm trying, in this analogy, to steer clear of the bad stereotypes that always pop up in these discussions. The guest isn't requesting haggis because he wants to "break the meal," or because haggis will somehow make him more powerful than the other dinner guests; he's requesting haggis because he honestly enjoys it and thinks others will, too. The cook isn't refusing to cook haggis because he's a big power-tripping poopyhead who enjoys bullying his dinner guests; he's refusing to cook it because he's already in the middle of cooking something else, and doesn't have the time or inclination to add a brand-new dish to the mix at present. He's open to the idea of trying to cook the dish later, when he's had a chance to practice with the recipe (i.e., in another campaign,) but not right now. In the end, only the cook knows what he or she can cook well. Only the cook knows what he or she has in the pantry. Only the cook knows which dishes he or she may have a religious/moral objection to (a strict vegetarian, for instance, or someone who keeps Kosher.) Thus, only the cook can make the final decision about what will be on the menu. That decision should take the guests' needs into account, but ultimately, the decision belongs to the person in the kitchen. If the cook is a strict vegetarian, he gets to decide not to serve steak, even if one of the guests is a steak-lover. If the cook is allergic to onions, he gets to decide not to include onions in his dishes, even if one of the guests loves onions. Heck, try walking into a gourmet chef's kitchen and telling him what to cook. I pretty much guarantee you'll see a level of reaction that makes even the most "unreasonable" DM look downright calm by comparison. At the end of the day, when you tell someone they can't play what they want, you are denying them their fun. And if your going to to that then you should have good, justifiable reason for it. Simply saying, "Because i don't like it." Is the same as saying, "because my idea fun is better then yours." ...but isn't "This will make me uncomfortable and spoil my fun, and as a result, I will do a bad job of running a game that includes it...which will spoil everyone's fun" a good reason?
Hugin 06-29-07, 11:02 AM	Great way of putting things, Caelic. I hope people catch the sense of what you were saying.
Comus 06-29-07, 01:13 PM	My explanation is always the same. I only play with books I own. I refuse to waste money purchasing anything beyond the three core books. So if it isn't in core I don't let it in. If you can't accept that explanation play at another table. A few questions: 1) What if someone bought you, say, Complete Warrior as a gift? Would you then allow it? 2) What if a player offered to loan you a book they wanted to use, and owned, for the duration of the campaign? 3) What about homebrewed stuff? I gave several examples above. But conceptually it is just this. Some things in your campaign have restricted access because they're either newly researched or are the special, closely guarded advantage of some faction or geographic region. Other things have restricted access because they don't fit the flavor, and some open up options that you just don't want to see in the campaign at all, PC or NPC. (eg, I might decide nobody can do close wounds, delay death, frenzied berserker, revivify, last breath, cocoon or any other spell that undoes a death during a combat or allows somebody to survive past 10 hitpoints because the spells/effects violate the idea that dead is dead without significant divine power AND out of combat time) Couple of things here - one, what if the player wants to be the person doing the research, or belong to the faction, or come from the geographic region? What if they want to say they came to the same game mechanic from another direction, and offer a different flavor (one that for the purpose of this example fits the game)? Two, I think it's okay to disallow flavor. A game without an oriental area, for example, shouldn't have oriental-flavored characters. Three, I also think it's okay to ban effects as long as it holds for both PCs and NPCs. One game I was in for a long time disallowed planar travel, summoning, and all raise dead effects - the idea was that the world was cut off from the rest of the multiverse, so it worked. The problem is if you say "You can't have that, because only Monkey Style Practitioners of the 6th rank can do that" or even "it's in the campaign but you have to encounter the folks who know how" then the player knows stuff he shoudln't know about what's out there. If instead you say that it violates flavor or cosmology then the player might learn something different about the campaign that they shouldn't know yet. Spell research is like that too. Part of the research is "is this possible at all". That's skipped if the player absolutely knows it can't be done, or if he knows somebody can do it. Why shouldn't the players know something about the world? Metagaming concerns aside, they're playing people that have lived in the campaign world for their entire lives. They should know certain basic facts. I see this as trying to keep the players in the dark, and can't imagine why. And if it exists in the world, why can't the players start out the game knowing about it? If it's a prestige class, why couldn't they have met someone who had levels in it? If it's a spell, why couldn't they have seen it cast? And, of course, there's always the possibility that the character develops Feat X, Spell Y, or Character Class Z himself, even if others have done so independently. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Also you write yourself into a corner that way. Perhaps the god of death can on a one-shot basis grant delay death because the PC's somehow ended up in a situation where that god owes them a death, and your god of death is highly lawful and always pays his debts. If you've announced that such effects are absolutely banned, you don't have the flexibility to adjust to changing events in the campiagn. First, Gods are outside the boundaries of what's allowed and what isn't. They can create effects the PCs can't. That's why they're Gods. The idea is to have the campaign not be an open book. I don't care if the player recognize a monster or a technique once it's "in play" but they shouldn't start out knowing what they're up against, unless they achieve this knowledge by incharacter activities (research, observation, improving knowledge skills, whatever). But what if they say they did this research before the game starts? The players shouldn't know what's going to happen in the plot, but if there are trolls in the world, there's no reason the players can't know that trolls exist. Comus, You do realize that, despite the fact that you've taken the position of "A DM should always be open to changing his campaign at player request," you've just taken exactly the position that most conservative DMs take when they refuse to allow a given class/rule/book? It goes both ways. If "I'm not going to change it midway through just because one person doesn't like the fact that guns are in the game" is an acceptable position, then so is "I'm not going to change it midway through just because one person doesn't like the fact that guns aren't in the game." Something to consider. There is a big difference, actually, between adding something to a campaign and subtracting something. Let's say I expand my campaign map and add an island. The players go to the island, and it's got dinosaurs on it. It's a kind of natural reserve that druids made to keep them from going extinct, and they spared no expense. If a player then tells me dinosaurs don't fit the campaign well, so I should get rid of the island, that poses a problem. There are a number of ways I could get rid of the island, from a BBEG to retcon. The only way to really get rid of it is to retcon the island away, and say the players don't remember anything about it, and the treasure they got there doesn't exist. Otherwise they'll be able to polymorph into dinosaurs, the druids will wildshape into velocoraptors, and there's always the possibility that the dinosaurs still live somewhere else. And if I do retcon, at the request of a single player? Then I make that player more important than anyone else in the group. On the other hand, adding things... a player tells me he wants to play an Incarnate. I have never had incarnum in my game before. I decide to allow it, and in the expanded part of the map where the dinosaur island is, I add in an archipelago where can be found the 'Fountain of Youth' - really an eruption of Incarnum. I toss in a culture of islanders, and bam - he wants to play an Incarnate, so he's from this new area. Seems a lot easier to me, and unlikely to cause problems. tl;dr - You can add something to the game easily, and DMs do it all the time (a new BBEG, a new dungeon, a far-off land) is easy. Taking something away is more difficult. It's like Jenga.
Renvale999 06-29-07, 01:16 PM	[QUOTE=Caelic;12902901]Let me pose you this question, TPK. Suppose I decide to cook dinner for a group of friends. I know what I can cook well, and so I go out and buy the ingredients for a meal I know I can cook well. In the middle of cooking, one of my dinner guests shows up early and sticks his head into the kitchen. Guest: "Hey, y'know what you should serve for dinner? Haggis." Cook: "Uhm, thanks for the suggestion, but I'm already working on Chicken Marsala." Guest: "Oh, but you don't know what you're missing! Haggis would really add to the meal. You shouldn't be afraid to try new things!" Cook: "I'm not afraid to try new things...really. But I really don't want to start experimenting with a new dish which might or might not turn out well and then serve it to my guests. Maybe at some point down the road I'll serve haggis, but not right now. At any rate, I'm already in the middle of cooking the meal, and I don't have the ingredients for haggis at any rate." Guest: "Oh, they're not all that expensive! You could run out and buy them right now! Or I could run out and buy them, and you could pay me back!" Cook: "No. Sorry, but I'm serving Chicken Marsala tonight." Guest: "But haggis is what I want. You're taking away from my dining experience. Why is your idea of what should be served more important than mine?" Now: in the situation above, I think most people would agree that the guest is being rude. Sure, the cook would be well advised to have a general idea of his dinner guests' preferences beforehand--if a guest absolutely hates a given food, or has allergies to it, that can ruin a dinner--but we don't normally consider it reasonable for guests to demand changes to the menu. Note that I'm trying, in this analogy, to steer clear of the bad stereotypes that always pop up in these discussions. The guest isn't requesting haggis because he wants to "break the meal," or because haggis will somehow make him more powerful than the other dinner guests; he's requesting haggis because he honestly enjoys it and thinks others will, too. The cook isn't refusing to cook haggis because he's a big power-tripping poopyhead who enjoys bullying his dinner guests; he's refusing to cook it because he's already in the middle of cooking something else, and doesn't have the time or inclination to add a brand-new dish to the mix at present. He's open to the idea of trying to cook the dish later, when he's had a chance to practice with the recipe (i.e., in another campaign,) but not right now. In the end, only the cook knows what he or she can cook well. Only the cook knows what he or she has in the pantry. Only the cook knows which dishes he or she may have a religious/moral objection to (a strict vegetarian, for instance, or someone who keeps Kosher.) Thus, only the cook can make the final decision about what will be on the menu. That decision should take the guests' needs into account, but ultimately, the decision belongs to the person in the kitchen. If the cook is a strict vegetarian, he gets to decide not to serve steak, even if one of the guests is a steak-lover. If the cook is allergic to onions, he gets to decide not to include onions in his dishes, even if one of the guests loves onions. Heck, try walking into a gourmet chef's kitchen and telling him what to cook. I pretty much guarantee you'll see a level of reaction that makes even the most "unreasonable" DM look downright calm by comparison.[QUOTE] That's it....Caelic wins the thread...no more posting needed.
solbergb 06-29-07, 02:31 PM	Why shouldn't the players know something about the world? Metagaming concerns aside, they're playing people that have lived in the campaign world for their entire lives. They should know certain basic facts. I see this as trying to keep the players in the dark, and can't imagine why. . They do. Those basic facts are the "campaign guidelines for making characters". There are generally extensive notes on cultural differences or gaps/changes in typical races (elves don't exist anymore, trolls don't regenerate in sunlight, only priests of the god of death can routinely ask for raises, others have to ask their god to intercede with the god of death, which can be harder). Along with that, there is the list of sources allowed for character generation and growth, that I won't tamper with - if I allow it you can use it - this stuff is commonly available and anyone can either learn it on their own or easily find an instructor or ask their god for guidance as they get power or whatever. And if it exists in the world, why can't the players start out the game knowing about it? If it's a prestige class, why couldn't they have met someone who had levels in it? If it's a spell, why couldn't they have seen it cast? Generally campaigns start with the PC's being from somewhere and not having knowledge skills above a +5 or so. This limits what they can know, especially if some group percieves their secret knowledge as an advantage and actively works to keep it a secret. Imagine if a PC survives an encounter with somebody using a unique spell, starts reasearching it and suddenly keeps having assasin encounters, attempts to burn his lab down, etc. A whole story arc can be built around the PC desire to learn vs the bad guy desire to keep it secret AND this sort of thing explains why PC's don't know everything there is in the world. Likewise, using higher level strategic transport magic (teleporting to other side of the world, planar travel, underdark, etc) to get to a very foreign area will result in people finding the PC's abilitities exotic and interesting and some lively trade can result (or attempts to kidnap and learn by force). Should the character or even the party have somebody expert on the thing in question even at low levels, they can certainly roll their skills - but I want a "you don't know" answer to mean either "it doesn't exist" or "you just didn't roll high enough" without giving away which it is. And, of course, there's always the possibility that the character develops Feat X, Spell Y, or Character Class Z himself, even if others have done so independently. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Yes, but there is the chance it isn't actually possible. That's part of research and why PC's don't often do it. It takes downtime and you may get nothing for your efforts. If you see it done, you KNOW it is possible and yes, you may discover an alternate route to the same goal. First level PC's though, aren't gonna be innovators. They need to grow a bit before they can even attempt it. First, Gods are outside the boundaries of what's allowed and what isn't. They can create effects the PCs can't. That's why they're Gods. Not outside. They have their own rules, which are often quite strict as the jealously guard their portfolios. They can do things PC's can't do but they usually can't do *anything*. Most campaigns, gods are just people writ large, like the Greek and Norse deities. They aren't omnipotent, omnipresent and imbued with contradictory-all-powerful traits like the Judeo/Christian/Moselm deity. (the Byzantine greeks thought that the contraditory traits PROVED the ultimate divinity of god.) I actually thought the Xenaverse handled "D&D-like" gods very well. They were nearly invincible, but you could trap them with their own rules, or their interrelationships with other gods. But what if they say they did this research before the game starts? The What they can know is spelled out in the chargen stuff for the campaign, which is usually FAR more than what an individual character knows, in order to get a variety of possible character concepts. You're talking about picking a mechanical concept not in the "approved for chargen" list and forcing it in by making it the backstory of a character. Sorry. You can make any background you want within the basic limits, and even get new stuff added if I haven't considered it and it fits ok within the general mix. But your first level cleric doesn't get to be the guy who invented Blood Wind. You just aren't that important. If the campaign starts at level 12, sure you could have a signature ability or spell or something that you developed. By level 20, such a thing might even be expected in the chargen - it's an unusual epic character that didn't make some unique mark on the world. There is a big difference, actually, between adding something to a campaign and subtracting something. Let's say I expand my campaign map and add an island. The players go to the island, and it's got dinosaurs on it. It's a kind of natural reserve that druids made to keep them from going extinct, and they spared no expense. If a player then tells me dinosaurs don't fit the campaign well, so I should get rid of the island, that poses a problem. There are a number of ways I could get rid of the island, from a BBEG to retcon. The only way to really get rid of it is to retcon the island away, and say the players don't remember anything about it, and the treasure they got there doesn't exist. Otherwise they'll be able to polymorph into dinosaurs, the druids will wildshape into velocoraptors, and there's always the possibility that the dinosaurs still live somewhere else. And if I do retcon, at the request of a single player? Then I make that player more important than anyone else in the group. Right. Which is why the decision about dinosaurs is the DM's and not the players. He says "You can't have a dinosaur companion" because he wants to run a "Land of the Lost" story arc where they find a place where dinosaurs were preserved. After they succeed (and perhaps in a way that doesn't cause the volcano to explode, killing all the dinosaurs), the party druid can wildshape, the druid and ranger can have dinosaur companions etc. Or you could say "You can't have dinosaur companions" because they all died out like they did in our world, and barring something like a true rez and a dinosaur that wants to come back, it isn't happening. Which it is though, the characters need to discover in play. It'll also be only the dinosaurs the DM wants in the campaign. It's also up to the DM to come up with a reason for dinosaurs that doesn't break the player immersion. Either of the above plots could result in a high level druid NPC with a dinosaur, which SHOULD cause the PC's to ask "HOW" not "that's cheesy". There has to be an answer to the How. (you find out that the druid found a time travel gate, or he got a Miracle from somebody and if you kill the dino, he isn't gonna get another, or you track his activities for the past few years and find the lost hollow volcano full of dinosaurs or whatever) On the other hand, adding things... a player tells me he wants to play an Incarnate. I have never had incarnum in my game before. I decide to allow it, and in the expanded part of the map where the dinosaur island is, I add in an archipelago where can be found the 'Fountain of Youth' - really an eruption of Incarnum. I toss in a culture of islanders, and bam - he wants to play an Incarnate, so he's from this new area. Seems a lot easier to me, and unlikely to cause problems. Or you decide that it doesn't make sense that a starting character could wander into your main culture from such a place, and that the implications would be staggering. A fountain of youth? The slightest hint of such a place would cause a gold-rush effect. Might make a good story, but it would derail whatever you had in mind for your campaign, just by existing, if NPC's behaved like real people on discovering such a thing. tl;dr - You can add something to the game easily, and DMs do it all the time (a new BBEG, a new dungeon, a far-off land) is easy. Taking something away is more difficult. It's like Jenga. Well yeah. You can add it easily. But if it warps the campaign out of recognition, as you say, it's a lot harder to make it go away. So you realy don't want to casually add stuff to your campaign that you aren't damn sure will not totally transform it in directions you can't predict. If you're stuck for ideas, and just want a "jam session" where players seed you with ideas and you run with them, sure you can casually add stuff, but at some point the world isn't going to make a lot of sense. (Might not matter in a planar campaign. This effect though is why most superhero campaigns break down after a while. The "powers" start transforming the society into something unrecognizable unless superpowers are very, very rare or underground for some reason) If instead you have a style where your campaign world exists and if the PC's just chill in the bar, events will happen without them, you can't just add any old thing randomly. That tends to be my style - PC's are very important disruptive elements - in D&D they tend to start out reactive and below the radar and end up being active and important enough that all planning must be done taking them into consideration. (D&D has an amazingly steep power curve compared to most games). Learining what is possible is part of "growing up". Their own skills improve but also their contacts improve and they travel more. Eventually they may even discern the logic behind what is allowed and what is not and even learn the dark secrets of WHY, say, all knowledge of the explosive runes spell is violently suppressed by nearly every culture, even those at philosophical odds. (you can set off an arbitrary number of runes with an area dispel magic cast at minimum cater level. Unlike most discharge spells, explosive runes have no expensive/rare material component that limits casual stockpiling....get enough of them and no creature is safe from this...it's a tactical nuke that doesn't respect character power, even that of a god if the SR can be penetrated 5% of the time and the god lacks evasion. Naturally those on top are not interested in allowing such knowledge to exist...) Or in first edition, why elves couldn't get 6th level spells or higher. (in 1st edition, things like wishes were balanced by aging you several years. Elves lived thousands of years. At some point in the past there was an elf wishing war that ended with somebody preventing all the long lived races from getting the most powerful magics. Undoing that would be...challenging)
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-29-07, 03:43 PM	Let me pose you this question, TPK. <shortened for length> Its a good question, hope my answer is equally good. Firstly in your above situation you, the cook, did give a perfectly valid, and reasonable explanation as to why you won't serve haggis. You're cooking something else, and have already started. Which is entirely my point: "If your going to disallow something, you should have a good reason." Secondly I would not liken your analogy to a player requesting a supplement, but more to a player requesting an entirely new system, or game. More along lines of: Player in High fantasy game, "Hey guys lets try Shadow run. DM, "But you guys are the middle of the dungeon? Don't you want to finish? Lets rap up this game, then try Shadow run. Player, "But I wanna play a gunbunny NOW!" I will also qualify this with; if the rest of the group wants to continue with the dungeon I.E the current game, then the player is out of line. However if for whatever reason to game is tanking, and the group wants to switch over immediately, then the DM is out of line insisting they continue with something, were only s/he is having fun. Simmilarily in your analogy suppose that all the other guests, including the first one hated Chicken Marasala? Are out line to not what to choke it down, simply because that is what is being served? If i could I would change your example like so: quest, "Hey cook I brought a Ceasar salad, that I think would go along great with your chicken Marsala." Cook, "But I'm serving Chicken, and only chicken!." quest 2, "Gee I guess you won't want the beer I brought then...." Cook, "Nope I hate beer, only chicken and water." Quest 1, "But we like beer, and salad. You don't have to have any." Cook," No can do, if it is so much as on the table it ruins my dining experience. And then I won't be able to do as good a job cooking, and the chicken will suck. Then I'll get tired and the dinner will end short." Again i don't see how if the supplement is only effecting the one players character, or isn't changing the game as a hole, why it can't at the very least fairly considered, with an open mind. Also how would your analogy change if the quest suggested adding some pepper, or another spice, that would not result in the meal being ruined, but may even enhance it?
Andorxor 06-29-07, 04:03 PM	If you play something exotic it effect all other players,because you steal spotlight.
OravennasBrother 06-29-07, 04:24 PM	A few questions: 1) What if someone bought you, say, Complete Warrior as a gift? Would you then allow it? 2) What if a player offered to loan you a book they wanted to use, and owned, for the duration of the campaign? 3) What about homebrewed stuff? 1) No one I know would insult me with TSR books (game or novel). 2) See #1 3) Any homebrew is my own creation and designed to fit my campaign world. I expect the same from D's with whom I play.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-29-07, 05:45 PM	If you play something exotic it effect all other players,because you steal spotlight. Why do we have to keep going back to this? If the player is going to be spotligh stealing jerk, then they can do that just as easily with, or with out additional splat material. The mechanics will not change a players attitude. If they are a horse's arse, with core +, they are a horse's arse with just core. 1) No one I know would insult me with TSR books (game or novel). 2) See #1 3) Any homebrew is my own creation and designed to fit my campaign world. I expect the same from D's with whom I play. If one of my friends bought me anything, I'd appropriate the gift, and not be a pretentious ass about it. But thats just me. Also what if you happen to come across a DM who is running Ebberron. they didn't design the setting, and the complete certainly does fit within Ebberron. Would also be unreasonable for the player to request Player's guide to Ebberron, or Magic of Ebberron, in an Ebberron game? And if a DM is going to disallow those books, is too much to ask why?
Comus 06-29-07, 06:17 PM	*tries to trim huge post down to respondable size* This limits what they can know, especially if some group percieves their secret knowledge as an advantage and actively works to keep it a secret... Which makes it very interesting if a PC develops their secret technique all on his own, doesn't it? They'll think there's a leak, the Player sees these people using the same trick he is and demanding to know where he learned it... Ah well. We both know that trade secrets can make for interesting plot hooks. ..Likewise, using higher level strategic transport magic (teleporting to other side of the world, planar travel, underdark, etc) to get to a very foreign area will result in people finding the PC's abilitities exotic and interesting and some lively trade can result (or attempts to kidnap and learn by force)... Eh. The flavor of the abilities is exotic and all, but I think the mechanics would be the same. Maybe in Kara-tur they power attack by swinging for the bleachers, but in Montaigne their version of power attach involves called shots - the harder the shot (and the bigger penalty to hit), the more the damage. The Samurai class can represent an honorable follower of the Shogunate, or it can be a secret drow society of shock troopers. ...Yes, but there is the chance it isn't actually possible. That's part of research and why PC's don't often do it. It takes downtime and you may get nothing for your efforts. If you see it done, you KNOW it is possible and yes, you may discover an alternate route to the same goal. Players tend to get rather annoyed when they spend time and money in character only to be told by the DM that X doesn't exist in their world. I tend to regulate failed research into the background - the wizard is actually researching a dozen spells, but only manages to get two of them to work at the end of the research cycle (read: when they level up and pick two spells). First level PC's though, aren't gonna be innovators. They need to grow a bit before they can even attempt it A first-level PC does not have enough mechanical abilities to be a real innovator. More importantly, there's no reason why, say, my 125-year-old elf couldn't be an innovator. He's got a hundred years on the other PCs, and he must have done something in that time. And PCs are supposed to be special - maybe my wizard is a prodigy, or my Fighter invented the Gyrspike (after all, I've never seen anyone else use one. Ever. In any game.) You're talking about picking a mechanical concept not in the "approved for chargen" list and forcing it in by making it the backstory of a character. I'm talking about asking to use something not on the list and providing flavor that'd let it fit into the world. If my Ninja isn't an oriental master of stealth, but instead is a petty thief that failed out of mage's school at a young age and never learned much magic (the Ninja's ability to turn invisible being the limit of that), it can fit the world extremely well. If something isn't allowed for flavor reasons, then say the flavor is bad and require a player to fit it into the world, or come up with new flavor. But your first level cleric doesn't get to be the guy who invented Blood Wind. You just aren't that important. Perhaps. I won't get into the debate between "PCs are Special" vs. "1st level characters are dirt". But what if my cleric apprenticed under the guy who invented Blood Wind? Right. Which is why the decision about dinosaurs is the DM's and not the players. He says "You can't have a dinosaur companion" because he wants to run a "Land of the Lost" story arc where they find a place where dinosaurs were preserved. After they succeed (and perhaps in a way that doesn't cause the volcano to explode, killing all the dinosaurs), the party druid can wildshape, the druid and ranger can have dinosaur companions etc.[...] Either of the above plots could result in a high level druid NPC with a dinosaur, which SHOULD cause the PC's to ask "HOW" not "that's cheesy". Yes, it could. More likely, the PCs will think 'the DM won't let us do X, then he turns around and gives it to an NPC. Great. One of THOSE DMs.' Not saying you're wrong - that's how I'd handle the dinosaurs/lost world thing, too - just that players will often view an NPC that's allowed something they aren't negatively. Or you decide that it doesn't make sense that a starting character could wander into your main culture from such a place, and that the implications would be staggering. A fountain of youth? The slightest hint of such a place would cause a gold-rush effect. Might make a good story, but it would derail whatever you had in mind for your campaign, just by existing, if NPC's behaved like real people on discovering such a thing. See, the thing is that I'd be okay with the gold-rush. It'd be a great plot hook. Especially since, as I'm detailing this new area, I probably want to draw the players in. I'd find a way to tie it into the bigger metaplot, anyway. BBEGs get caught up in new things too, after all. If you're stuck for ideas, and just want a "jam session" where players seed you with ideas and you run with them, sure you can casually add stuff, but at some point the world isn't going to make a lot of sense. Depends on how big you want the world to be. In a really realistic world, there's plenty of room for everything. If it's very limited in scope and flavor, then not so. But if Wizards, Sorcs, Psions, Wilders, Wu Jens, Warlocks, and so forth are all called 'Mages', and the different character classes simply represent different personal styles, then a lot can be fit into the world while still making sense. If instead you have a style where your campaign world exists and if the PC's just chill in the bar, events will happen without them, you can't just add any old thing randomly... Can you give an example? I think I know what you mean, but want to make sure I get it right. Learining what is possible is part of "growing up". Their own skills improve but also their contacts improve and they travel more. And that's why class abilities are gained through levels, and why feats have requirements, and why spells have spell levels. But if I can play build X at first level, it implies that the knowledge of X can exist then. If you play something exotic it effect all other players,because you steal spotlight. Give an example that doesn't involve DM favoritism, the other characters being really bland, or a bad player (who would be doing the same with a pregen). 1) No one I know would insult me with TSR books (game or novel). 2) See #1 3) Any homebrew is my own creation and designed to fit my campaign world. I expect the same from D's with whom I play. You play 2nd Ed?
Caelic 06-29-07, 07:48 PM	Its a good question, hope my answer is equally good. Firstly in your above situation you, the cook, did give a perfectly valid, and reasonable explanation as to why you won't serve haggis. You're cooking something else, and have already started. Which is entirely my point: "If your going to disallow something, you should have a good reason." ...and usually, the DM has a reasonable and valid reason, too. Now, let's take the scenario a bit further. Cooking takes time and concentration. If the cook simply said, "No," and didn't take the time to go through a whole explanation because he was busy cooking, would that be horrible and unjustifiable of him? However if for whatever reason to game is tanking, and the group wants to switch over immediately, then the DM is out of line insisting they continue with something, were only s/he is having fun. I'm a bit puzzled by how exactly the DM would accomplish this. Players: "This sucks! We wanna play a new game!" DM: "NO! You WILL play this game! I've locked the door, and I've put a slow-acting poison in your Diet Dr. Pepper! The only way to get the antidote is to finish the adventure! Now...ROLEPLAY, damn your eyes! And have a good time...OR ELSE!" Simmilarily in your analogy suppose that all the other guests, including the first one hated Chicken Marasala? ...then the cook is guilty of poor preparation and poor knowledge of his guests. The meal will be a failure, and hopefully the cook will know not to offer that particular meal again. In a campaign sense: the players will vote with their feet, the campaign will crash and burn, and hopefully the DM will learn from his mistakes and offer something more to the players' liking the next time. If i could I would change your example like so: quest, "Hey cook I brought a Ceasar salad, that I think would go along great with your chicken Marsala." Cook, "But I'm serving Chicken, and only chicken!." quest 2, "Gee I guess you won't want the beer I brought then...." Cook, "Nope I hate beer, only chicken and water." Quest 1, "But we like beer, and salad. You don't have to have any." Cook," No can do, if it is so much as on the table it ruins my dining experience. And then I won't be able to do as good a job cooking, and the chicken will suck. Then I'll get tired and the dinner will end short." I would argue that this is precisely the stereotype I attempted to avoid in my example, TPK, and it's the problem with this debate. Whenever the subject of DMs saying "No" comes up, someone immediately paints a picture of a slavering control-freak who doesn't just say "No" to one thing, he says "No" to EVERYTHING, for no reason, just because he hates the players and wants them to suffer. How often does that really happen? In twenty-five years of gaming, I have never sat at a table like that, or seen one. I have seen campaigns where one player asks for something, the DM says "No," and the player then turns around and engages in such hyperbole that it sounds like the DM ripped up his character sheet, kicked his puppy, and made him eat all his dice. Also how would your analogy change if the quest suggested adding some pepper, or another spice, that would not result in the meal being ruined, but may even enhance it? Heh. You've heard the old saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth?" There's a reason it came about. Strolling into a cook's kitchen and offering suggestions for which spices they should add is generally a bad idea. First off, you don't necessarily know what other spices they've already added. If I'm going with a sage-dill sauce, I'm not going to toss in cracked peppercorns and rosemary on top of it. There's also the issue of what happens when the DM has a reason the player doesn't think is good. Let me give you a real-world example. This is actually the example I was thinking of when I tossed the vegetarian into my analogy: I know a DM. She's a very good DM. She does, however, have a few ground rules. Rule one is: Good or neutral characters only. The reason for this is that she's a very devoutly religious young woman, and very uncomfortable with the notion of actively taking pleasure in roleplaying evil and cruelty. Now, that's a position that I've noticed a certain percentage of gamers will openly sneer at. Some gamers prefer to always play Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Neutral, because they absolutely hate any restrictions on what their character can do. The DM in question encountered a couple of players of that sort. They kept hounding her to lift the restriction; they were pretty rude about it. Personally, I would've booted their butts to the curb in short order, but she's a much nicer and more accomodating person than I am. Ultimately, she decided to be "open minded" and give it a try. The result? The campaign sucked. It sucked harder than the cold vacuum of space. She was very uncomfortable with the actions of the party, and it made her DMing stilted and awkward. Those of us who had been fine with good and neutral only were thrown off-kilter by her awkward DMing. The players who had campaigned so hard for an evil campaign were ****** off because the rest of us weren't wallowing in the evil with them. The game lasted three sessions, and at that, it was about two and a half sessions too long.
Comus 06-29-07, 08:16 PM	In a campaign sense: the players will vote with their feet, the campaign will crash and burn, and hopefully the DM will learn from his mistakes and offer something more to the players' liking the next time. Sadly, that's often not the case. A lot of people don't understand that no gaming is better than bad gaming. At least once or twice a week, someone posts on this board about how they aren't having any fun in their game. Thankfully, most of the ones that come here are convinced that they should leave a bad game. I feel sorry for the ones that know no other gaming. I would argue that this is precisely the stereotype I attempted to avoid in my example, TPK, and it's the problem with this debate. Whenever the subject of DMs saying "No" comes up, someone immediately paints a picture of a slavering control-freak who doesn't just say "No" to one thing, he says "No" to EVERYTHING, for no reason, just because he hates the players and wants them to suffer. Perhaps we need an example that has both the player and the DM as being reasonable, eh? Let me give it a shot: Guest 1: Hello, everyone. I brought some haggis for everyone to try! (read: I bought a new sourcebook for the group) Cook: Woah, woah. Haggis? You never cleared that with me. Guest 1: Everyone I talked to said Haggis is great, and I want to give it a shot. Cook: But it really doesn't fit with the rest of the meal. Maybe if you cook the next meal, you can serve it. Guest 2: Actually, I kinda wanted to try Haggis, too. Cook: And I understand that. Look, I'll be frank - I don't like Haggis. I've never tried it before, but just the thought of it... I really don't want it at the table. Guest 1: How do you know it's bad until you've tried it, though? Cook: I don't. But I don't want to try it, either. It doesn't fit with the rest of the food, flavor-wise, anyway. I'm not going to change my meal plan at the last second just to make room for Haggis. Guest 2: Could we just try a little? A slice or two just to see what it's like? (read: can we just playtest it and see if it works?) Cook: Hey, you guys can try it whenever you want. Just not with my meal. But if you serve it when I come over to your house, I won't complain, even if I won't try it. Guest 1: How about a compromise - next time I cook, I'll make up some haggis. If everyone likes it, maybe you could look into fitting it into your meal plan? Cook: Okay. No promises, though - it's my meal, too, and I won't cook food I don't like. Was that good? Heh. You've heard the old saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth?" There's a reason it came about. Strolling into a cook's kitchen and offering suggestions for which spices they should add is generally a bad idea. First off, you don't necessarily know what other spices they've already added. If I'm going with a sage-dill sauce, I'm not going to toss in cracked peppercorns and rosemary on top of it. This goes off-topic, but my girlfriend is a cook. Whenever she makes something, she looks for ways to improve it - and that includes asking if she should add or subtract spices. Heck, I often suggest things to her while she's cooking things, like "what about adding some cayenne pepper to that sauce for a bit of spice?" In the same way, the DM should be willing to keep his options open. In cooking terms, the recipe should be a guideline that can be modified, not a religious text that must be followed to the letter.
Caelic 06-29-07, 09:28 PM	This goes off-topic, but my girlfriend is a cook. Whenever she makes something, she looks for ways to improve it - and that includes asking if she should add or subtract spices. Heck, I often suggest things to her while she's cooking things, like "what about adding some cayenne pepper to that sauce for a bit of spice?" In the same way, the DM should be willing to keep his options open. In cooking terms, the recipe should be a guideline that can be modified, not a religious text that must be followed to the letter. Ah, but do you see the difference here? Your girlfriend is doing what any good cook (or DM) should do--actively soliciting feedback. That's how a cook knows what dishes will please his or her guests; it's how a DM knows what's likely to be fun for the majority of the group. There's a difference between saying "A cook should be open to feedback"...which he/she should...and saying "Everyone at the table should have an equal say in how the cooking is done." That just plain doesn't work. In the end, someone has to call the shots, if only so that the timing works out and everything is cooked at the same time and to the same standard. It's a good thing to make suggestions to the cook--but ultimately, she has the right to say "That's not going in my sauce."
Comus 06-29-07, 10:00 PM	Ah, but do you see the difference here? Your girlfriend is doing what any good cook (or DM) should do--actively soliciting feedback. That's how a cook knows what dishes will please his or her guests; it's how a DM knows what's likely to be fun for the majority of the group. That's right. The problems really come when someone's not having fun and doesn't say anything, or when someone says something and the DM doesn't listen. There's a difference between saying "A cook should be open to feedback"...which he/she should...and saying "Everyone at the table should have an equal say in how the cooking is done." That just plain doesn't work. In the end, someone has to call the shots, if only so that the timing works out and everything is cooked at the same time and to the same standard. It's not so much "everyone has an equal say" as it is "everyone should be able to find something they like", you know? It's a good thing to make suggestions to the cook--but ultimately, she has the right to say "That's not going in my sauce." And believe me, I've heard that before. Old Bay is my answer to most cooking problems, and she tends to get annoyed when I suggest it too much. Similarly, I wouldn't allow someone to play an Evil-aligned character in my spelljammer game. Maybe they could play it well, but it just isn't allowed.
Cold Napalm 06-29-07, 11:17 PM	Okay since we are going along a cooking analogy and I currently do this for a living...how about this? Cook: Hey guys, I'm cooking dinner. What do you guys like? Friend 1: Haggis Friend 2: Chicken marsala Friend 3: Anything with beer Friend 4: Salad of some sort Cook: Okay, we can have salad, beer and either haggis or chicken marsala...I don't think chicken marsala and haggis will go well, what do you guys think? ... I mean really, the point is about discussion BEFORE a campaign right?
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-30-07, 12:36 AM	There's a difference between saying "A cook should be open to feedback"...which he/she should...and saying "Everyone at the table should have an equal say in how the cooking is done." That just plain doesn't work. In the end, someone has to call the shots, if only so that the timing works out and everything is cooked at the same time and to the same standard. That is actually what I'm saying. DMs should listen to what their players are asking for, because by asking for X they are saying that they think X would be fun, and make the campaign better. Again I'm not disputing the DMs right to disallow things. I am saying they shouldn't do so with out do consideration. To logically follow that out, if a DM says no to something that they have fairly considered, then should they have reason for why they said no. And if they then have that reason, why can't they explain it to their player? Since the DM is human, they may be in correct in the reasoning, and thus should give the player fair chance for rebuttle. However the final decision is still theirs, but again they should consider the players reasoning.
Tyraxus 06-30-07, 12:50 AM	ColdNapalm: A big problem comes up, though, when something comes out when you're in the middle of a campaign. I mean, some campaigns last years, and is it really that inconceivable that a supplement would come out during the course of those years which contained something that fit a character's concept really well? Ex: Suppose you're playing a game that started during July '04. You're like me, and prefer big, beefy fighter-types with a great big ole axe. Your concept, as explained to the DM in 7-04 is a barbarian with an all-out fighting style, anything for the big hit. Several times during the course of combat over several months, you describe your maneuvers in combat as jumping around, trying to add more power to your attack by bringing that great big ole axe down harder, especially during charges. You flavour your crits and power attacks with the greataxe as solid hits when you're jumping, but you wish there was more you could do to amplify this fighting style. Then, in early '05, the rogue's player buys Complete Adventurer and brings it because he wants to use some of the neat new stuff in it for rogues, and while thumbing through it, you see Leap Attack. Here's what you've been looking for: a way to show, mechanically, what you've been trying to have your character do all along. Sure, it only works on charges, but it's something! The pre-game discussion had nothing to say about Complete Adventurer or Leap Attack. And this discussion is really relevant to what would happen next, when you ask your DM if you can take the feat.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-30-07, 01:05 AM	ColdNapalm: A big problem comes up, though, when something comes out when you're in the middle of a campaign. I mean, some campaigns last years, and is it really that inconceivable that a supplement would come out during the course of those years which contained something that fit a character's concept really well? Ex: Suppose you're playing a game that started during July '04. You're like me, and prefer big, beefy fighter-types with a great big ole axe. Your concept, as explained to the DM in 7-04 is a barbarian with an all-out fighting style, anything for the big hit. Several times during the course of combat over several months, you describe your maneuvers in combat as jumping around, trying to add more power to your attack by bringing that great big ole axe down harder, especially during charges. You flavour your crits and power attacks with the greataxe as solid hits when you're jumping, but you wish there was more you could do to amplify this fighting style. Then, in early '05, the rogue's player buys Complete Adventurer and brings it because he wants to use some of the neat new stuff in it for rogues, and while thumbing through it, you see Leap Attack. Here's what you've been looking for: a way to show, mechanically, what you've been trying to have your character do all along. Sure, it only works on charges, but it's something! The pre-game discussion had nothing to say about Complete Adventurer or Leap Attack. And this discussion is really relevant to what would happen next, when you ask your DM if you can take the feat. So in a sense your saying to your DM, "Leap attack would add a lot to my charatcer, and be really for me." And would it also then suck if your DM told you it was a crappy book, and he didn't like, but refused to explain, or listen you about your vision of your character.
solbergb 06-30-07, 01:05 AM	Can you give an example? I think I know what you mean, but want to make sure I get it right. Two examples, from published sources. 1st edition, original Temple of Elemental Evil. That setting had recruitment rules for the Temple, if the Pc's did not keep constant pressure on, the temple grew. It also, once PC's became important, sent spies and assassins after them, scried on them, went after their families, their reputations, whatever would work. When I ran it, Lareth even set up a rival group of "heroes" who would "defeat" raiders - transferring wealth from those they attacked to the bugbears or whatever to the "heroes" - and his people not only gained in wealth and power, they got cheered for it. 3.0 - Heart of Nightfang Spire. With the return of its master, the tower spawns a significant amount of new undead every day. Take a month off to craft, and these undead will be overrurning the countryside. Now granted, such activities will draw the attention of whatever organized forces civilization has. When we played it though...we were it for the continent. It was remote (everything around it was dead) and we were the highest level people within teleport range, short of trying to recruit help from the middle of a civil war that was going on in the only empire of any size in the known world. The way I typically run a campaign is I have the world, and the people/organizations in it pursuing goals that will change the world. I then drop the PC's in the middle of it and let them pick sides or make their own side. If they choose not to participate, the world changes without them, usually not for the better. If they participate, given how D&D mechanics and power curves work, they'll start out as a nuisance, then start derailing major plots, then have to be considered as a power in their own right in future planning, then can start to dictate their own changes. This curve isn't a given. Some adventurers retire and take up more mainstream positions in society, sometimes the party gets interested in something very remote and vanishes (extraplanar, underdark, trip to other side of the world, whatever). Typically in those settings, a lot is just in broad strokes and players are encouraged to flesh things out, especially if it's tied to their character. As an example, if there is an amphibious race allowed for Pc's but I've not done much but mapped out their territory and their trade interactions, the PC pretty much gets to say how their culture works, if they're interested in helping with the worldbuilding. The difference though is - you worldbuild the culture, the motivations, the normal behaviors, how the PC is eccentric. Absolutely none of this has anything to do with what spells are allowed into the campaign. Or to put it another way. I'd rather your rogue dropout with wizardly skills takes a level or two of wizard or just cranks his UMD than take the ninja class. Color within the lines rather than insisting on drawing it from scratch. The kind of campaign you are describing is more like how we tended to do superhero gaming - we'd have multiple GM's, each of whom owned different organizations and/or geographic regions in the world who would have their own plotlines and would worldbuild in a specific area. When their plots might impinge on somebody else, they consulted to see if there was a crossover or even if the plot fizzled because of interference by another power, not involving the PC's. Hero games isn't like D&D, not much - D&D is all lists of things, lists of powers, feats, spells, blah blah. Hero games goes a level lower, you get a toolkit. That essentially means the default situation is wide open, far more so than having 30 suppliments, and as time goes on, things get banned. Some anti-paranormal weaponry (built a certain way to target supers and leave normals alone by the toolkit) proved too plot disruptive, so some of the GM's got together and engineered a disaster caused by long term exposure of normals to it. After that mod, the government agency was forced to stop using it. We found several recursive-infinite loop abuses. Generally we'd create a one-shot villain that exposed why it's a bad idea to allow this in teh campaign, and after that story we'd all agree to remove powers like that from our builds, even on existing characters. In my mind, you have too tightly connected creative freedom to being able to draw from multiple sources. You are also assuming the answer is usually "no". I can only assume that's from your experience. Both styles I describe here require a large amount of trust and maturity. The collaborative GM style requires that to be two-way, but it also requires each GM to actually do their share of the work, rotating the GMing duties. It tends also to require a more fluid structure than most D&D campaigns have. All of us had several player characters representing several superteams. A big advantage of supers games - the power curve is fairly flat. You can have a guest star from a newbie team join an experienced team and he doesn't get vaporized by a love-tap from typical opposition, unlike in D&D where a firstie joins a level 10 team. This style tends to work fairly well with the 3.5 "tiered encounter" setup - there are superheroes that deal with Galactus, and others that just clean up corruption around the docks and they don't tend to fight the same bad guys. This model can be done in D&D, but it is sometimes hard to explain why the bandits on this road are so much tougher than they were a year ago. The "campaign is here, and PC's actions have consequences" style requires the trust to be more one-way. The DM puts everything in the world for a reason, and it has nothing to do with personalities between players and everything to do with making the world consistent, so it's easy to be immersed in it. If you decide to enter the Temple of Elemental Evil at level 2, you will be TPK'd. If you enter it alone when you are much more powerful than the party working it and its defenders, you can ruin it for everybody(as indeed, Lord Robilar did in Gary Gygax's playtest campiagn). This style lets the PC's blunder or shine, lets them be crushed or move the world. I like it better, but you have to establish trust as a DM that when bad things happen, it isn't punitive, malicious or whatever. It's the world being what it is, and the PC's experiencing the natural consequences of their actions in such a world. I've been in campaigns where plans never worked if the DM found out about them. My style isn't like that, but you won't know that unless you play with me.
Andorxor 06-30-07, 01:26 AM	Why do we have to keep going back to this? If the player is going to be spotligh stealing jerk, then they can do that just as easily with, or with out additional splat material. The mechanics will not change a players attitude. If they are a horse's arse, with core +, they are a horse's arse with just core. It said this because,as soon someone plays something that is radicaly different from the enviroment this will happens even if the player isn't a spotlight stealing jerk
solbergb 06-30-07, 01:27 AM	And that's why class abilities are gained through levels, and why feats have requirements, and why spells have spell levels. But if I can play build X at first level, it implies that the knowledge of X can exist then. No. A book saying you can build X at first level doesn't mean it is common knowledge that in my campaign you can build X at first level. This can be true for campaign reasons even of PHB stuff. Going back to first edition - when I ran Temple of Elemental Evil, the only place you could get Tenser's Disk or Nystul's Magic Aura was from the inventor. They were still alive, and jealously guarded their new spells because such spells were their primary trade goods with other wizards. Even if they did agree to trade with you, they usually extracted promises that you would not trade with anyone else until they died. These are level 1 spells. Any apprentice could learn them. But nobody knew them until the inventors chose to share them. Tenser had an interest in the TOEE tied to backstory, so the odds you 'd encounter him were moderately high. Somebody who wanted to learn Mordenkeinen's Disjunction, however, was SOL. The inventor had yet to even use the spell in public - he was saving it for a special occasion, as an "edge". Nobody even dreamed a spell that could rend magic and permanent magic items with no caster check (it was a % thing in 1st ed) and could even destroy artifacts some of the time could possibly exist. If you want to be the apprentice of the guy who invented Blood Wind, that means the guy who invented Blood Wind is in the game, is connected to a PC and has actually shared it with his apprentice. I'm sorry, I didn't let anyone be the apprentice of Mordenkeinen, Nystul or Tenser in my campaign. At least not at first level. If its the kind of spell, feat, ability, etc that a no-name backstory practicioner could know, it's on the approved list already. In a campaign where new techniques are freely shared, where widespread adoption of a feat, spell, PRC or whatever builds the reputation of the creator, you'll have access to a lot more stuff than a campaign where such things go along guild lines, or like those martial arts movies where each dojo had their own secret techniques that it was death to teach outsiders. But just because it's in a WOTC published book doesn't mean the player gets it or it exists in the campaign. That's the DM's call. Everything you add to the world has ripple effects. If the DM thinks "cool, that gives me fun ideas" than it'll get added. If the DM thinks "that wouldn't mess anything up, it fits ok and it helps the character mechanics match the character idea" then it probably won't get added. If the DM thinks "if he's got it, how come others don't have it. If others have it, how come the world isn't different?" then it won't get added. If the DM thinks "that's the secret technique of the Dragon Warriors and nobody in the party yet has a way of knowing about them" then he'll say no now, but if the player really seems to want it, will likely have some future dragon warrior plots - if only because the character was maybe experimenting with a similar style, to simulate the player asking about it, and they are cracking down...
solbergb 06-30-07, 01:37 AM	So in a sense your saying to your DM, "Leap attack would add a lot to my charatcer, and be really for me." And would it also then suck if your DM told you it was a crappy book, and he didn't like, but refused to explain, or listen you about your vision of your character. Or the GM can say "let me run the numbers on that". And he'll come back with some of these. 1. only with the clarification on the multiplication (multipliers add in D&D, it's weird but it stops some of the really nasty open ended stuff) 2. if you get this in, shock trooper is incompatable with this feat. You won't try to put shock trooper on the char and I won't make bad guys that combine the feats. Fair enough? 3. (glares at druid character) - don't even think of putting this on your shapeshifting self - this allows a -1 for +10 damage when you have five natural attacks in your pounce and I really don't want to see you doing -1 for 16 damage when you do that flying octopus charge thing you do when I allowed swift fly into the game....bad enough with just normal power attack. 4. do you actually qualify? It requires more ranks in jump than you currently have. 5. do you think your character would be able to teach this to others? Do you think others could learn the technique by watching you? Is this something lots of people do where you come from or is this new? (as he frantically tries to retcon it into the world) 6. (if he's inventing the technique) You've only been leaping around for about a level now. Would you mind waiting till level 9 to take it, instead of picking it up at level 6 as you are single handedly inventing a new combat feat, I'd like it to reflect the same kind ingame of "research" time that a caster would have to do to learn a new spell or invent a new magic item. Alternately you can try to talk your party members into 6 months of downtime. The wizard might back you on that, and the cleric too if he takes that crafting feat at L6 like he's been muttering about. or possibly 7. Lets have this conversation again when you're actually level 6. (and then has somebody notice that this guy has almost discovered the Secret Tiger Nomad Leaping Technique and he isn't even Baklunish! He's not even Human! Add something to the current plotline involving those guys, or perhaps a scholar of them warning him of his danger or pointing them out as possible mentors...) (this feat was allowed for a while in Living Greyhawk, then banned when it was demonstrated in actual play that a level 9-12 character, depending on the build, could automatically kill just about any EL appropriate enemy, even if they had the wrong stuff for damage reduction and were using 5 attacks.....only certain builds could do it, so leap attack might work just fine in an individual campaign. In LG we're rather used to rules shifting on us and having to rebuild our characters as things are eiscovered to mix badly with the shared campaign. Most real campaigns have more flexiblity to work it in, but less to suddenly ban something that was previously allowed)
Tyraxus 06-30-07, 02:55 AM	(this feat was allowed for a while in Living Greyhawk, then banned when it was demonstrated in actual play that a level 9-12 character, depending on the build, could automatically kill just about any EL appropriate enemy, even if they had the wrong stuff for damage reduction and were using 5 attacks.....only certain builds could do it, so leap attack might work just fine in an individual campaign. In LG we're rather used to rules shifting on us and having to rebuild our characters as things are eiscovered to mix badly with the shared campaign. Most real campaigns have more flexiblity to work it in, but less to suddenly ban something that was previously allowed) You're kidding. Dammit, now I have a quandry. I'm building a Fighter/Barb for an upcoming evil campaign, and now I have to wonder about using Leap Attack with my Lion Totem pouncer. Quick check, is that too much if the DM's already said he's gonna be throwing BoED cheese at us? Anyway, back to the topic. TPK, that's the point I was getting at. I would have already been playing the character like that, and the feat would allow a mechanical aspect to the roleplaying (something that's always good, I think). solbergb: 1) Multiplication is fairly easy to check in D&D. We're not rules lawyers in my group, though, so when something looks unclear we look to see what it's supposed to do rather than what we can get away with. 2)Shock Trooper probably wouldn't fit with that concept anyway, but it's a massively risky prospect for anybody, as your AC after the charge is such that all it takes is a 2 to hit you. 3)It would only work on the first attack of the pounce anyway, wouldn't it? So who cares if the druid can get one extra multiplier on his first attack, it'd be like he got a crit is all. 4)In the example, we'd have been several months (8+) into the campaign. I dunno how fast your group levels, but we'd be at least 8-9 by that point. 5-6)What's so hard about it? I jump in the air and bring the weapon down, adding my own momentum to the strike. Anybody with an INT of 5 or better could figure it out if he tried. Especially somebody who's been trying to do it for the past 8-9 levels. 7)Yay! Plot hooks! (We don't get a lot of those aside from whatever storyline the DM is running; we can go do other things if we want, but we play for the story just as much as anything, so we're normally happy to oblige.) Putting aside for a moment that I used a potent combat feat as my example, what's wrong with seeing something in a new release that lets you do what you're trying to do even better and wanting to use it? Barring outrageous balance issues (which a player should be kept abreast of as they come up), what's wrong with letting him use it? The flavour's already there, because you're already letting him do whatever it is he's doing, he just wants something to back up his descriptions. EDIT: I really, really hope this is a typo: But just because it's in a WOTC published book doesn't mean the player gets it or it exists in the campaign. That's the DM's call. Everything you add to the world has ripple effects. If the DM thinks "cool, that gives me fun ideas" than it'll get added. If the DM thinks "that wouldn't mess anything up, it fits ok and it helps the character mechanics match the character idea" then it probably won't get added. If the DM thinks "if he's got it, how come others don't have it. If others have it, how come the world isn't different?" then it won't get added. If the DM thinks "that's the secret technique of the Dragon Warriors and nobody in the party yet has a way of knowing about them" then he'll say no now, but if the player really seems to want it, will likely have some future dragon warrior plots - if only because the character was maybe experimenting with a similar style, to simulate the player asking about it, and they are cracking down... Because I'd hate to think you'd look at something, see it wasn't a problem, recognize that it's helping fulfill a character concept... and then ban it anyway.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-30-07, 04:51 AM	It said this because,as soon someone plays something that is radicaly different from the enviroment this will happens even if the player isn't a spotlight stealing jerk You have evidence that board sweeping generalization, yes? Mind sharing it please? Or the GM can say "let me run the numbers on that". I will respond with these based on how my group works. We tend to optimize, well two give it a good try at any rate, the other are really good at it. 1. only with the clarification on the multiplication (multipliers add in D&D, it's weird but it stops some of the really nasty open ended stuff) Cool. I really have no problem with playing by the RAW. 2. if you get this in, shock trooper is incompatable with this feat. You won't try to put shock trooper on the char and I won't make bad guys that combine the feats. Fair enough? Can I ask why? You do realize that charging and shock trooper drop your AC to something so low I can't say it in good company. And its the same amount of damage either way, i just have a better chance of actually connecting. Of course I'm going to be blocking their next full attack with my face..... And feel free to have the NPCs combine the feats. Anything i can do they can do. Although i think if we're constantly running in clones of me things might get a little boring. 3. (glares at druid character) - don't even think of putting this on your shapeshifting self - this allows a -1 for +10 damage when you have five natural attacks in your pounce and I really don't want to see you doing -1 for 16 damage when you do that flying octopus charge thing you do when I allowed swift fly into the game....bad enough with just normal power attack. Druid, *Falls of chair laughing uncontrollably.* Good, one! oh wait you were serious? you think i would take feat with my druid? dude are you drunk, or do you think I am? I don't qualify for it at third, and i sure as **** aint gonna waste a feat on power attack. Ok at 6th I'm taking natural spell, cause well I'm not stupid. Then i was thinking I would go with faster wildshape at 9th, and extra wild shape at 12th. Becides If I really want to do the uber hurts, I'm going to combine Bite of the were boar with Rino then charge. I'll probably do more damage then the fighter anyways. Also I'm not sure what they other druid bribed you with, but Octipy can't breath on land, and you can't fly under water..... 4. do you actually qualify? It requires more ranks in jump than you currently have. No prob I have to wait untill 6th for my next feat anyways, so i'll just dump ranks into jump. Hey it'll represent my research. 5. do you think your character would be able to teach this to others? Do you think others could learn the technique by watching you? Is this something lots of people do where you come from or is this new? (as he frantically tries to retcon it into the world) What how to jump? Its a fairly simple concept, you bend your knees, and push off the ground...Yes most people were I'm from can jump. Kids play a game around it, it involves a rope.... Dude you aren't retconing this in are you? Why does every ability and its dog have to be copyrighted by the super secret clan of god only knows. Can't some things just be general knowledge? Your campaign worlds really are too narrow, lighten up a bit. 6. (if he's inventing the technique) You've only been leaping around for about a level now. Would you mind waiting till level 9 to take it, instead of picking it up at level 6 as you are single handedly inventing a new combat feat, I'd like it to reflect the same kind ingame of "research" time that a caster would have to do to learn a new spell or invent a new magic item. Alternately you can try to talk your party members into 6 months of downtime. The wizard might back you on that, and the cleric too if he takes that crafting feat at L6 like he's been muttering about. How much research does it take to jump up, and use my momentum to bury my ax in the opponent? This isn't rocket science. 7. Lets have this conversation again when you're actually level 6. (and then has somebody notice that this guy has almost discovered the Secret Tiger Nomad Leaping Technique and he isn't even Baklunish! He's not even Human! Add something to the current plotline involving those guys, or perhaps a scholar of them warning him of his danger or pointing them out as possible mentors...) If you need more time to think about it, thats cool, but i do need time to plan my progression, and i had improved critical planned for 9th. Why does this have to be the secret technique of the so and so in the desert? what are they only people in the world who thought of jumping, and bringing the hurts down? I mean really this is getting kinda silly. (this feat was allowed for a while in Living Greyhawk, then banned when it was demonstrated in actual play that a level 9-12 character, depending on the build, could automatically kill just about any EL appropriate enemy, even if they had the wrong stuff for damage reduction and were using 5 attacks.....only certain builds could do it, so leap attack might work just fine in an individual campaign. In LG we're rather used to rules shifting on us and having to rebuild our characters as things are eiscovered to mix badly with the shared campaign. Most real campaigns have more flexiblity to work it in, but less to suddenly ban something that was previously allowed) uhmmm ok, but what about the druid of 8th + level. Wildshaping into the Rino, and then charging. It has similar damage, and a better to hit. Or what about the 7th level wizard with phantasmal killer? Or the rogue/mage who is invisible using TWF and a spiked chain for lots of hurts. Or if against multiple opponents using scorching ray, to nail two guys for 7d6 fire. he is also looking a flat-footed touch AC. 10 for medium creatures. Or the bear warrior? Or a cleric using divine might, and smite? Or a paladin/fighter on a horse with a lance, and Rinohide armor? Living grey hawk is honestly sounding like a very rigid, and very weak setting. leap attack is an ok feat, situational at best, and the only reason to take it would be if you built your character around it. And even then your dealing a boat load of damage, only when you can charge. Realistically thats, what once, maybe twice during a combat. And anything with reach gets AoO on you, unless you beat it on initiative, Oh and the thing has to be on the ground, because flying, and charging for non-casters isn't easy. At least at lower levels, and at higher levels if the fighter actually gets to go its because the caster is having an off day.
Andorxor 06-30-07, 07:30 AM	DO you have ninjas in greece without special attention by the NPCs?Do they all think that he his perfectly normal?
Leo 06-30-07, 09:48 AM	Just as normal as drow society being full of chaotic good individuals rangers wanna be.
Caelic 06-30-07, 11:07 AM	How much research does it take to jump up, and use my momentum to bury my ax in the opponent? This isn't rocket science. Without getting you killed? Quite a lot. Generally, leaving your feet in the middle of a fight is a really bad idea. There's a reason you see dropkicks and flying kicks in pro wrestling and martial arts movies, and seldom in actual fights; they're flashy, but for the most part it's a lot more effective to keep you feet on the ground.
Archangel62 06-30-07, 11:38 AM	DO you have ninjas in greece without special attention by the NPCs?Do they all think that he his perfectly normal? Ninjas, of course not, they're beings blessed by the satyrs and other trickster fey to spread a bit more malign mischief. :D
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-30-07, 11:58 AM	DO you have ninjas in greece without special attention by the NPCs?Do they all think that he his perfectly normal? Well if someone went around calling themselves a "ninja" the NPCs may think him a little weird. Similarily if the wizard were to refer himself as a wu-jen people may think he'd been in the sun too long. However a sneaky assassiny type wouldn't garner any more, or less attention then a rogue with levels in the assassin PrC. Without getting you killed? Quite a lot. Generally, leaving your feet in the middle of a fight is a really bad idea. There's a reason you see dropkicks and flying kicks in pro wrestling and martial arts movies, and seldom in actual fights; they're flashy, but for the most part it's a lot more effective to keep you feet on the ground. I really don't want to get into this debate, but I figure teaching yourself to drop kick someone can't be harder then unlocking the secret that will allow you to turn a handfull of bat poo into a fireball. Since the wizard can do that in one level, I figure so too could a barbarian learn to drop ax someone.
Comus 06-30-07, 11:59 AM	DO you have ninjas in greece without special attention by the NPCs?Do they all think that he his perfectly normal? Counterpoint: If he was really a Ninja, no one would know he was a Ninja - they'd all think he was a street cleaner or a merchant, or whatever small cover job he decided to take. Second Counterpoint: The Ninja class is mechanically only very slightly different from the Rogue (different meaning weaker in this case). If the Rogue class is acceptable in the game, than the Ninja class can be used for the same character and you'd almost never know the difference. Third Counterpoint: If the problem is the flavor of the Ninja class, then remember that a Rogue can say he dresses in all black with only his eyes uncovered, too. He can even put ranks in preform and wail on guitar (something Ninjas are wont to do). As we've all said before, flavor can be changed and should be altered to better fit the game's setting.
Caelic 06-30-07, 01:07 PM	As a total tangent, for a very interesting depiction of Ninjas in Greece...along with gunpowder weapons and assorted other anachronisms...I highly recommend S.M. Stirling's "Island in the Sea of Time" series.
Cold Napalm 06-30-07, 07:50 PM	ColdNapalm: A big problem comes up, though, when something comes out when you're in the middle of a campaign. I mean, some campaigns last years, and is it really that inconceivable that a supplement would come out during the course of those years which contained something that fit a character's concept really well? Ex: Suppose you're playing a game that started during July '04. You're like me, and prefer big, beefy fighter-types with a great big ole axe. Your concept, as explained to the DM in 7-04 is a barbarian with an all-out fighting style, anything for the big hit. Several times during the course of combat over several months, you describe your maneuvers in combat as jumping around, trying to add more power to your attack by bringing that great big ole axe down harder, especially during charges. You flavour your crits and power attacks with the greataxe as solid hits when you're jumping, but you wish there was more you could do to amplify this fighting style. Then, in early '05, the rogue's player buys Complete Adventurer and brings it because he wants to use some of the neat new stuff in it for rogues, and while thumbing through it, you see Leap Attack. Here's what you've been looking for: a way to show, mechanically, what you've been trying to have your character do all along. Sure, it only works on charges, but it's something! The pre-game discussion had nothing to say about Complete Adventurer or Leap Attack. And this discussion is really relevant to what would happen next, when you ask your DM if you can take the feat. Well this game has already started. In this case a DM going how about we talk about for next game isn't quite unreasonable is it? Also as a new book, the DM is quite unfamiliar with the rules anyways so giving him time to familiaize himself isn't also quite unreasonable is it? I don't thinke that TPK is saying the DM has to give into a player going I want it NOOOOOOW...and I know I certainly am not. I mean honestly it's not even about allowing books. I like splat books as a player and even more as a DM, but I have run core only games because that is what the players wanted. I have run games with books I love (likeToB) banned because that is what the players wanted. And they once in a while play with game rules I like of lets play with EVERYTHING.
Xavon 06-30-07, 09:41 PM	There's been a lot said on the subject but my 2 cents. If you want a DM to run the game exactly like you want, using all the books, you should start looking for, and paying for a professional DM. The DM is spending as much money and more time then any PC setting all this up, and if she chooses to disallow a book because of flavor, or simply because she doesn't own the book and doesn't know the rules, that is fine. Standing rule in my game, if you want me to use a book I don't have, buy me a copy. When I put it that way, everyone was understanding, and no-one has taken me up on it...
Cold Napalm 06-30-07, 09:45 PM	There's been a lot said on the subject but my 2 cents. If you want a DM to run the game exactly like you want, using all the books, you should start looking for, and paying for a professional DM. The DM is spending as much money and more time then any PC setting all this up, and if she chooses to disallow a book because of flavor, or simply because she doesn't own the book and doesn't know the rules, that is fine. Standing rule in my game, if you want me to use a book I don't have, buy me a copy. When I put it that way, everyone was understanding, and no-one has taken me up on it... This has repeatedly been said to be a reasonable reason to not allow something. Since it is hard to learn a ruleset you can only see for a few hours at game time, owning a book or at least having it live at your place seems pretty reasonable too.
Vaelan 07-01-07, 03:51 AM	I find the restriction that you have to have the book odd. You know what I do when a player wants to play something that I haven't read yet? I have them describe it to me, including anything they think I will need to know in order to run a game with such a mechanic in play. My players are smart enough to realize what might actually be an issue and they're trustworthy enough not to cheat, so I don't need to see the book at all. Are your players stupid or cheats? :)
Cold Napalm 07-01-07, 04:32 AM	I find the restriction that you have to have the book odd. You know what I do when a player wants to play something that I haven't read yet? I have them describe it to me, including anything they think I will need to know in order to run a game with such a mechanic in play. My players are smart enough to realize what might actually be an issue and they're trustworthy enough not to cheat, so I don't need to see the book at all. Are your players stupid or cheats? :) Shurg. I know players where this can work and other where it can't. Some people are rules lawyers and can tell you everything and some can't. Most my players can't. Oh and if it's for my powergaming group...oh hell no is a book getting in without it living at my house. Not that they cheat mind you, but when the wording of a feat of is or and becomes important, I just can't take a person's word for it. Most of us 99.9%+ just don't have editic memory after all.
Dontgothere 07-01-07, 09:41 AM	I mean really is it that you think by saying "banning is bad" that all GMs and Players in the world will fall in line with your opinion and run their games according to your wishes? Or is it that you are here trying to rally people to your cause because a GM you played under banned a book and you are mad about it, so then you come here to gain support? What's the purpose? :confused:
Caelic 07-01-07, 01:47 PM	I find the restriction that you have to have the book odd. You know what I do when a player wants to play something that I haven't read yet? I have them describe it to me, including anything they think I will need to know in order to run a game with such a mechanic in play. My players are smart enough to realize what might actually be an issue and they're trustworthy enough not to cheat, so I don't need to see the book at all. Are your players stupid or cheats? :) Wow. I'm not sure I'd want to play with a DM who describes anyone who can't perfectly memorize blocks of rules text as "stupid." Mistakes happen. Misreadings happen. I own most of the hardcover books for 3.5 and can accurately recollect what's in them and where it is most of the time. I sometimes misremember the exact details of a rule, though, and need to look it up. And (I know this is going to sound arrogant, but it's also true) I am way, way, way up the curve as far as rules geekery goes. I read fast and accurately; I have an excellent memory for what I've read; I devote way more time to committing rules to memory than most sane people would. I sometimes make mistakes if I don't have the reference in front of me. Why would I hold my players to a higher standard? It's entirely possible that a player might perfectly innocently overlook a crucial detail, or read a badly-written and ambiguous rule and subconsciously translate it to what he thinks it means, then give me the paraphrased version. Yes, even players who aren't "stupid" can do this. Take Warshaper. How long has Complete Warrior been out now? How frequently do players who still don't realize that the Warshaper's benefits only apply while in another form crop up? Those players aren't "stupid"; they're just used to seeing such restrictions in the text of the individual ability...not tucked away up at the top in an easy-to-overlook spot. So, yes, I like to have the books on-hand and not rely on second-hand recollections of rules. No, that doesn't mean I don't trust my players or that I consider them stupid. It just means that I know mistakes can happen.
JohnOSpencer 07-01-07, 01:55 PM	The DM is spending as much money and more time then any PC setting all this up, and if she chooses to disallow a book because of flavor, or simply because she doesn't own the book and doesn't know the rules, that is fine. Standing rule in my game, if you want me to use a book I don't have, buy me a copy. When I put it that way, everyone was understanding, and no-one has taken me up on it... I have the same rule. Last night a player was willing to just give me his copy of Tome of Battle so he could play a Swordsage if his Dragon Shaman died. I won't allow anything major into my game if I don't own the book. Tome of Battle is the best example of this. I've glanced through it, I think I understand everything, but I'd need to own it to make sure it fits in the campaign and to give the bad guys the same options. I see where TPK is coming from and mostly agree with him, but if a DM says 'No' you should just suck it up and drive on until you can talk to him alone or after the session to see why. The players have to trust the DM has a good reason for allowing something, just as the DM has to trust the players have a good reason for wanting to play something. Just my :twocents:
UltimateReality 07-01-07, 04:07 PM	Dude, don't take this the wrong way but...did you read the OP? I mean really is it that you think by saying "banning is bad" that all GMs and Players in the world will fall in line with your opinion and run their games according to your wishes?No. He was replying to the number of threads we get on the WaDMTD and WaPTD boards on a daily basis about this issue. Or is it that you are here trying to rally people to your cause because a GM you played under banned a book and you are mad about it, so then you come here to gain support?ROFL. TPK is solely a DM. He does the banning of books in games. Geez. Why is the idea of a DM who says we should be rational about what we ban so hard to accept? The only people who are allowed to say DMs ought to make sense with their bannings are "whiny players" who've had things denied to them and...what, seek vindication from a freaking message board? Really. Come on now. What's the purpose? :confused:To posit the idea that DMs, when banning things, should explain to their players why. And those reasons should extend a bit beyond "I personally just don't like it".
solbergb 07-01-07, 10:51 PM	[sblock="Off topic for a sec"] EDIT: I really, really hope this is a typo: Because I'd hate to think you'd look at something, see it wasn't a problem, recognize that it's helping fulfill a character concept... and then ban it anyway. Yeah, it was a typo. It would go on the list of allowed feats if it fit that criteria and mechanically fit the character concept better than existing alternatives. Regarding "what's so hard about leap attack". There isn't anything hard about combining jumping with charging, the core movement rules let you do just that. What is hard is doing +3 damage per -1 to hit with a 2-handed weapon or +2 damage per -1 to hit with unarmed strike, nat weapon or one-handed weapon as a result of leaping. Regarding "but it only applies on the first attack"....why would it? The one attack restriction on charging is overridden by any pounce-type ability. You get it on every attack. Which is why leap attack gets markedly worse if you have lots of natural weapons that you can somehow pounce with (eg, a cat) or if you have a lot of manufactured weapon attacks. Without shock trooper it isn't as bad. You mention the downside of shocktrooper, but that downside isn't really there if you can reliably kill nearly anything you can charge. If it is dead, it really doesn't matter how low your armor class is now. Most such builds can easily survive any single-attacks from other allies running over to help, even if theyr'e on power attack full.
Dontgothere 07-01-07, 10:59 PM	To posit the idea that DMs, when banning things, should explain to their players why. And those reasons should extend a bit beyond "I personally just don't like it". 1. You just made my point. He's "seeking to influence" others. 2. It is his belief that "banning = evil" thus no matter how he words it, it remains an opinion and not a fact.
Vaelan 07-01-07, 11:17 PM	Wow. I'm not sure I'd want to play with a DM who describes anyone who can't perfectly memorize blocks of rules text as "stupid." That is a rather liberal interpretation of what I said. And by liberal, of course, I mean wrong! I never addressed the matter of someone knowing the rules. I was speaking of the capacity to understand what consequences a particular mechanic might have upon common situations. Also, I used the term stupid because it is much, much faster than "lacking in the cognitive capacities required to understand what issues may arise from a DM's perspective as a result of the mechanic". I assumed that people would read the entire post rather than just one word. Silly me. So, yes, I like to have the books on-hand and not rely on second-hand recollections of rules. No, that doesn't mean I don't trust my players or that I consider them stupid. Once again, you are mistaken as to the actual content of my post. I didn't say the rules shouldn't be on hand, though I would trust my players to know whether or not they need the rules on hand, I was responding to the claims that the DM has to own the book and know the rules better than the players or else it isn't allowed.
solbergb 07-01-07, 11:22 PM	kinda silly. uhmmm ok, but what about the druid of 8th + level. Wildshaping into the Rino, and then charging. It has similar damage, and a better to hit. Or what about the 7th level wizard with phantasmal killer? Or the rogue/mage who is invisible using TWF and a spiked chain for lots of hurts. Or if against multiple opponents using scorching ray, to nail two guys for 7d6 fire. he is also looking a flat-footed touch AC. 10 for medium creatures. Or the bear warrior? Or a cleric using divine might, and smite? Or a paladin/fighter on a horse with a lance, and Rinohide armor? None of these even come close to the damage a character optomized for leap attack+pounce+shock trooper can do. I think the wildrunner build couldn't do it until level 12, but the druid build (there were several, all druid8/something else1 sometimes with nature warrior mixed in) was able to charge in almost any circumstances (it had suffiicent balance to go up slopes, swift fly, air-walk, free movement, blindsight, maxed stealth and alertness skills and of course woodland stride) and without the companion considered, the character could do something like this for a charge attack by level 10 +22/22 d6+28 +22/22 d6+22 +17 d6+22 +17 d8+22 and improved grab grapple modifier +25, just for the heck of it That's a potential for about 166 damage, or 106 vs DR10 before considering the effect of any outside boost to damage, including the companion, or short duration buffs like fires of purity (that's another 60 damage). This damage scales with level even faster than the enemy hit dice do. By level 15 you're routinely doing 250 or 300 points of damage in a charge, and it's distributed over multiple attacks so a little bad luck won't hose you. I believe, but have only hearsay so I'm not sure, that a build much along these lines was used shortly after it was allowed in a major convention and demonstrated the problems - it was banned shortly after. As a comparison, a level 10 druid without the same feat set but with same buffs and equipment doing a rhino charge would do +20 4d6+40 damage, or about 56 damage A level 10 paladin with spirited charge and rhino hide armor, divine sacrifice and a +1 holy lance, +4 belt and 18 base strength would do to an evil enemy: +19 3d8+21+2d6+5d6+2d6 or about 66 damage. Have him smite with 18 charisma and he does +23 to hit, 96 damage - still less than the optomized leap attack build even vs DR10/evil. If he power attacks, he'll do more, but his hit mod isn't any higher than the pounce/leap build so he can't do much more without lowering his odds of hitting. As for Phantasmal Killer? Please. Four words. "Will and fort save". Also doesn't work on anything immune to fear or mind-affecting, which is just about any PC-type enemy after hero feast enters the game and all undead, constructs, etc. Lets take a better comparison. At 10th level, you can do a sudden empowered, sudden maximized orb of force and a quickened magic missile. 95 points of damage and two 1/day feats and 2 of your 7 top tier spell slots. Still inferior to the pounce/leap/shock trooper build even with DR/10. Take away leap attack and the identical pounce build only does 124 damage, 64 vs DR/10 evil -a lot but much more likely to leave a CR10-13 creature alive at the end of the charge. A lot of what leap attack does is remove much of the impact of damage reduction for multiple-attack charge/pounce builds. Instead of losing half its damage, it's losing only about 1/3 of its damage, and more importantly, it's still doing enough to kill outright many of the typical DR/10 targets you might hit at that level. It's certainly doing enough that even if the bad guy survives, the odds that some other party member will finish it before it counterattacks are much higher. Shock trooper is only balanced if it is realistic that the enemy can counter attack. Leave in leap attack and take away shock trooper, and the identical pounce build with same attack mods only does 82 damage before power attack - still more than the paladin, but not if you're down to 5 attacks, and we'll assume one of those +17 attacks misses. The problem with the scaling now is that the paladin subtracts -1 to get +2 damage. The leap-attacking pounce build subracts -1 and gets +10 damage (again assuming one of the 6 attacks misses. Without leap attack it's only -1 to get +5, bad, but the Paladin has an easier time with DR and doesn't leave himself next to the enemy after a spirited rideby. So yeah....leap attack on a single-hit-per-charge character isn't broken. It's not THAT bad on even a multiple attack build if you don't have shock trooper stacked with it, since you can't power attack very much in typical play without risking missing altogether and losing more damage by missed attacks than you gain by power attacking for more.
Caelic 07-02-07, 12:29 AM	I never addressed the matter of someone knowing the rules. I was speaking of the capacity to understand what consequences a particular mechanic might have upon common situations. Most people, I think, would characterize "knowing the consequences of a particular mechanic in common situations" as "knowing the rules." Also, I used the term stupid because it is much, much faster than "lacking in the cognitive capacities required to understand what issues may arise from a DM's perspective as a result of the mechanic". I assumed that people would read the entire post rather than just one word. Silly me. Well, yes, it was silly; the former has all sorts of negative connotations that the later lacks. Both are silly and inappropriate, of course, since a player could very easily fail to understand a DM's perspective without being silly or lacking in cognitive capacities. Once again, you are mistaken as to the actual content of my post. I didn't say the rules shouldn't be on hand, No. You said: ...so I don't need to see the book at all. I guess you could have meant "The rules should be on hand; I just don't need to actually look at them." I doubt it, though. I was responding to the claims that the DM has to own the book and know the rules better than the players or else it isn't allowed. Oddly, I don't recall anyone making the claim that "The DM needs to know the rules better than the players." I recall a couple of people saying that the DM needs to know the rules, and that they wouldn't feel comfortable allowing a book if they didn't have it available; your post certainly implies that you disagree with that position, and are willing to allow books you've never seen. Perhaps that wasn't what you meant to imply; I'd recommend choosing your words with more care, if so.
UltimateReality 07-02-07, 01:07 AM	I love how you use the word "rational" when it comes to attempting to back-up an argument you have.Should I have an irrational reason to disallow books from my campaign then? :confused: If you're a GM that does not ban books what is the purpose of coming here to the boards and telling others that "banning books is bad, etc, etc." other than to bring others around to your way of thinking.Damn. You discovered our secret agenda. Well, know you this then...we shall not stop until EVERYONE plays D&D our way, their own preferences be damned! On a serious note, maybe some of us just don't get the reason our fellow DMs "need" this super secret, all powerful ability to say "no" to other people's fun and not, you know, provide some form of reason as to why. I have never had a DM ban a book on me without giving me a reason why. (Some of them I felt were bad reasons, but they were still reasons.) There's one person who gets to make me follow rules without adequately explaining them to me. That person is my supervisor. It's a recruitment move that has failed miserably time and time again. Just like the tons of anti-GM threads that you are making.LOL. I'm not recruiting anyone. And they're not anti-GM. Hell, I love my GM so much I married him. I'm trying to gather ideas for myself, because I would like to try a more DM-full/collaborative style. And if you don't like it...well, you better watch out, cuz I'll find out where you live, hold a gun to your head, and make you play my way or else! :P Seriously dude, you don't like the playstyle or the opinion? Cool. You're not in my game, and I'm not in yours. And unless you give me pics proving otherwise, I'm operating on the assumption that someone isn't in your house wielding a baseball bat and forcing you to read these threads and reply to them... 1. You just made my point. He's "seeking to influence" others.Yes, stating your opinion in a public place is always bad... ;) Why is it a bad thing to state your belief that GMs shouldn't hang onto every last shred of mystical "authority" like some power-hungry dictator, an instead, treat the people they game with with a bit of common decency and human respect? Why is it a bad thing to want a more egalitarian relationship between the GM and the players? 2. It is his belief that "banning = evil" thus no matter how he words it, it remains an opinion and not a fact.Dude, you scared my cat there with the ROFL. This is utterly and patently false. TPK has banned things NUMEROUS TIMES when I (and other gamers) have asked for them. And he's had a good reason each time. And of course he's expressing an opinion. :rolleyes: Is that supposed to somehow diminish the argument? It's very simple: people get along better when they treat each other decently, regardless of the setting or occasion. It goes whether you're dealing with the grocery clerk, your tech support, your family, your boss, your friends, or your girlfriend. It also extends to D&D. Thus, most people will enjoy the game more if they behave decently to each other. For D&D players, this includes such niceties as respecting the DM's houserules, not hitting on his wife, not leaving your garbage on the host's floor, and yielding the spotlight to others. For GMs, this includes making fair and consistent rulings, not intentionally trying to TPK your party, and being able to provide some sort of logical reason for disallowing material.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-02-07, 02:39 AM	Leap attack: Leap attack requires 8 ranks in jump. Jump is not on the druids list of class skills. Thus the earliest a straight druid can take leap attack is 15th level. Now you do mention a druid 8 something else 1 However shocker trooper requires base attack +6, and to wildshape into a large cat, or anything else, requirse a druid of at least 8th level. So we could take something at first level with jump as a class skill, and pour the ranks into that, but then we only qualify for leap attack at 9th level. However we will not have base attack +6 until 7th level (assuming that the class we took at 1st has base attack +1, and we are using fractional base attack progression.) thus no shock trooper until 12th. The reason why your Leap attack + pounce + shocker trooper seems so broken, is because it is does not in fact meet the preqs by 9th. Now in order to do it by 12th we would have to give up either augmented summoning, or natural spell. The druid with both will be considerable better because it can A) summon monsters with +4 to strength, and con, and B) summon said monsters while wild shaped. Further the monster may do less damage, but are more versatile. And most importantly when the big nasty full attacks them they take the damage and not you. Also you can use augmented summoning, and natural spell on every round of combat, instead of just the one you charge. That is to say once you are in melee with your opponent you can't leap attack them any more. You can however continue to swamp them with summons untill the fight is over. Now for the actual numbers you posted: A tiger has a strength score of 23. Assuming a buff (generally a + 4) That is a 27 for +8 modifier. At 12th level our base attack is +9, or 10 depending on class level make up. So the most we can power attack for is 9, or 10. Thanks to leap attack that will add +18, or +20 to our fist attack only. The following attacks do not count because the feat does not say say that they count. (The rule of thumb is that feats will only do what they say they do, and not what they don't. It is easier to list what a feat does, and have it assumed that it does that, and not do anything else, than it is to explicitly list everything the feat does not do.) So with shock trooper our first attack looks something like this: claw +20 and does d6 +28, our following attacks are claw + 20 d6 +8, Bite +15 d6 + 4, and if we win the grapple 2 rakes at + d6 +8. Not bad for 12th level. Me I'd personally rather summon in the megaraptor, or huge elemental. Also at 12th level the wizard has disintegrate, and the cleric has all sorts of nastiness. And as for phantasmal killer being a bad spell... No attack needed, and if they fail that will save they die, end of story. Or how about cone of cold for 12d6 points of damage? No, hold person? immune to mind effecting, you say? What about the above mentioned disintegrate? Or chian lightning? Enervation is only a 4th level spell. D4 negative levels = bad day were I'm from. At 5th level they have baleful polymorph, and hold monster. As for undead their is command undead. Monster have hold monster, or charm monster, and poeple are screwed with hold person, charm, suggestion, and dominate. And that isn't even touching on what a cleric can do. As for the paladin with rhino hide armor, and a lance. Power attack for 12 + smite for + strength of lots, + divine sacrifice = lots of hurts X 2.
solbergb 07-02-07, 10:08 AM	All of the leap attack builds that use 8 levels of druid to get the dire lion form have a level of barbarian, scout or fighter. Which have jump as class skills. There's one build that gets leap attack as early as level 7, but without shock trooper and using only leapard form it's only of much use vs low AC targets. The builds that do damage as described above are legal. They just achieve the attack mods and damage in slightly different ways. Leap attack builds aren't druids who focus on casting. They're pure light infantry in the same way a bear warrior is, except that they aren't hampered by terrain, battlefield control spells or flight and they have massive hide, move silent, spot and listen checks. They don't care about augment summoning, they don't care even much about natural spell (the buffs they rely on are long term, under current wildshape eratta they buff, then change form and equip themselves. They usually don't have many slots above level 2 left by the time they get done buffing, but they're good for 80 minutes at that performance level, and all of the offensive stuff is good for 8 hours or is up 24x7). They're one-trick ponies in that damage level, but it's actually quite hard to keep them from surprising and killing one opponent before the fight even begins, sometimes two. They also fight moderately well when not charging, about as well as most other BDF's of that level because they get 3-4 attacks with a huge strength modifier. And of course the companion, which I left out of my calculations.
solbergb 07-02-07, 10:27 AM	For D&D players, this includes such niceties as respecting the DM's houserules, not hitting on his wife, not leaving your garbage on the host's floor, and yielding the spotlight to others. For GMs, this includes making fair and consistent rulings, not intentionally trying to TPK your party, and being able to provide some sort of logical reason for disallowing material. And the logical reason can be "I always have a logical reason. You stated your case and I'm saying no". It takes time to build that trust. You will have to explain yourself for a while to people who don't know you. If you really do always have a logical reason eventually you won't always have to explain it, and more things are possible. You shouldn't have to say every single time, year after year, whether it is because you don't have the bandwidth to judge the impact on the campaign, because you saw 6 different ways this particualr thing made builds similar to how the player's build is designed broke balance, because it's already in the game but the PC has not discovered it but will soon, because it violates flavor or whatever. It just gets old after playing with your friends for years to always have to explain every little thing, and if it does touch on the campaign or story much like a joke explained, sometimes it takes the fun out of it for all involved, and any feeling of accomplishment. Maybe the difference in our points of view is how many times this sort of thing has come up. After the first decade or so, the people I play with tend to trust their GM's. It may also be that for most of the 3 decades I've been gaming, the game systems were either toolkits or free-form rather than "lists of values" like D&D is. "Forbidden feats" or "forbidden books" is a meaningless concept in most games. More commonly it is a whole character concept that is rejected, or in the case of toolkit games, it is almost never an individual "tool" that is rejected, just combinations of existing tools. It's more similar to how most campaigns have tacit agreements not to use things like a cave full of explosive runes and a caster level 5 dispel magic trap.
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 10:28 AM	If one of my friends bought me anything, I'd appropriate the gift, and not be a pretentious ass about it. My FRIENDS know me well neough to NOT get me D&D books, whether from WoTC or TSR of Hasbro or whoever is producing them today. I have the 3 core books and that is ALL I want. Also what if you happen to come across a DM who is running Ebberron. they didn't design the setting, and the complete certainly does fit within Ebberron. Would also be unreasonable for the player to request Player's guide to Ebberron, or Magic of Ebberron, in an Ebberron game? And if a DM is going to disallow those books, is too much to ask why? I won't PLAY in Everrubbish, so the question is moot. Really - Magic Railroads and Airships? If I want Victorian Era I'll play Space 1889. NOT Everrubbish.
Hugin 07-02-07, 10:59 AM	It takes time to build that trust. You will have to explain yourself for a while to people who don't know you. If you really do always have a logical reason eventually you won't always have to explain it, and more things are possible. Have to explain myself? Hardly. I think it is courtesy to do so but nothing demands I present a case to a jury. When I begin a campaign I state up front what the setting will be and basic theme or feel it will have. I state what rules will be allowed and what ones aren't (generally core only). After that the players are invited to participate. If that is unacceptable to them, they are free to run their own campaign however they feel, with no hard feelings whatsoever. Personally, I've had players that were only too happy to join the game.
Dontgothere 07-02-07, 12:02 PM	Should I have an irrational reason to disallow books from my campaign then? :confused: ... Damn. You discovered our secret agenda. Well, know you this then...we shall not stop until EVERYONE plays D&D our way, their own preferences be damned! At least you're admitting it whether sarcastically or not. On a serious note, maybe some of us just don't get the reason our fellow DMs "need" this super secret, all powerful ability to say "no" to other people's fun and not, you know, provide some form of reason as to why. I have never had a DM ban a book on me without giving me a reason why. (Some of them I felt were bad reasons, but they were still reasons.) There's one person who gets to make me follow rules without adequately explaining them to me. That person is my supervisor. You seem to view "gaming" as some kind of power struggle between the GM and Players as opposed to "gaming." LOL. I'm not recruiting anyone. And they're not anti-GM. Hell, I love my GM so much I married him. I'm trying to gather ideas for myself, because I would like to try a more DM-full/collaborative style. And if you don't like it...well, you better watch out, cuz I'll find out where you live, hold a gun to your head, and make you play my way or else! :P No you're not. You are advocating your way of playing as being the "right way to play" even though the disallowing of books is an established PART OF THE GAME. You labelled those who do not "do things the way you want" as being dictators and showing no respect for human beings. I'm just waiting for you to start arguing about how you are oppressed in "the GM patriarchy." In all reality it is players such as yourself that are seeking total power over the game, not the GM. That much is evident in the way you berate another person's style of gaming and the GMs right to disallow books. Seriously dude, you don't like the playstyle or the opinion? Cool. You're not in my game, and I'm not in yours. And unless you give me pics proving otherwise, I'm operating on the assumption that someone isn't in your house wielding a baseball bat and forcing you to read these threads and reply to them... Calm down you are starting to make yourself look overly emotional. Yes, stating your opinion in a public place is always bad... ;) Why is it a bad thing to state your belief that GMs shouldn't hang onto every last shred of mystical "authority" like some power-hungry dictator, an instead, treat the people they game with with a bit of common decency and human respect? Since when does not allowing a book in a "D&D Game" equate to "acting like a power-hungry dictator" or "hanging onto every last shred of mystical authority" or any of the other far-fetched notions you keep bringing up? You seem intent on painting GMs that don't do what YOU want them to do as evil dictators who are here to wrest power away from all living beings. I say you're the dictator not them. Disallowing books is part of the game. You're the one making it into a global power struggle for total rule of the world of D&D. Grand enough for you? Why is it a bad thing to want a more egalitarian relationship between the GM and the players? Who says it is not already present? You and a handful of people here on the WotC boards that treat the game like a political battle? I am waiting for you to start bringing up the mythical "wage gap" between male and female D&D characters as your next point of being a VICTIM of the big bad GM. You're on the roll already why not keep it up? Dude, you scared my cat there with the ROFL. This is utterly and patently false. TPK has banned things NUMEROUS TIMES when I (and other gamers) have asked for them. And he's had a good reason each time. What the heck do "cats" have to do with the conversation? You ok? And of course he's expressing an opinion. :rolleyes: Is that supposed to somehow diminish the argument? It's very simple: people get along better when they treat each other decently, regardless of the setting or occasion. It goes whether you're dealing with the grocery clerk, your tech support, your family, your boss, your friends, or your girlfriend. It also extends to D&D. Thus, most people will enjoy the game more if they behave decently to each other. For D&D players, this includes such niceties as respecting the DM's houserules, not hitting on his wife, not leaving your garbage on the host's floor, and yielding the spotlight to others. For GMs, this includes making fair and consistent rulings, not intentionally trying to TPK your party, and being able to provide some sort of logical reason for disallowing material. You are of course assuming that EVERYONE takes this book banning crap as seriously as you do. Coming online raving against GMs, trying to convince everyone the way they play the game is wrong and that not allowing every books makes them "dictators." Either way you are getting off topic--while seeming to have an attitude maam--and to tell the truth I grow tired of going back and forth with what sounds like an political extremist. I'll add this username to my list, that solves the problem. Enjoy your cat and hopefully in the future you will fool GMs into giving you complete control over the D&D games by calling them names as you have done here.
Vaelan 07-02-07, 12:37 PM	Most people, I think, would characterize "knowing the consequences of a particular mechanic in common situations" as "knowing the rules." Knowing makes people think that some degree of consistency is required. All I require is that they take a moment to contemplate the consequences and communicate any to me that would be significant. Once. It is a lot easier than it seems. Both are silly and inappropriate, of course, since a player could very easily fail to understand a DM's perspective without being silly or lacking in cognitive capacities. I'm really not asking for a whole lot besides a summary and some really basic conclusions drawn from it. I guess you could have meant "The rules should be on hand; I just don't need to actually look at them." I doubt it, though. I wouldn't require the rules to be on hand either. I would leave that up to the person using the rules. Oddly, I don't recall anyone making the claim that "The DM needs to know the rules better than the players." It is a common, related statement I decided to include. I recall a couple of people saying that the DM needs to know the rules, and that they wouldn't feel comfortable allowing a book if they didn't have it available; your post certainly implies that you disagree with that position, and are willing to allow books you've never seen. Perhaps that wasn't what you meant to imply; I'd recommend choosing your words with more care, if so. That is exactly what I meant to say. I'm a little more hands-off than many DMs and I think that many people could benefit from considering it for themselves.
solbergb 07-02-07, 12:44 PM	Have to explain myself? Hardly. I think it is courtesy to do so but nothing demands I present a case to a jury. I typically do it with a new player a few times to establish that no matter how weird or arbitrary something seems on the surface, there is always a reason behind it. Then, the trust usually starts and I don't have to hassle with that anymore.
amethal 07-02-07, 06:46 PM	My FRIENDS know me well neough to NOT get me D&D books, whether from WoTC or TSR of Hasbro or whoever is producing them today. I have the 3 core books and that is ALL I want.So I can play a beguiler if I buy you Tome of Magic, but if I buy you Tome of Magic it will be taken as an insult, I'm henceforth no friend of yours and it'd be best if I left the group. How about if I want to use something from Dragon 325, and I give you one of the two complementary copies I received from Paizo for being published in the magazine? (I wasn't, and I didn't, but this is the internet so I can pretend what I like :) )
WizO_Cat 07-02-07, 10:56 PM	Let's keep te references to real life political organizations off of the boards. Thanks.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-03-07, 12:22 AM	All of the leap attack builds that use 8 levels of druid to get the dire lion form have a level of barbarian, scout or fighter. Which have jump as class skills. There's one build that gets leap attack as early as level 7, but without shock trooper and using only leapard form it's only of much use vs low AC targets. Could you give me the level progression then please? The only way i can see it is if you take your 6th level as barbarian , but then at that level you'd to dump all of your skill ranks into jump. But that is at best quazy legal, because you technically do not have the ranks until you are done leveling. Either way you don't have natural spell. This means that you can not wild shape then buff yourself. So At best they will have to take one round/buff + another round to wild shape. So with even one buff thats 2 rounds. Please tell me that the baddies aren't just sitting there waiting to be charged. So lets look at the spells you mentioned: swift fly. This spell has a duration of 1 round. So they can cast swift fly, then wild shape, and move? Then their back on the ground... If they are already wild shaped then then they have to dismiss their wild shape, and then cast it, and then move...no charging though, as wild shaping is a standard action, with out fast wildshape. Airwalk This one has a duration of 10min/level. and is a 4th level spell. So if it cast extended, through a rod of extend spell (expensive at 11,000gp) it will only last 160min, or just shy of 3 hours. So to get them through the entire day they would need to cast it 4 times! (note that the rod only covers 3 times, and with out that they need to cast it 8 times. At 8th caster level a druid has 2 4th level spells, 3 with a wisdom of 18. In order for them to gain the forth slot they would need a wisdom score of 26. (Not happening at 8th level.) So at worst they can use air walk for half the day. Also air walk does not say that you can run while under its effect, thus no charging with air walk either. No charging no leap attack. Freedom of movement: Is the same level, and duration as airwalk, see above. [blindsight]: It is a lower level spell, 3rd, but only lasts a minute/level. Which means that even extend spell won't save it. You pretty much have to cast this when you need it, which for our leap attacking druid means before wildshaping, and before charging. Maxed out stealth, and alertness skills. Hmm a druid only gets four skill points/level, and assuming a human, that is a max of four, unless you waste even more points in your int. So thats what Jump, hide, spot, and either move silently, or listen? And what about things like survival, and knowledge nature? The builds that do damage as described above are legal. They're questionable at best. But ok lets continue on. They just achieve the attack mods and damage in slightly different ways. Leap attack builds aren't druids who focus on casting. They're pure light infantry in the same way a bear warrior is, except that they aren't hampered by terrain, battlefield control spells or flight and they have massive hide, move silent, spot and listen checks. They don't care about augment summoning, they don't care even much about natural spell (the buffs they rely on are long term, under current wildshape eratta they buff, then change form and equip themselves. They usually don't have many slots above level 2 left by the time they get done buffing, but they're good for 80 minutes at that performance level, and all of the offensive stuff is good for 8 hours or is up 24x7). They're one-trick ponies in that damage level, but it's actually quite hard to keep them from surprising and killing one opponent before the fight even begins, sometimes two. They also fight moderately well when not charging, about as well as most other BDF's of that level because they get 3-4 attacks with a huge strength modifier. And of course the companion, which I left out of my calculations. Ok lets look at what that druid with augmented summoning is doing: Surprise round; Uses summon nature's alley 4 to call in a tiger. Round one: Tiger appears and charges, and uses pounce to full attack. (5 attacks, 2 claws average 10.5, and a bite average 11, and two rakes average 6.5 each for a total average damage of 35.) Druid begins summon nature's alley 4 again. Round 2: Second tiger arrives, and full attacks. Tiger 1 attacks. (10 attacks. for an average damage of 70) Druid casts final summon nature's alley 4. Round 3: Tiger 3 arrives, and attacks, as do tigers 1 and 2. (15 attacks. for an average damage of 105) Druid begins casting summon nature's alley 3. Round 4, d3 hipogriffs arrive, and attack (for an average of 19.5/hipogrif). Tigers 1-3 attack (18-24 attacks for an average of 124.5 - 163.5) So at the end of round 4 the druid has done on average 324-373 points of damage. Even if half of those attacks miss thats still 60-80points of damage on round 4, and a cumulative amount of 160-185. Compared to leap attack dude: Surprise round, buff. Round one wild shape. round two charge for first claw average of 24.5, and second 17.5, bite 18 and two rakes at 14.5 each (total 87) Round three: Assuming the druid continues to power attack for the full 7; the average damage looks like so: 2 claws at 17.5 each, a bit at 18, and two rakes at 14.5 each for 80points on average. Round four: See round 3. Total average cumulative damage at the end of 4 rounds: 240 Conclusion: If all attacks hit, then the summoner is out damaging the charger by 84-133 points of damage. Misses hurt the charger more then the summoner, because the summon uses lots of attacks that deal smaller amounts of damage, and the charger uses less attacks and more damage/individual attack, thus each miss for the charger represents a greater amount of lost damage. However the charger has the advantage against DR, because less of his damage is absorbed by it. But the summoner begins applying the damage 2 rounds earlier, and is thus more likely to end the fight sooner. As for shock trooper. i don't see how it is dealing extra damage. It allows three things 1) Push a foe back left or right with a bull rush, 2) make a free trip attempt against a bull rushed foe, and 3) Apply your power attack penalty to your AC instead of you attack. Neither one of those are really all that good, and the first one has little effect. The second is a glorified improved trip, (if the druid wanted that, then they could have morphed into a wolf, or dire wolf) and the third lowers your AC to suicidal levels. I don't think the problem is with leap attack, but more the problem with the druid itself. I could put ice cream on my druid and it'll still kick the crap out of EVERYTHING. I don't see how punishing the fighter who jumps around and bashes things is in anyway a fair response to the druid "breaking" leap attack by abusing gray areas of the rules, and relying on some interesting interpretations.
UltimateReality 07-03-07, 12:30 AM	It takes time to build that trust. You will have to explain yourself for a while to people who don't know you. If you really do always have a logical reason eventually you won't always have to explain it, and more things are possible.Fair enough. I agree with that. I trust TPK's reasons enough that if, for some odd reason, he were to ban something and give "it's a surprise" as a reason, it wouldn't impact my enjoyment of the campaign or my trust in him as a DM. But you're right -- it takes time to get there. If I'm with a bunch of people I don't know so well, or perhaps some, ah, less experienced DMs that I know, then I'm going to want "better" reasons. Have to explain myself? Hardly. I think it is courtesy to do so but nothing demands I present a case to a jury.If I'm not willing to treat my acquaintances or friends with courtesy, I'm pretty they'll return the favour. When I begin a campaign I state up front what the setting will be and basic theme or feel it will have. I state what rules will be allowed and what ones aren't (generally core only). After that the players are invited to participate. If that is unacceptable to them, they are free to run their own campaign however they feel, with no hard feelings whatsoever.This is also a fair way to run things, assuming you aren't a confrontational jerk about it. (And most people aren't.) For example, in our group everyone has DMed at least once, and most have had ongoing campaigns. So no one gets offended when someone says "I think that houserule is stupid because X Y and Z, and I'm going to run it differently in my campaign."
solbergb 07-03-07, 12:09 PM	Leap attack builds are way off topic. But I might as well go through the exercise to make the point. What you need to remember is they spend their time wildshaped if done via druid (as opposed to wildrunner or *gack* the new barbarian substitution for fast movement in Complete champion) They never spend a combat action wildshaping. They don't have to worry about equipment melding (they take off anything they can wear in animal form, and have it put on in animal form). They are incidently a half decent fighter even when not wildshaped, in case they're in a social situation or whatever. But in general, they stay wildshaped, shifting out only to refresh spells. Therefore if they have the feats for natural spell (the fighter build does, the barb build does eventually), then they can swift fly. The barbarian build is something like this. The feats can be rejiggered a bit in the lower levels with retraining, if you allow that. Elite array: Human str 13 dex 10 con14 int12 wis15 cha 8, statbumps to wisdom barb1: power attack, extra rage (4 ranks in jump) druid1 druid2 bull rush druid3 druid4 (jump is maxed in levels 2-5 by paying 2 cross-class skill points) druid5 leap attack druid6 druid7 druid8 shock trooper wildshaper1 (get a 6th attack, increase size of nat weapons, create a "stinger" for a tail, immune crits, balance is a class skill) warshaper2 (+4 strength and con) The build assumes a +2 ioun stone of strength by level 10. It also assumes greater magic fang running 24x7 in the "all natural weapons" mode. It is possible I was slightly off in either to-hit or damage, I was doing it off the cuff. The result though (>+20 to hit on most attacks, 160ish damage if all attacks hit by level 10) is accurate. Natural spell doesn't come till level 12. Key hour/level spells are raptor's sight, forestfold, greater magic fang. These will be up all day. Key10 minute/level spells "when you know there is a fight" are camoflauge, listening lorecall, barkskin, air walk and free movement. The character should have the best +0 armor check penalty barding he can afford. (if you DO somehow get caught where you can't charge, you need some armor class - you are a pretty good melee even without the sick charge damage) This one can't swift-fly charge until level 12, and can't mix that with rage. The fighter build buys 4 cross-class ranks in jump by level 7 takes the fighter level at 8 (shock trooper and 4 more jump ranks) and leap attack at level 9. (druid7/fighter1/druid8/warshaper2) The fighter build has natural spell instead of extra rage. At the time, these were pre-wildshape-eratta druids so they could use nature's favor to make up for the loss of to-hit/damage from the rage. Even now, they're only losing 12 points damage and -2 to hit vs the raging barb, which many would consider a good tradeoff for earlier use of natural spell. The scout build is similar but uses skirmish damage instead of rage and extra rage to increase damage. It will want a wildrunner level eventually. There is also a ranger/1/druid5/nature warrior3/warshaper 2 build that works ok, although like the scout build it does similar damage but has lower to-hit rolls. The fighter and barb builds are probably the best overall. Note that if you want natural spell on the barb, you can put off leap attack until level 12 - your damage potential becomes similar to most of the wildrunner builds. It is likely the characters that "broke" leap attack in living greyhawk were about level 12. The early builds were wildrunner builds, that get a full attack at power attack full (including a bite attack) for 3x or 2x the damage depending on the weapon type. Doing it with druid came a bit later for me, although I think I heard mention that there was a druid doing it too.
solbergb 07-03-07, 12:33 PM	Surprise round; Uses summon nature's alley 4 to call in a tiger. Round one: Tiger appears and charges, and uses pounce to full attack. (5 attacks, 2 claws average 10.5, and a bite average 11, and two rakes average 6.5 each for a total average damage of 35.) Druid begins summon nature's alley 4 again. Round 2: Second tiger arrives, and full attacks. Tiger 1 attacks. (10 attacks. for an average damage of 70) Druid casts final summon nature's alley 4. Round 3: Tiger 3 arrives, and attacks, as do tigers 1 and 2. (15 attacks. for an average damage of 105) Druid begins casting summon nature's alley 3. Round 4, d3 hipogriffs arrive, and attack (for an average of 19.5/hipogrif). Tigers 1-3 attack (18-24 attacks for an average of 124.5 - 163.5) So at the end of round 4 the druid has done on average 324-373 points of damage. Even if half of those attacks miss thats still 60-80points of damage on round 4, and a cumulative amount of 160-185. Compared to leap attack dude: Surprise round, buff. Round one wild shape. round two charge for first claw average of 24.5, and second 17.5, bite 18 and two rakes at 14.5 each (total 87) Round three: Assuming the druid continues to power attack for the full 7; the average damage looks like so: 2 claws at 17.5 each, a bit at 18, and two rakes at 14.5 each for 80points on average. Round four: See round 3. Total average cumulative damage at the end of 4 rounds: 240 Way off on leap attack dude. Although the numbers do look better if he's not at 35 strength like my guy is, and you don't apply leap attack to all of his attacks, but instead just the first claw. (...leap attack isn't broken on wildshaping creatures if you add a limit the feat doesn't actually have) Surprise round - charge for 166 hitpoints of damage Round 1 - charge second enemy for 166 points of damage, because first enemy is dead. He's now done more damage than your druid has done by round 4 (372) He never wildshapes in combat, he never buffs in combat. He's already ready. He just rages and charges. Worst case... surprise round charge for 166 points of damage and now can't charge because either the enemy was really tough or I rolled crap init and am now fighting stuff that moved up to me. If I power attack to match the pathetic tiger attack mods on the summoned creatures (+13 when augmented and charging) that is in fact power attack nearly full (my attacks are +20/20/15/15 when not charging...lowering them to +15/15 d6+20 +10 d8+13 +10 d6+13 = ~80 more damage each round. So the cumulative damgae looks like this for the first four rounds leap aug summoner S 166 0 1 246 35 2 326 105 3 406 210 4 486 370 And that is not taking into account that the tigers won't be able to pounce every round (since their enemies won't be dead) and that the hippogriffs have even lower attack mods. Or the fact that the druid's spells are really easy to interrupt. Also the druid just burned most of his high level rack. I burned one rage (the rest of the resources run all day, the 10 min/level buffs run during one full "active period"). I can get better damage numbers than above with an augment summer+rapid spell and using animal growth round two...I can get much faster off the mark. But not 246 damage faster. Just because you don't understand how a build works doesn't mean it can't be done. The "surprise round buff, round 1 wildshape" is "druid" thinking. This character, in spite of 8 druid levels, isn't a druid. It's a sneakier, stronger barbarian, a bear warrior done better. Hm...and as for skills. A human druid with 12 intelligence has 6 skill points a level. one of these is used getting jump up to speed. That leaves four for spot, listen, hide and move silent, and one left over for the odd climb, swim or whatever, minimal handle animal and survival stuff. The warshaper levels are used to max balance - you do want to be able to charge reliably on slopes or slippery terrain when air-walk isn't available.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-03-07, 05:37 PM	Ok this is the last post i'm gonna make on the Leap attack feat. 1) the feat does not say that it applies to every atatck made. Thus it does not. feats don't have to list all of their restrictions because then each feat would have a description as long as the NY phone book. Its much easy to list what they do, no more no less. 2) A tiger, or dire lion only has a strength score of 23, were is the other 12 coming from? 3) Per RAW all your gear melds into your form and becomes useless when you wildhape. You can't use items that have command word activation because you can't speak in wildshape either. You can't use magic fang since the spells specifies a target of a 'natural weapon' which you do not have until you wildshape, and with no natural spell.... And I'm sorry stripping down and putting then putting your items back on is just plain cheese. Cats do not were belts, or circlets, or capes, or rings, or any of that crap. Ioun stones require a command to get them going, so you can't do that while in wildshape from. 4) Hard charge a flying opponent. Remember that air walk and swift do not grant the ability to run while flying, so no charging. Master of air does, but it has a duration of rounds/level... so with out natural spell..... 5) They can change back to refresh spells, and then wildshape again, but at 8th level they can only wildshape 3 times per day. And when they have to refresh spells every 80min (1 hour and a half) they'll be out of wildshape by noon. If you follow the RAW with a modicum of common sense then this entire build falls apart. However if you really want to bend the rules, over look certain points, and generally ignore things then yes almost everything will be broken.
OravennasBrother 07-03-07, 06:38 PM	So I can play a beguiler if I buy you Tome of Magic, but if I buy you Tome of Magic it will be taken as an insult, I'm henceforth no friend of yours and it'd be best if I left the group. How about if I want to use something from Dragon 325, and I give you one of the two complementary copies I received from Paizo for being published in the magazine? (I wasn't, and I didn't, but this is the internet so I can pretend what I like :) ) No you can't play a beguiler - try a high charisma Sorcerer who focuses on Enchantment (If my guess on what a beguiler does is right) And NO I Don't want a copy of Dragon 325. Even if it were from someone published therein.
Comus 07-03-07, 06:56 PM	No you can't play a beguiler - try a high charisma Sorcerer who focuses on Enchantment (If my guess on what a beguiler does is right) And NO I Don't want a copy of Dragon 325. Even if it were from someone published therein. Beguiler is more like a rogue/wizard multiclass, actually. Trapfinding, lots of skills, and spells limited sharply to illusion and enchantment. Why so hostile towards non-core material, though, OB? What have splatbooks ever done to you? Core's not holy writ, and supplements aren't blasphemy.
OravennasBrother 07-03-07, 07:03 PM	Why so hostile towards non-core material, though, OB? Because I hope, however vainly, that someday gaming will return to the time when there were a LOT of different games on the market and players were glad to give a new system a try. IF enough people could be convinced that splatbooks were a waste of their money, then splatbooks would stop being produced. Then other games might resurge and the availability of innovative non-D20 games would increase. D&D is OK for High Fantasy but that's about it, the amount of "fixing" required to shoehorn it to a different genre is oppressive. So I have a Strict Core Only Policy at my table.
Caelic 07-03-07, 07:32 PM	Seems a bit counterproductive; if you want to encourage the use of other systems, why not run other systems instead of trying to hold back the power creep in D&D, which is a little like trying to hold back the tide? If I want a system that's balanced or simulates anything other than D&D-flavor pseudo-Vancian pseudo-Andersonian fantasy well, I run something other than D&D.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-03-07, 08:07 PM	Because I hope, however vainly, that someday gaming will return to the time when there were a LOT of different games on the market and players were glad to give a new system a try. IF enough people could be convinced that splatbooks were a waste of their money, then splatbooks would stop being produced. Then other games might resurge and the availability of innovative non-D20 games would increase. D&D is OK for High Fantasy but that's about it, the amount of "fixing" required to shoehorn it to a different genre is oppressive. So I have a Strict Core Only Policy at my table. Wow, just wow......
Comus 07-03-07, 08:15 PM	I don't understand. How do expansions for one game system/setting prevent other systems from being made?
solbergb 07-03-07, 08:19 PM	Ok this is the last post i'm gonna make on the Leap attack feat. 1) the feat does not say that it applies to every atatck made. Thus it does not. feats don't have to list all of their restrictions because then each feat would have a description as long as the NY phone book. Its much easy to list what they do, no more no less. Normally you can only get one attack on a charge. Therefore singular wording is always used in charge feats. Pounce in all its forms overrides that logic - you get your full attack instead, everything else is the same. But of course, if you castrate pounce, then the impact of leap attack and shock trooper are much less. 2) A tiger, or dire lion only has a strength score of 23, were is the other 12 coming from? Dire lion is actually strength 25. Ioun stone+2 strength = 27 Rage = 31 Warshaper level 2 = 35 3) Per RAW all your gear melds into your form and becomes useless when you wildhape. You can't use items that have command word activation because you can't speak in wildshape either. You can't use magic fang since the spells specifies a target of a 'natural weapon' which you do not have until you wildshape, and with no natural spell.... Yes it does meld. This build doesn't care. The only items this character needs is barding, cloak of resistance and his amulet of health, which he takes off, and has somebody put back on after he's wildshaped. He doesn't even need that to do his damage, it just adds to his durablity. No other items are assumed. If the armor bugs you, assume he's got mage armor (the barding is rarely much better than +4). For the amulet, and cloak assume a wilding clasp. He's still got tons of cash left over. Ioun stones do not have command words. They work like this: "When a character first acquires a stone, she must hold it and then release it, whereupon it takes up a circling orbit 1d3 feet from her head. " "Hold and release" is something a cat can do, but if you want to quibble, I can just use my warshaper1 power to turn my lion claw into a troll claw (or even grow a troll claw) to hold and release the stone. Greater magic fang has a mode that works in any form: "Target: One living creature" "Alternatively, you may imbue all of the creature's natural weapons with a +1 enhancement bonus (regardless of your caster level)." Changing form doesn't change the effect of the spell. Any nat weapons you have are enhanced. I'm sorry that you don't like what this build does to operate, but there is nothing illegal about any of this. You can go into any pet store and by a collar and a cloak-like thing for a cat, and bardingis explicitly allowed. I'm not trying to do any of the other things that many druids attempt (cloaks, rings, etc). They don't matter to the build. 4) Hard charge a flying opponent. Remember that air walk and swift do not grant the ability to run while flying, so no charging. Master of air does, but it has a duration of rounds/level... so with out natural spell..... Fly explicitly says "you can charge but can't run" You're misremembering air walk. It behaves exactly as if on solid ground. The big caveat on attacking a flier is you need a 45 degree or less ramp to get to them, and you need a DC10 balance check to charge at that angle, per the balance rules regarding charging up slopes. "The subject can tread on air as if walking on solid ground. Moving upward is similar to walking up a hill. The maximum upward or downward angle possible is 45 degrees, at a rate equal to one-half the air walker's normal speed. (spell talks about high winds, what happens when it expires - no limits on charging OR running, unlike fly)." 5) They can change back to refresh spells, and then wildshape again, but at 8th level they can only wildshape 3 times per day. And when they have to refresh spells every 80min (1 hour and a half) they'll be out of wildshape by noon. They only change back for the 8 hour duration buffs. On a normal day, if just doing reactive stuff, you live without the air walk, etc unless you picked a build with natural spell (instead of rage). If you "suspect a fight" you burn an extra wildshape and cast all the 80 minute buffs. It is possible you'll be out of wildshapes at some point, probably when you're sleeping. That means you're just a melee character with a 2-handed weapon, rage, leap attack and shock trooper who can actually cast bull strength on himself. Oh darn! The natural spell limit isn't that big a deal - there are builds that have nat spell and only do a little less damage. If you follow the RAW with a modicum of common sense then this entire build falls apart. However if you really want to bend the rules, over look certain points, and generally ignore things then yes almost everything will be broken. No...it really doesn't. The build works just fine and is perfectly legal, you just don't like the playstyle. It doesn't fit your preconceptions of what is possible, but the rules actually support it. The problem with a shared campaign is that with thousands of players, some of them will pick a build like this. The really sad thing is you don't have to go whole hog like I did in the above example. There are druids who already do charge-based melee builds who already had most of the feats required. They just take their next level as fighter for the jump ranks and the feat and they can already exploit it. The basic chargemonkey druid build is: L1 power attack L3 bull rush L6 natural spell L9 shock trooper (any time after level 8 - take the fighter level when leap attack is made legal) It's a full druid who can do most of what was described above, but isn't quite as strong and doesn't have the 6th natural weapon attack. (25 strength+bull strength perhaps rather than 35 strength). He is however a full caster druid, with access to all of his spells when charging isn't the best tactic. Which means, getting back on topic, if somebody asked for leap attack in my campaign, for balance reasons I'd rule that nobody with shock trooper could take it and nobody with a pounce attack could take it. Otherwise go crazy. It's ok with those two synergistic feats off the table.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-04-07, 01:30 AM	Normally you can only get one attack on a charge. Therefore singular wording is always used in charge feats. Pounce in all its forms overrides that logic - you get your full attack instead, everything else is the same. But of course, if you castrate pounce, then the impact of leap attack and shock trooper are much less. Pounce only says that you get a full attack following a charge. Charge specifies a single attack. and leap attack doesn't say anything on the subject, either way. So neither pounce, nor charge, nor leap attack specify that you carry the benefit of feat to the following attacks. Thus you don't. Should you choose to house rule that differently, its up to you. However Per RAW it does not work that way.
TarlSS 07-04-07, 07:27 AM	You...need to shutup about leap attack. All of you. This is simply the fundamental issue of every game where a referee is involved. Should the referee be questioned? Can he be overruled? In the end, it was deemed efficient if the referee was in terms of the game, all powerful. Forces outside the concept of the game, such as financial consequences, physical attacks from other players, etc. dictate what the referee can do. How the referee moderates the game to produce a fair and enjoyable experience is where the -skill- part of refereeing comes in. Within the frame of the game, the DM(Referee) is all powerful. The DM can only be controlled by forces outside of the game, so it is a balance between what his players can do to him, and what he can do to his players. Inevitably, because of their monopoly on violence, the DM's players will win any argument they choose to take to the fullest. Thus, it is not a question of 'Should DM's disallow books?' but rather 'Should players let DMs to disallow them books?' in the extreme the players can always band to beat the crap out of the DM, tie him up, and force him to do things he would rather not. Before this usually happens though, they just go find someone else to play with. The question is- as a player, did you pick your DM merely as an arbiter of rules for a setting you enjoy, or are you interested in what ideas he has and what stories he has to tell? D&D is give and take. The DM should give in to some of the players demands, and the players should give in to some of the DM's demands. This assumes all the players are even united. The best way is to find an optimum compromise so that everyone gets what they enjoy the most. To paint as a elementary bargaining tool as splatbooks are as 'good' or 'bad' is folly. It is like money. You can view it as good or bad, but they are part of the exchange of getting the other party to do what you want.
Caelic 07-04-07, 12:38 PM	D&D is give and take. The DM should give in to some of the players demands, and the players should give in to some of the DM's demands. This assumes all the players are even united. The best way is to find an optimum compromise so that everyone gets what they enjoy the most. This is an excellent point, Tarl, and one that sometimes gets overlooked. It's easy to fall into the trap of framing the issue as one of players-versus-DM, when more often it's a DM attempting to balance the different and sometimes conflicting wants of a diverse group of players in order to find a middle ground with something for everyone.
Alyri 07-17-07, 02:56 PM	Players are morons for the most part. Sure it's a generalization. Had a player who was playing a conjuror until he found the Complete and saw the abjurant champion prc., which he promptly took as soon as possible. How is that prc in flavor with a conjuror? Yeah it's not, but it does give full BaB, d10hp and full spell progression. His answer, "what mage wouldn't take that class" Of course we know everything is balanced. It's been mentioned a number of times already, I'll say it again. The Dm spends 4-5x as long working on the campaign then any player does and as a Dm I should just let anything in all willy nilly because I can't come up with anything better than , No? I think not. First I make my players have a complete background about their characters, have them list the wants and dreams, and their character concept from 1-20. IF they can't do that then why should I let them play in my game? That's right my game not theirs. We can work together to have fun, but at the end of the day I am the one that has to do all the work to make everyone happy and if I can't get the same level or respect from a player for that reason he's out. There is more to this game then you BAB and spell progression make something unique and not tweaked.
Archangel62 07-17-07, 05:52 PM	Players are morons for the most part. Sure it's a generalization. Had a player who was playing a conjuror until he found the Complete and saw the abjurant champion prc., which he promptly took as soon as possible. How is that prc in flavor with a conjuror? Yeah it's not, but it does give full BaB, d10hp and full spell progression. His answer, "what mage wouldn't take that class" Of course we know everything is balanced. Well if your player was dumb enough to waste resources to go that route, staggering caster level and altering format to make it work then that's his business, but if I'm a caster, a conjurer especially, I'm not going to waste time and resources learning how to fight in melee, the meatshields and summoned creatures can do that for me, I'll be standing back using tentacles and other tricks to command the battlefield thank you much.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-17-07, 07:57 PM	Players are morons for the most part. Sure it's a generalization. So why do you play with morons? Perhaps becuase because the smart players have better things to do then waste time on your power trip? But seriousely, my players are my friends, I care for and respect them. i guess I'm fairly rare in that respect. Had a player who was playing a conjuror until he found the Complete and saw the abjurant champion prc., which he promptly took as soon as possible. How is that prc in flavor with a conjuror? Yeah it's not, but it does give full BaB, d10hp and full spell progression. His answer, "what mage wouldn't take that class" Sure can't let the players play effective characters...means you might have to put some effort into your railroad. Or worse, they might actually live through an encounter, or worse yet have *gaspe* fun killing monsters. Of course we know everything is balanced. If it isn't you should be able to demonstrate why. Oh sorry I forgot your players to too stupid to graspe this math thing, huh? Seriously dude get real. It's been mentioned a number of times already, I'll say it again. The Dm spends 4-5x as long working on the campaign then any player does and as a Dm I should just let anything in all willy nilly because I can't come up with anything better than , No? If you have a good reason for saying no, then you can explain it when asked. Further you can listen to counter opinion, and explain why that won't work either. However if you saying no because you need to exercise that power... I think not. Why? First I make my players have a complete background about their characters, have them list the wants and dreams, and their character concept from 1-20. IF they can't do that then why should I let them play in my game? That's right my game not theirs. We can work together to have fun, but at the end of the day I am the one that has to do all the work to make everyone happy and if I can't get the same level or respect from a player for that reason he's out. There is more to this game then you BAB and spell progression make something unique and not tweaked. Well at least your honest about it. Its your agme, and all about your fun. Although with an aditude like yours, I find it hard to understand that many players actually want to play in your games....DMs market were your at? Like i said the DM is just one at a table of equals. Treat your players with respect and they'll return the favor.
Caelic 07-17-07, 08:07 PM	Like i said the DM is just one at a table of equals. Treat your players with respect and they'll return the favor. While I don't agree with the notion that players don't matter, TPK, I also don't agree that the DM is "just one at a table of equals." The simple fact is that if one player walks away, the party is one person down. If the DM walks away, the game's over. Yes, a new game might start--though, to be honest, it's my experience that the attitude of "One of the players can just take over as DM" is nice in theory, but in practice, there's a little more to it than that. The games that result, more often than not, just don't hold together all that well--possibly because the person DMing doesn't have a lot of experience behind the shield, possibly because the person DMing would really rather be playing.
DarthMidget 07-17-07, 09:16 PM	Because I hope, however vainly, that someday gaming will return to the time when there were a LOT of different games on the market and players were glad to give a new system a try. IF enough people could be convinced that splatbooks were a waste of their money, then splatbooks would stop being produced. Then other games might resurge and the availability of innovative non-D20 games would increase. D&D is OK for High Fantasy but that's about it, the amount of "fixing" required to shoehorn it to a different genre is oppressive. So I have a Strict Core Only Policy at my table. Are you serious?
Alyri 07-18-07, 01:15 PM	Well if your player was dumb enough to waste resources to go that route, staggering caster level and altering format to make it work then that's his business, but if I'm a caster, a conjurer especially, I'm not going to waste time and resources learning how to fight in melee, the meatshields and summoned creatures can do that for me, I'll be standing back using tentacles and other tricks to command the battlefield thank you much. Not every conjuror has to summon. WHy wouldn't you want d10hp and full BaB(you know that pesky ranged touch attack thing) So why do you play with morons? Perhaps becuase because the smart players have better things to do then waste time on your power trip? Power trip? No they should put a semblance of effort into their characters But seriousely, my players are my friends, I care for and respect them. i guess I'm fairly rare in that respect. and our group are all friends as well. Not every member of a group has the same ideas. Sure can't let the players play effective characters...means you might have to put some effort into your railroad. Or worse, they might actually live through an encounter, or worse yet have *gaspe* fun killing monsters. Effective character does not mean optimized character. The more optimized a group is the harder the encounters have to be. Unless your 'fun' means a cake-walk encounter. If it isn't you should be able to demonstrate why. Oh sorry I forgot your players to too stupid to graspe this math thing, huh? Seriously dude get real. Abjurant Champion comes to mind. Let's see full BaB, d10hp, full spell progression and normal spells cast as swift actions and some are way more effective then normal. Let's look at Argent Savant. d4hp, worst BaB, 4/5spell progression. If you have a good reason for saying no, then you can explain it when asked. Further you can listen to counter opinion, and explain why that won't work either. However if you saying no because you need to exercise that power... Easy. I don't want it in my game. I never ask why my players want something or what spell they want or which magic item they want. They sure wont listen to a counter-opinion abd will definitely bulk at it if I force them to. Which by the way is exactly what you are saying every Dm should do just to make Lil'Billy happy. Why? First I make my players have a complete background about their characters, have them list the wants and dreams, and their character concept from 1-20. If they can't do that then why should I let them play in my game? We can work together to have fun, but at the end of the day I am the one that has to do all the work to make everyone happy and if I can't get the same level of respect from a player for that reason he's out. There is more to this game then you BAB and spell progression make something unique and not tweaked. Well at least your honest about it. Its your game, and all about your fun. Although with an atitude like yours, I find it hard to understand that many players actually want to play in your games....DMs market were your at? Like i said the DM is just one at a table of equals. Treat your players with respect and they'll return the favor. I used to run games like you suggest. Until the opposition started to be optimized and the players cried about it. They felt optimization was for players only and that BBEG shouldn't be allowed to. Because they are under the same impression you are. That it's about the players fun. Dm's fun should be watching the players mow down the opposition.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-18-07, 03:38 PM	While I don't agree with the notion that players don't matter, TPK, I also don't agree that the DM is "just one at a table of equals." The simple fact is that if one player walks away, the party is one person down. If the DM walks away, the game's over. Yes, a new game might start--though, to be honest, it's my experience that the attitude of "One of the players can just take over as DM" is nice in theory, but in practice, there's a little more to it than that. The games that result, more often than not, just don't hold together all that well--possibly because the person DMing doesn't have a lot of experience behind the shield, possibly because the person DMing would really rather be playing. If the DM walks the group is short another player. Not because they are missing the DM, but because one of the players is now the DM. Seriously what the hell is this crap about the DM role being sacred, and only fillable by the one DM. I Dm for the DM that tuaght me how to play. Really guys this BS about the DM being the bread and butter of D&D, and that he is somehow irreplaceable is pure fantasy. Everyone can DM, some are better at it, but that comes with practice. And to my knowledge there is only one way to get that. As for this the DM should have more fun than the players, because they do more work. I'm sorry that is just plain ********. If you aren't having fun doing the work, then why the hell are you doing it? I DM because thats what I love to do. Not because it gives me power over my friends, not because it means I'm more important then they are. Nor would i expect them to let me treat them like crap because of the work I put into the game. I DM for my friends, because that is how I show that I appreciate them as friends, and people. So quiet frankly yes their fun is as important, if not more, then anything else. Because if they aren't having any fun, then what the heck is the point of all me hard work? I might as well go write a book. A group without a DM is group of friends hanging out. A DM with out players, is some guy sitting alone playing with himself.
Caelic 07-18-07, 04:08 PM	If the DM walks the group is short another player. Not because they are missing the DM, but because one of the players is now the DM. ...and may or may not suck at it. Either way, the game that was being played is over. A new one may start. It might be good. It might not. Seriously what the hell is this crap about the DM role being sacred, and only fillable by the one DM. Just a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? It's not "sacred." Nobody ever said it was. It takes a certain amount of ability, though, and not everybody has the ability or desire to do it well. I Dm for the DM that tuaght me how to play. Really guys this BS about the DM being the bread and butter of D&D, and that he is somehow irreplaceable is pure fantasy. He is irreplaceable, in the sense that the campaign he's running will not be duplicated. If a given DM is running a good campaign and stops, then someone else will run a different campaign. Maybe it'll be good. Maybe it'll suck. It won't be the same, either way...and DMs capable of running good campaigns aren't so common that most groups can casually afford to discard them, at least in these parts. Everyone can DM, ...some are just really really bad at it. Others don't want to do it. some are better at it, but that comes with practice. Sometimes. Other times, the campaign just collapses when a new DM attempts to take up the burden where an experienced one left off. That's particularly true if the players are very experienced. Nor would i expect them to let me treat them like crap because of the work I put into the game. ...except that, on these boards, that's exactly what a lot of people do. The DM is regarded as an expendable employee there to make the players happy by doing whatever the heck they want. If he balks, then he's a bad DM. When the underlying sentiment is "You're nothing special and we can replace you at any time if you don't do what we want," then that, in my book, is "treating the DM like crap." A group without a DM is group of friends hanging out. A DM with out players, is some guy sitting alone playing with himself. If I had a nickel for every time that old cliche gets trotted out, I'd buy WotC. Yes, that's true. Then again, if it were possible to count up the number of campaigns that fail, I'd bet any amount of money that more fail because the DM is too permissive than because he's too strict. In the past twenty years, I've seen one campaign fail because of an overly authoritarian DM--and there were other issues involved there. I have seen many, many campaigns that began their collapse with the words "I allow everything."
Alyri 07-18-07, 04:40 PM	Then you should have prefaced your whole tirade as "this is my opinion only" and not as the 'only way to play the game'
Caelic 07-18-07, 04:50 PM	Then you should have prefaced your whole tirade as "this is my opinion only" and not as the 'only way to play the game' Err...to whom was that directed, Alyri? I've lost track; sorry.
Kursk 07-18-07, 04:55 PM	Err...to whom was that directed, Alyri? I've lost track; sorry. I could be wrong but I think it was some person who goes by On_the_wings_of_TPK. Interesting, as the person hasn't been alive as long as many of us have been DMing. But, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Caelic 07-18-07, 05:11 PM	Age doesn't really matter, Kursk; I've seen great DMs who were half my age, and I've seen horrible ones who were...well, not quite twice my age, but up there. The problem, as I see it, is the whole misrepresentation of "old school" DMing that seems to have cropped up among newer players...this idea that it's arbitrary, capricious, and dictatorial and guaranteed to destroy a campaign and send the players scampering for the hills. That, of course, isn't what old school DMing is about. The DM is a referee, with all that that entails. If the referee makes a call a player doesn't agree with in the NFL, the player doesn't get to bring the game to a halt while he demands an explanation and justification. There may be review of a given call, but it's rare, and it's not up to the players to decide. Rightly so; the players, obviously, are less than impartial. Those against whom the call was directed will usually feel that it was a bad call, and those whom the call benefited will usually feel that it was a good call. If a player in the NFL...or the NHL, or the NBA, or the East Culpepper Little League...starts arguing a call with the referee in the middle of the game, the player usually gets smacked down, fined, or told to hit the showers. Happily, that's not so likely in a D&D game...I've never seen a DM assign fines and make it stick...but the fact remains: the referee is not just one more player with an equal say.
Kursk 07-18-07, 05:17 PM	Age doesn't really matter, Kursk; No. But, amount and breadth of experience does.
DarthMidget 07-18-07, 06:11 PM	Just so you know I prefer no side over the other in this argument. I do want to address one thing though... No. But, amount and breadth of experience does. Actually, no it doesn't. An argument should be weighed on its own merits independant of the source. Thus you should determine the value of a position regardless of the amount and breadth of experience of the arguer. People with great experience are wrong just as often as the young and untried.
Alyri 07-18-07, 06:12 PM	Yeah Caelic your post got through before mine
Archangel62 07-18-07, 06:38 PM	Not every conjuror has to summon. WHy wouldn't you want d10hp and full BaB(you know that pesky ranged touch attack thing) Well for one it feels like a waste, there are better prestige classes out there for me, hell master specialist works well or Incantatrix, or just about any prestige class for that matter.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-18-07, 08:03 PM	Then you should have prefaced your whole tirade as "this is my opinion only" and not as the 'only way to play the game' Of course it is my opinion you tool. I never once said that everyone should play my way. Although i do believe my way is best. If I didn't I'd change the way I played. All that aside, I am really surprised that idea of respecting those you play with, and treating them as equals was met with such resistance. Is really that much of a powertrip for you guys? Honestly can't you give up just a little bit of it? Just enough to treat your friends as equals, and not servants? As for the DM is a referee thing...again D&D is not a league sport, and the players aren't being payed. I will also point out that if a ref continues to make asinine calls he is soon fired. Kursk: Sure your older, and have been DMing longer. But that doesn't automatically mean your right. Further one would think that a DM as ancient as you would be able to offer at least some evidence as to why you are correct. Even if it is something anecdotal from back when there were only two alignments. I mean my Grampas old, and experienced. He's also a doctor, but his political views went out of fashion about 50 years ago. Should we take everything he says about the world/family dynamics at face value? I'm not saying my views are for everyone. Hell run your game the way you want. I'm not playing in it. But for some i think a little equality between DM and player would go alone way. I'm not saying that a DM is expendable employee. I am saying that a player shouldn't be treated that way either. I play with my friends. I respect them enough to listen to them, and as such own them at least an explanation as to why I make the calls I do. If thats not the case with your game, then by all means ignore everything I'm saying.
solbergb 07-18-07, 08:06 PM	Actually, no it doesn't. An argument should be weighed on its own merits independant of the source. Thus you should determine the value of a position regardless of the amount and breadth of experience of the arguer. Actually - in most things you need to consider both the argument and the source, especially when talking about matters that are subjective. Consider this assertion: "Sorcerers are underpowered compared to wizards. Always choose a wizard if you are the only arcane in the party." If I was trying to decide which to play as only party arcane, I would want to know if the person has ever played a sorcerer or a wizard. How many times he's seen a sorcerer or wizard played by others, either as a teammate or when he's DMing. What is the diversity of party mixes he's played a sorcerer in. What about campaign style or houserules? and most importantly.... Is the experience from which he drew this conclusion at all relevant to me? A person whose gaming situation is identical to yours needs less experience of varied situations to assert "underpowered for ME" than somebody who has only seen sorcerers played in environments wildly different from the ones you may encounter. If he has NO experience and is basing his assertion only on the PHB descriptions of both classes - the odds are extremely good that he's weighting the various class features incorrectly vs how the classes perform in an actual party in an actual campaign. It isn't experience that matters as much as RELEVANT experience. But if you have no experience at all with playing an arcanist or even seeing one played, it is highly unlikely you have much that is relevant to say, except compared to somebody who didn't bother to read the PHB at all. People with great experience are wrong just as often as the young and untried. People with great experience are often wrong, but not as often as the untried. There is a reason I'm paid six times what I was paid 15 years ago. It isn't cause I've gotten prettier and I haven't gotten any smarter and if anything my education is worse (I've forgotten anything I haven't needed in these last 15 years, and while I've learned new stuff on the job, it probably doesn't add up to all the theoretical engineering, math and physics I once knew). What I've got that is worth 6x what I earned in 1992 is experience applying my intelligence and training to the kinds of problems my company needs solved. The trick is though, the experience has to be relevant to the discussion. Logic and theory only take you so far - they're useful and sometimes better than irrelevant experience. But sometimes the numbers don't match the outcome when it comes time to try things out in the real world. ) My take on "On Wings" is that he's playing in a specific kind of environment and generalizing to all environments. I've played in environments similar to what was described (rotating GM's in shared worlds or deep GM pool with multiple campaigns running, player pool who can generally find somebody to run and everybody involved wanting fairly wide open options). I've also played in environments where nearly everything about the game mechanics was secret, or where they were invented on the fly by the GM. And a lot of inbetween. They're all fun. On Wings is incorrect that restrictions always = unfun. But there are different types of fun. Perhaps someday he'll play in a good campaign where the GM controls the mechanics and setting and doesn't explain everything and he'll learn that it doesn't actually poison the fun. Perhaps not. It is unwise however to discount the opinions of people who have experienced different things than you. The way you know isn't always the best way for all situations, indeed it usually isn't. Most things in life need a toolkit, not just a hammer. From On Wing's most recent post - I think he gets that. All I'm saying is "GM restricting something without explanation is not always a sign of disrespect for the player" and "there is no 'best way' to play. There is just fun play and unfun play." That's all. The rest is just fluff. I get that he values respect between player and GM. Where I disagree is that it always has to be expressed in the way that he's most familiar with.
Caelic 07-18-07, 08:25 PM	All that aside, I am really surprised that idea of respecting those you play with, and treating them as equals was met with such resistance. Is really that much of a powertrip for you guys? Honestly can't you give up just a little bit of it? Just enough to treat your friends as equals, and not servants? Perhaps if people weren't predisposed to equate "The DM gets to make the final call, and players should trust the DM" with "treating players like servants," the problem wouldn't exist. As for the DM is a referee thing...again D&D is not a league sport, and the players aren't being payed. Nor is the DM, yet some players continue to behave as if they were. Check that: if I were a paid employee and had to put up with some of the abuse I see directed towards DMs on these boards, I'd find another job post-haste. I will also point out that if a ref continues to make asinine calls he is soon fired. Yep. Of course, saying "If the DM doesn't make the right calls, he's fired" doesn't go all that well with the whole "The DM is your friend and equal" mentality. Kursk: Sure your older, and have been DMing longer. But that doesn't automatically mean your right. Further one would think that a DM as ancient as you would be able to offer at least some evidence as to why you are correct. Well, I'm not Kursk, but I'll give it a shot. You want evidence? The only evidence that really matters in this case is results. I've been running successfully for two decades. Doesn't that suggest that, just perhaps, my style of DMing works? You believe your way is best; as you point out, that's only natural. I believe that mine's best, based on the evidence I've seen. I know my way will keep a campaign going for years on end. I know that it will keep players interested. I don't know that about "Anything goes." I've never seen an "Anything goes" campaign last much longer than 6 months to a year. Even if it is something anecdotal from back when there were only two alignments. I mean my Grampas old, and experienced. He's also a doctor, but his political views went out of fashion about 50 years ago. Should we take everything he says about the world/family dynamics at face value? Maybe not, but I'd surely take his advice on medicine faster than I'd take a first-year med student's. (Assuming that you meant he's a medical doctor.) I'm not saying that a DM is expendable employee. Maybe not in so many words, but there surely seem to be undertones of that in some of what you say. You have argued that the DM can easily be replaced, and therefore isn't "special." You have argued at length about what a DM does and does not "owe" his players, yet I've heard precious little about what the players "owe" the DM. Much has been made of the respect a DM owes his players. What of the respect the players owe their DM? How is it respectful to afford the DM so little trust that you require explanations before you'll be satisfied with his calls? I am saying that a player shouldn't be treated that way either. ...and I have yet to see anyone argue that players should be treated that way. Not stopping to appease each and every demand for an explanation is hardly the same as "treating players like expendable employees." I play with my friends. I respect them enough to listen to them, and as such own them at least an explanation as to why I make the calls I do. Funny. I usually don't think of friendship in terms of what I "owe" other people. I don't "owe" them the work I do as DM. I don't "owe" them an adventure every week. How can I "owe" them an explanation of the decisions I make while running said adventure?
solbergb 07-18-07, 08:29 PM	I mean my Grampas old, and experienced. He's also a doctor, but his political views went out of fashion about 50 years ago. Should we take everything he says about the world/family dynamics at face value? g. This is a great example. What I'd say is.... If I was sick, I'd take what he had to say very seriously, probably moreso than somebody just out of med school. He's seen more sick people. If I had something specific wrong with me, I'd take the opinion of a less experienced specialist in that condition over his. But his opinion would be worth more than a random guy on the street and I would likely bring up any contradictory advice up with my specialist. If he was ever married for a long time, I 'd consider his advice on marriage seriously (even if it failed - you can learn from failure too). I might not take it because I'm not him nor is my wife his wife. But his opinion on the topic carries more weight than anyone who hasn't been married, except possibly somebody who studies couples for a living, an anthropologist or psychologist. As far as politics, I'd consider when he was born, what shaped him when he grew up and why those might affect his opinions before discounting them as irrelevant to me. HIstory repeats. If we enter an era that is more like the one where he formed his opinions, his thoughts on what is best politically might be more relevant than mine. It's easier to keep an open mind when you've been proved wrong many times by events even when you're a smart, educated person. I'm a lot more willing to consider other points of view now than I was twenty years ago. In the end I may decide my way is best for me. But I don't assume my way is best for everybody, all the time. That's proved false too many times.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-19-07, 12:15 AM	Perhaps if people weren't predisposed to equate "The DM gets to make the final call, and players should trust the DM" with "treating players like servants," the problem wouldn't exist. That is actually closer to what I'm saying. The problem I'm trying to address is that as of lately it seems this trust is being taking by DMs too far. Statements like "the DM is as right, and therefor can't cheat." The DM can cheat, the DM can be on a power trip, and the DM can be a douge. Not all but some, and frankly unless the DM is a douge, then they should be able to listen to there players. Nor is the DM, yet some players continue to behave as if they were. Check that: if I were a paid employee and had to put up with some of the abuse I see directed towards DMs on these boards, I'd find another job post-haste. Hmmmm I believe i stated in my post that neither DM, nor player were paid. This is a game, and as such everyone at the table is voluntarily. Players should respect their DMs. I will not dispute that. Dms should respect their players. Why is that under dispute? I mean hey players can be dougebags as much as any DM can. neither is inherently righter then other because of their side of the 'shield'. And both sides would do well to give the respect they want in return. It all comes down to fairness. If it is a part of your game, then nothing I'm advising should that difficult. If it isn't, then well it isn't and you porbally should just ignore me. Yep. Of course, saying "If the DM doesn't make the right calls, he's fired" doesn't go all that well with the whole "The DM is your friend and equal" mentality. This is were the sports analogy breaks down. Professional players can get away with a lot. Lets look at a more political example. The DM is invested with the powers of ruler-ship over the players. However the DM can only rule with consent of their players. If a player is a constant douge then they can be exiled from the group. Similarly if the DM is a constant douge then they as well can be impeached. In that respect the DM is like the head of state, and all I'm saying is that they need to be both consistent, and transparent with their policies. Weather they like it or not, they are still accountable to the people/players. On that note the Players must still abide by the laws, and policies, as set forth by the head of state. Actually thats a really good way of putting it. I'm not advocating an everything goes campaign, or a player's manifesto or anything like that. I'm simply saying that DMs should be accountable to their players. The reason that I'm not on my soap box advocating that players be accountable to their, is that for the most part they already are. And if not, then I whole heartedly agree that they should be. Fairness is a two way street. Everything I've said about DMs applies equally to players. And fairness auto to be apart of every game. Well, I'm not Kursk, but I'll give it a shot. You want evidence? The only evidence that really matters in this case is results. I've been running successfully for two decades. Doesn't that suggest that, just perhaps, my style of DMing works? I'm not saying it doesn't. But I have seen games fail when the DM was too strict, or was unable to explain satisfactorily what, and why they are doing. True a particular game may end when the DM walks. But on that note I know of no games (D&D, or other) that would survive a mass exudes from the players. You believe your way is best; as you point out, that's only natural. I believe that mine's best, based on the evidence I've seen. I know my way will keep a campaign going for years on end. I know that it will keep players interested. I don't know that about "Anything goes." I've never seen an "Anything goes" campaign last much longer than 6 months to a year. I'm not advocating that you have to, or even should adopt an anything goes camapign. All I'm saying is when you say no, you should be able to say why you said no. And to follow that out, the player should have a chance to rebuttal. Not saying you have to give in to the players. I am saying you should listen to what they have to say. Maybe not, but I'd surely take his advice on medicine faster than I'd take a first-year med student's. (Assuming that you meant he's a medical doctor.) As would I, I would also get a second opinion. He been retired for some 20 years now. Maybe not in so many words, but there surely seem to be undertones of that in some of what you say. You have argued that the DM can easily be replaced, and therefore isn't "special." You have argued at length about what a DM does and does not "owe" his players, yet I've heard precious little about what the players "owe" the DM. Both parts "owe" each other the respect that they wish to receive. But your right, "owe " is a poor choice of wording. Much has been made of the respect a DM owes his players. What of the respect the players owe their DM? How is it respectful to afford the DM so little trust that you require explanations before you'll be satisfied with his calls? I'm not focusing on players, but i do agree that players need to trust their DMs. However on that note, trust is earned. My players trust me, yet will still question rule calls, and decisions from time to time. I'm always prepared to explain my self, and the process behind what lead me to my conclusion. Most of the time I'm right, however occasionally I'm wrong. When that happens I apologize, and correct the error. ...and I have yet to see anyone argue that players should be treated that way. Not stopping to appease each and every demand for an explanation is hardly the same as "treating players like expendable employees." http://tapes.ieattapes.com/uploads/Bush_O_RLY.jpg I've seen players referred to as morons, and power hungry munchkins numerous times on this thread alone. Almost as if to make the argument that if the DM didn't put his foot down and stifle the players, they would build pun-pun ever chance they got. Or worse they'd all have cheesed out munchkin characters that made no sense and were all chaotic stupid. Further if the DM were to allow them to even dare to question him the game would lock up into endless arguments. Funny. I usually don't think of friendship in terms of what I "owe" other people. I don't "owe" them the work I do as DM. I don't "owe" them an adventure every week. How can I "owe" them an explanation of the decisions I make while running said adventure? Sorry "owe is bad wording, I just can't think of anything better at the moment. However the message is generally the same. I DM because I want to, because the work involved in DMing is what i find fun. My players play, because that is what they like to do. We both "owe" each other the best game we can produce. And if we weren't prepared to give that to each other, then why are we playing together?
kalyb 07-19-07, 06:56 AM	Really, this is arguing over who's style of play is better. Some people need an explanation of a DM's ruling; other people don't. I've played with multiple GM's, and I've Gm'd for many years. I've played both ways. Currently, when I GM, I ban some things for flavor reasons, I ban some things because I think they're over/under balanced, and I ban things because I don't like them. If I ban something, I let my players know the reason...even if the reason is simply, "I don't like it." The group I play with (who, by the way, are friends of mine) is OK with that. When one of them GM, they do the same thing. That is the way we play. Is it better than the other way? No. But neither is the other way better than ours.
Caelic 07-19-07, 10:25 AM	If I ban something, I let my players know the reason...even if the reason is simply, "I don't like it." The group I play with (who, by the way, are friends of mine) is OK with that. Kalyb, I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the notion that: 1. The DM is obligated to explain any decision, at any time. I have a whole lot of houserules in my campaign; if I had to stop to explain the whys and wherefores of each and every one, we'd never get any actual gaming done. 2. A DM who isn't ready and willing to explain every ruling he makes is on some kind of power trip. There can be a lot of good, sound reasons for not wanting to do so. Perhaps you just don't want the game to come to a screeching halt while you explain why, in your gameworld, halflings still have furry feet. Perhaps the answer to a given question would spoil the adventure or campaign. If you're running an adventure where the players have been dropped into a nightmare where none of their powers work, and it's up to them to figure that out and figure out how to "wake up," acceding to player demands for an explanation of why their powers don't work sort of defeats the purpose of the adventure. 3. "I don't like it" is not a sufficient reason to disallow something. It's one thing to say the DM should explain decisions to his players; it's another to start dictating to him the conditions under which he can and can't disallow things. I don't like the Tome of Battle. I don't think it's overpowered; I just don't like it. Now, I ask you: who's on the power trip? The DM who says "I don't like Book X, and therefore I'm not going to run a game that includes it," or the player who says "That's not a valid reason. You have to include Book X"?
Wildfire28 07-19-07, 10:53 AM	Maybe a strange remark but, do alway's remember this is a game. The people play it for fun. The Dm is trying to make a world happen, how many books he uses isn't really the argument here, let alone how many books a player is wishing for in a campaign. I understand the flavor a player wants in his character. I also understand the Dm's choice of flavor. Let me compare it with a Computer game. Let's take Diablo. In comparison the choices are pretty barren. A few options in character classes, millions of items, a few hundred enemies to swat like the flies they are. You will notice however that you played this game you had fun, the world is pretty narrow in comparison but you adjusted to the story. The same idea goes a long way when a Dm writes his/her story/setting/campaign. Allright, the player does have a say in what he/she/it want to become as a character, as long if it fits in the campaign. If all rules are open for the Dm and had gotten all the books, depending he understands and can adjucate in a game, then it is allright. But when he's letting the book in just because the player wants and it doesn't fit at all in the story (Samurai's in a western setting, An alien in a "Kill all aliens" setting) This can only work however is both the party's are in agreement about what they want to play. This is still a kind of group fun. Not about who's right. You give a little, you'll take a little. So far I have read arguments about who has the biggest stick. Rarely I have seen an argument about the having fun part. Let me piont this out once more, both parties are in agreement when they start the campaign, the house rules are set, the books what are allowed are allowed and the others are on hold. Then the players and the dm start the adventure. Onward to have fun! Wildfire (If I don't make sense... blame it on my coffee :) And yes I make spelling error's, I'm not english like you guy's/gal's )
Comus 07-19-07, 12:47 PM	Caelic, I have some counterpoints- 1) It is true that if the players are microanalytic, and question everything you do, it is rude and annoying. On the other hand, houserules should have explanations behind them - even if that explanation is "We found that the rule already in place wasn't (fun/realistic/there was a better one in another system). So we're using this." 2) But you could say "There is an answer to that, but it's up to your characters to discover it" or "I'll explain later. Right now that'd spoil the surprise." 3) That depends. If "I don't like it" means "I think it'll unbalance the campaign setting" or "I'm not comfortable learning a new system", than it's a good enough reason - but has been phrased incorrectly. If "I don't like it" means "The art in the book is terrible" or "The flavor text is awful", then it's not a good reason.
High Octane 07-19-07, 01:36 PM	Players are morons for the most part. Sure it's a generalization. Had a player who was playing a conjuror until he found the Complete and saw the abjurant champion prc., which he promptly took as soon as possible. How is that prc in flavor with a conjuror? Yeah it's not, but it does give full BaB, d10hp and full spell progression. His answer, "what mage wouldn't take that class" Of course we know everything is balanced. It's been mentioned a number of times already, I'll say it again. The Dm spends 4-5x as long working on the campaign then any player does and as a Dm I should just let anything in all willy nilly because I can't come up with anything better than , No? I think not. First I make my players have a complete background about their characters, have them list the wants and dreams, and their character concept from 1-20. IF they can't do that then why should I let them play in my game? That's right my game not theirs. We can work together to have fun, but at the end of the day I am the one that has to do all the work to make everyone happy and if I can't get the same level or respect from a player for that reason he's out. There is more to this game then you BAB and spell progression make something unique and not tweaked. Tell me, is it lonely up there on your pedestal?
shadzar 07-19-07, 02:10 PM	But one then has to ask when it is ok for the DM to disallow a book. soory i ain't reading through this entire thread or the post, i will just get to the meat of the subject with the above bit. there are a few reasons DM ban certain things. first it may not fit in his/her world as it is written. DMs that create their own world take lots of time to balance things and the accessories can offer some pretty unbalancing items or skills, etc. also why does one person get to use it vs another? also does the DM have access to the book to review it thoroughly to see what is in it. a better disclaimer in the books, should be purchase only if you are sure the DM will allow the material withn, or you just like reading on new ideas. the DM can disallow anything he/she feels doesn't belong in his or her game. if something from a book is something a player truely wants, they should probably discuss why it doesn't fit, and what might be done to make it fit if possible. for items, players shouldn't be looking for them unless they are wishing to attempt to create them. players should have NO say in what items they find in the game world, because again... the DM has balanced what exists and magic item A might find its way in there or not. D&D isn't a video game where everything exists and is available. hope that sums up my feelings on why DM disallow things.
Alyri 07-19-07, 02:41 PM	Tell me, is it lonely up there on your pedestal? Not at all. I have a waiting list of players wanting into my games. You can run a very tight ship and have people scrambling to get in and play.
Caelic 07-19-07, 03:01 PM	3) That depends. If "I don't like it" means "I think it'll unbalance the campaign setting" or "I'm not comfortable learning a new system", than it's a good enough reason - but has been phrased incorrectly. If "I don't like it" means "The art in the book is terrible" or "The flavor text is awful", then it's not a good reason. But why not? Ultimately, does it matter why the DM doesn't like it? He doesn't like it. If he doesn't like it, he's not going to have fun running it. If he's not having fun running it, he's going to do a bad job. Seriously--who gets to decide these things? "No, I'm sorry, Mr. DM--"I don't like ToB because it has too much of an anime feel" isn't a valid reason. You are henceforth instructed to both like and use the book, as per paragraph 437 of your contract." Let's turn it around. Say there's a player who doesn't like playing fighters. Does the DM get to demand an explanation from him? Is it okay to tell a player "No, that's not a good enough reason for not liking fighters?"
High Octane 07-19-07, 03:29 PM	But why not? Ultimately, does it matter why the DM doesn't like it? He doesn't like it. If he doesn't like it, he's not going to have fun running it. If he's not having fun running it, he's going to do a bad job. Seriously--who gets to decide these things? "No, I'm sorry, Mr. DM--"I don't like ToB because it has too much of an anime feel" isn't a valid reason. You are henceforth instructed to both like and use the book, as per paragraph 437 of your contract." Let's turn it around. Say there's a player who doesn't like playing fighters. Does the DM get to demand an explanation from him? Is it okay to tell a player "No, that's not a good enough reason for not liking fighters?" I agree. I am working on restarting my campaign and I'm not allowing psionics. Do I think it's broken? No. Would I be uncomfortable reading through it and learning it? Somewhat, but not that much. Do I think it doesnt fit into the flavor of my campaign? Yes. And that is the primary reason I am not including them. Existing and being balanced does not mean it has to be allowed. I don't care if it's balanced, I don't care if it's in a 3.5 book. You don't get a starship.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-19-07, 03:33 PM	Let's turn it around. Say there's a player who doesn't like playing fighters. Does the DM get to demand an explanation from him? Is it okay to tell a player "No, that's not a good enough reason for not liking fighters?" Well now this interesting. We'll say the player really does hate fighters, a lot. Now most would not think unreasonable for the player to just not play fighters. In which case it would acceptable for him to say that he just doesn't like fighters, and thus doesn't play them. However lets really this one around. suppose our player who really hates fighters turns around, and decides that no one at the table gets to play. They'll spoil his fun, and he won't do a good job as player. suppose your BBEG was a fighter/paladin black guard. Could a player say to you, "I just don't like fighter/paladin black guards. Please remake your BBEG." Would you? Seriously if a player told you that book X sucked, would ban it from the game? No? Then why do you get that power but not the players? What makes you so special? And on the flip side of this, i don't think it is unreasonable for players to be able to explain they want something, or why/how they think it would work. However though by allowing them their fun, you aren't taking away anyones else's. But by saying no, you are not allowing something the players find fun.
Caelic 07-19-07, 03:53 PM	Well now this interesting. We'll say the player really does hate fighters, a lot. Now most would not think unreasonable for the player to just not play fighters. In which case it would acceptable for him to say that he just doesn't like fighters, and thus doesn't play them. However lets really this one around. suppose our player who really hates fighters turns around, and decides that no one at the table gets to play. They'll spoil his fun, and he won't do a good job as player. Terrible, terrible analogy. The player, if he's not playing a fighter, does not need to know the rules concerning fighters. He doesn't need to run fighter characters. He can just play his character and never have to worry about fighters beyond sticking a sword in one now and then. Moreover, if he doesn't do a good job as a player, he's the main one who suffers for it. The party may have to take up the slack a bit, and maybe tell him to get on the ball, but that's about the worst of it. The DM, on the other hand, does need to worry about such things. If we're talking about fighters, he needs to know the rules concerning them; he needs to be prepared to run them at a moment's notice. And here's the really big difference: if he does a bad job because he's being forced to run a game he doesn't like, nobody has fun. The other players can't take up the slack for the DM. suppose your BBEG was a fighter/paladin black guard. Could a player say to you, "I just don't like fighter/paladin black guards. Please remake your BBEG." Would you? Moot point; the player's not going to be reading the character's sheet, and therefore has no idea what classes he has. Even if he were, though--no. The classes and rules I use for NPCs don't directly impact him. The classes and rules players use for their characters DO directly impact the DM. Let's make it a little more realistic. A couple of players want to play over-the-top Chaotic Evil. One of the other players says, "I'm really not comfortable playing in a campaign with Chaotic Evil characters. It makes me very uncomfortable." Do you allow the players who want to play Chaotic Evil to subject that player to a full interrogation, to determine if it's okay for him to not like playing Chaotic Evil? If he can't come up with an official, approved answer, do you then force him to play Chaotic Evil? Seriously if a player told you that book X sucked, would ban it from the game? No? I'd take it under serious consideration. You've made much of how you respect your players; so do I. I respect them enough that, if one of them comes to me and says, "Hey, you really want to give serious thought to banning Ray of Stupidity, it's broken," I'm gonna take a look at Ray of Stupidity. Enough that if one of them says, "Look, would it be okay if we didn't use Magic of Incarnum? I really can't take it seriously, and it ruins the flavor of the game for me," I'd probably leave out Magic of Incarnum, if I didn't have a strong reason for including it. Then why do you get that power but not the players? What makes you so special? Because I'm putting in the work of designing the world. Because I'm the one who has to know, not just the rules that make my character work, but the rules that make every character, PC and NPC, work. Are you seriously suggesting that the DM should have no more power to make decisions about what exists and does not exist in the gameworld than any player? Because that's certainly what it sounds like. However though by allowing them their fun, you aren't taking away anyones else's. That's a mighty big supposition. "I want to play a dragon! That's fun for me!" "Uhm, Bob, the rest of us are playing level 1 human characters." "I don't care! I want what I want!" Or on a slightly more realistic scale: "I want to play a Blackguard!" "But, Bob, one of the main characters in the party is a Paladin. You know he can't associate with you. If you bring in a Blackguard, he'll have to either leave or fight you." "Well, then, he'd better leave, because I'll kick his butt if he fights me!" The first one is hyperbole. I've seen the second one, and similar things, happen...far too often. Allowing everything, out of the fear that if you deny a player anything he'll be unhappy, is just as likely to result in unhappy players as happy players.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-19-07, 05:59 PM	Terrible, terrible analogy. The player, if he's not playing a fighter, does not need to know the rules concerning fighters. He doesn't need to run fighter characters. He can just play his character and never have to worry about fighters beyond sticking a sword in one now and then. Moreover, if he doesn't do a good job as a player, he's the main one who suffers for it. The party may have to take up the slack a bit, and maybe tell him to get on the ball, but that's about the worst of it. Again i don't think so. You can tell a player, no. Because you don't like it, and it'll spoil your game. I see no reason why a player can't do the same to you. And trust me on this one, a player can ruin a game just as easily as a DM can. Sure the players can pick up the slack of a player who does nothing, but what about when the player kills the party in their sleep and runs off with their gear? Perhaps the player doesn't care for their character, because they find the available options boring, and flat. Maybe they'll play more suicidally, picking fights, and what not. Players and DMs a like can ruin a game. The person who would do that because they didn't get their way is a spoiled brat, regardless of what side of the screen they're on. The DM, on the other hand, does need to worry about such things. If we're talking about fighters, he needs to know the rules concerning them; he needs to be prepared to run them at a moment's notice. And here's the really big difference: if he does a bad job because he's being forced to run a game he doesn't like, nobody has fun. The other players can't take up the slack for the DM. Yaa know I'm really getting tired of this the DM is special because they do more crap. Honestly why is this highhanded abusive mentality tolerated here? How would you feel if: Your walking in the with your S.O. You want to go look at store X. s/he says, "No we're not going there. I don't care if you like it or not. We're not going there, and if you keep bringing it up then I'm going home. And yaa I'll do everything I can to make the rest of this trip miserable for you if we don't go every-were I want to go, and only there." I would take that kinda crap form anyone, let alone this guy who is pretending to be my friend. And what about the players/ Should they be forced into a campaign they don't like because the DM is too spoiled to run anything else? Moot point; the player's not going to be reading the character's sheet, and therefore has no idea what classes he has. Even if he were, though--no. The classes and rules I use for NPCs don't directly impact him. WTF? NPCs do not directly impact the PCs? I'm really confused you'll have to explain this one too me. The classes and rules players use for their characters DO directly impact the DM. And vice versa. I once ran a psionic mind-flayer. It had a direct, and repeated impact on my players. They also felt it was overpowered. Do my players have a right to tell me , as DM I am not to use things like that? Do I as a DM have the right to tell my players not to use something because of power reasons? Why? and why the difference between DM and player? (Bonus points if you can answer this one with out a double standard, or logical fallacies.) Let's make it a little more realistic. A couple of players want to play over-the-top Chaotic Evil. One of the other players says, "I'm really not comfortable playing in a campaign with Chaotic Evil characters. It makes me very uncomfortable." Do you allow the players who want to play Chaotic Evil to subject that player to a full interrogation, to determine if it's okay for him to not like playing Chaotic Evil? If he can't come up with an official, approved answer, do you then force him to play Chaotic Evil? I'm not sure about interrogating the other player, but they should be able to ask why he doesn't like chaotic evil games. maybe there are some specific issues, that if addressed he'd be ok with it again. But worst case sinaroi, we would go with majority rule on it. Why should the one lone player dictate the fun of the entire group? I'd take it under serious consideration. You've made much of how you respect your players; so do I. I respect them enough that, if one of them comes to me and says, "Hey, you really want to give serious thought to banning Ray of Stupidity, it's broken," I'm gonna take a look at Ray of Stupidity. Enough that if one of them says, "Look, would it be okay if we didn't use Magic of Incarnum? I really can't take it seriously, and it ruins the flavor of the game for me," I'd probably leave out Magic of Incarnum, if I didn't have a strong reason for including it. Now if we switch don't like X, to really want X, and you give the same answer as above your agreeing with me. I'm not saying you have to give in to your players everytime. However at least listen to them, take what they have to say under consideration. Because I'm putting in the work of designing the world. Because I'm the one who has to know, not just the rules that make my character work, but the rules that make every character, PC and NPC, work. Seriousely dude, quiet martyring yourself. If DMing is soooo much work, and your so hard done by because of it, then maybe you should not DM in the first place. DMing is a labour of love. Either you love to do it, and it is it's own reward, or your doing it for all the wrong reasons. Either you'll not find pity about it from me. And ya I put in hours, and hours of work, but not because I want to be treated special, or because I labour under the immersion that my fun is more important because of it. Nope I do it, because I love to do it, and that to me is reward enough. However should my group not have fun, then my efforts have all been for not. Are you seriously suggesting that the DM should have no more power to make decisions about what exists and does not exist in the gameworld than any player? Because that's certainly what it sounds like. I'm not saying the DM has anymore, or any less powr then his/her group gives them. I am however saying that DM is obligated to be accountable to his/her player. That's a mighty big supposition. "I want to play a dragon! That's fun for me!" "Uhm, Bob, the rest of us are playing level 1 human characters." "I don't care! I want what I want!" the rules for playing a dragon aside, this is kind of silly. And on top of that a valid reason was given. Taht satisfies everything I'm talking about. Or on a slightly more realistic scale: "I want to play a Blackguard!" "But, Bob, one of the main characters in the party is a Paladin. You know he can't associate with you. If you bring in a Blackguard, he'll have to either leave or fight you." "Well, then, he'd better leave, because I'll kick his butt if he fights me!" The first one is hyperbole. I've seen the second one, and similar things, happen...far too often. Allowing everything, out of the fear that if you deny a player anything he'll be unhappy, is just as likely to result in unhappy players as happy players. 1) A valid reason was given for why a black guard was not viable. It was sound, and logical, and further the player had no reasonable rebuttle. Was that really so hard? 2) Why is that the players are always portrayed as *******s on these threads? I challenge you to come up with a scenario in which the player is a normal reasonable person with a normal reasonable request, and the DM says no, and but does not have a good reason, and is still not being a tard about it.
Caelic 07-19-07, 06:48 PM	Players and DMs a like can ruin a game. The person who would do that because they didn't get their way is a spoiled brat, regardless of what side of the screen they're on. ...so you live in a world where a DM can simply turn his enthusiasm on and off? Where running a great session is simply a matter of saying, "Okay, today I'm going to run a great session?" Where a DM who can't do that--because he's sick, or has other issues, or simply isn't enthusiastic about what the players are demanding he run--is a "spoiled brat?" For someone who talks so much about respect, you really don't show very much of it at times, TPK. Yaa know I'm really getting tired of this the DM is special because they do more crap. That's fine; I long ago got tired of the mentality of "The DM is an expendable resource and the work he does isn't important." I won't, however, call that position "crap." Calling someone else's beliefs "crap," after all, is disrespectful. Honestly why is this highhanded abusive mentality tolerated here? Because it's neither highhanded nor abusive. It's simple fact. The person running the game needs to be able to make rules calls. Those calls aren't always going to please every player. Why is this mentality of "You want to make rules calls!? You're a bad, evil, abusive DM!" tolerated here? How would you feel if: Your walking in the with your S.O. You want to go look at store X. s/he says, "No we're not going there. I don't care if you like it or not. We're not going there, and if you keep bringing it up then I'm going home. You really do like bad analogies. Again, you're proceeding from the flawed assumption that the DM's position is identical to any player's, which is simply false. You may not like the fact that it's false, but it is. The DM gets to do things that players don't. That's how the game works. He gets to look at the maps, he gets to know where the traps are, he gets to make the rules calls. He's not "superior" to the players. He's not "playing Gawd." He does have more power in terms of the game. He has it because he needs it. Let's try a better analogy, shall we? Two friends, who are equals--but one of them happens to be driving a car. How would you feel if: you're giving a friend a ride home. He says "Hey, I want to go to Store X." You say, "Sorry, I don't have time to go to Store X right now." He says, "Well, I want to go to Store X! What makes you think that what you want is more important than what I want?" Is the driver playing Gawd because he reserves the right to steer the car? Is he being unreasonable because he doesn't want to argue about destinations while he's trying to drive? Is he being unfair because he's not sharing the power to drive that car with his passenger? I would take that kinda crap form anyone, let alone this guy who is pretending to be my friend. And what about the players/ Should they be forced into a campaign they don't like because the DM is too spoiled to run anything else? Ah. So now the DM's "spoiled" if he actually has preferences as to what he runs. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the players are so spoiled that they'll spit on a DM's campaign because he didn't get their approval on every aspect of it, let one of them run. WTF? NPCs do not directly impact the PCs? I'm really confused you'll have to explain this one too me. The numbers behind NPCs do not directly impact the PCs. PCs can go through an entire campaign without once knowing the class or level of an NPC. They may be able to make educated guesses, but they'll never know for certain. A Blackguard NPC doesn't impact a player any more than a Lawful Evil fighter. He doesn't like those rules? Fine. He never needs to deal directly with them. That's the nice thing about being a player. And vice versa. I once ran a psionic mind-flayer. It had a direct, and repeated impact on my players. They also felt it was overpowered. Do my players have a right to tell me , as DM I am not to use things like that? Judging by what you've said so far, they not only have a right to tell you not to use things like that, they have the right to hand you a list of acceptable and player-approved monsters and stipulate exactly how many of them you're supposed to use per session. Do I as a DM have the right to tell my players not to use something because of power reasons? Why? and why the difference between DM and player? (Bonus points if you can answer this one with out a double standard, or logical fallacies.) Of course I can, but I don't think you'll accept the simple truth. The DM is responsible for making sure that everybody has a good time. Sometimes, that means disallowing something that will make one player happy and others unhappy. Each player is responsible for running one character. The DM is responsible for running everything else. In order to do that effectively, he needs capabilities that the players do not have. I'm not sure about interrogating the other player, but they should be able to ask why he doesn't like chaotic evil games. maybe there are some specific issues, that if addressed he'd be ok with it again. But worst case sinaroi, we would go with majority rule on it. Why should the one lone player dictate the fun of the entire group? But when it comes to one lone player saying "Hey! I want to use Book X, and my fun will be spoiled if I don't!" you're all for that player's "rights." What was that about double standards? Seriousely dude, quiet martyring yourself. If DMing is soooo much work, and your so hard done by because of it, then maybe you should not DM in the first place. DMing is a labour of love. Either you love to do it, and it is it's own reward, or your doing it for all the wrong reasons. Wow. If I'm not mistaken, I've been DMing longer than you've been alive, or very close to it....and you're going to presume to lecture me about whether I should or shouldn't be DMing? To tell me whether my reasons for DMing are "right" or "wrong?" I'm arrogant, but, pal, you have me beat hands down. I wouldn't presume to tell someone who's been DMing for six months that he should or shouldn't be DMing, or to lecture him on the "right reasons" for DMing. Maybe he's DMing because there's nobody else to do it, and even though he really doesn't want to, he wants his friends to be able to play. According to your statement, that's the "wrong reason." But to answer your question, I enjoy DMing. I enjoy DMing because they don't have the sense of entitlement that so many newer players have. I enjoy DMing because they don't feel the need to have me justify everything I do and trust me enough to know that I'm going to be fair. It would be because they don't yell and stamp their feat and accuse me of "playing Gawd" if I don't put every rules call to a round-table vote. I love DMing, but lemme tell you, players like that would sour me on it really fast. the rules for playing a dragon aside, this is kind of silly. And on top of that a valid reason was given. Taht satisfies everything I'm talking about. How very nice. Would you care to provide the official and approved list of "Valid Reasons?" Just so that those of us who occasionally say "No" know when we're allowed to do that and when we're not? 2) Why is that the players are always portrayed as *******s on these threads? That would be in response to the people who shriek "High-handed abusive DM who wants to play Gawd!" every blessed time anyone advocates ANY kind of DM stance beyond, "Well, let's take a vote on it. What do YOU all want the monster to do this round?" I challenge you to come up with a scenario in which the player is a normal reasonable person with a normal reasonable request, and the DM says no, and but does not have a good reason, and is still not being a tard about it. I provided you with a situation that actually happened. What, you'd be happier if I made up a situation where the player comes across looking better? Why? What would that accomplish? I don't see any point. Come to that, I don't see any point to continuing this discussion, since it's turned into yet another iteration of a very tiresome old song. DMs sometimes say "No." We don't owe anybody an explanation. We aren't required to check our "Nos" against a list of valid and invalid reasons. That's not to say that we will never explain what we're doing, but it's not some sort of obligation. Not doing these things doesn't make us bad DMs, or high-handed. It doesn't mean we treat our players like servants. It doesn't mean we're on a power trip. It just means that, sometimes, we want to get on with running the game. Despite that horribly unenlightened position, our players still have fun. They don't get up and leave the game in droves, as is invariably predicted whenever the subject of DMs saying "No" comes up. Nor is there anything wrong with them. We don't lock them in the basement. We don't brainwash them. We haven't carefully blocked their access to True Enlightened Roleplaying Philosophy (tm). It just means that they, too, want to get on the game. Either you can accept that reality, or you can't. If you can't, I feel a little sorry for you, because you're missing out on a good bit of fun gaming. I've played in round-robin games. I've played in games where everyone had an equal say in what happens. I've played in games where the DM made the final call, and everyone was fine with that. All of them can be fun, but in general, the best campaigns...the ones that made the most sense, that had the most depth, and that featured the best roleplaying...were the ones where the DM was in the driver's seat and nobody was trying to grab the steering wheel away from him.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-19-07, 07:48 PM	Easy there buddy. Count to ten, slowly, now breath. We're just having a discussion about DMing game theory. No need to get militant, or upset about it. Just calm down now lets look at this a little more rationally. I'll concede that players can be dougewads, if you'll concede that DMs can be dougewads as well. Its ok if you can't come up with a situation in which the player isn't being a jerk about wanting a supplement, and yet the DM still can't give a good reason for saying no. I don't really think there is one. And that is my point. If you are going to say "no", then you should have good reason for doing so. If you have that reason, then why can't you share it with the players when asked? You see all these reasons your giving me; power level, it'll detract from other peoples fun, it doesn't fit flavourfully wise, etc. They're all fine, and valid, and yes the DM has the right to make that call. But why can't they tell it to their players? Why do the players not have a right to ask? Further on that notion, is the DM always right about everything? Does DMing somehow transform you into being being infallible, and perfect? (careful how you answer that, I recall someone saying something about playing god.) So if the DM is still human, and subject to human error, then maybe, just maybe that made a human error on their rules call? Or to put it another way, suppose a newer DM thinks something is over powered, because they miscalculated something, or weren't familiar with he rules entirely. Say a more experienced player were to point out their error, is that a bad thing? Like say a DM banning the spiked chain because they feel that 5 AoOs is to much for them. Then the player points out that ranged weapons could over come it, and further the tripper can only take as many AoOs as are provoked, thus if fewer are provoked then fewer can be taken. Lets look at that car example again: Billy is giving Jeo a lift home. Joe wants a pack of cigs, and asks Billy if he's mind pulling into the store. Billy says no, he hasn't the time. Is that not a reasonable reason? I don't have time. Perhaps Billy is low on petrol, and doesn't want to go out of his way because he'll run out. A very valid reason, what if Joe were to say," Hey it cool, but if your planning on getting gas, could I come too?" Now Billy may be waiting until he gets paid tomorrow, and thus won't be getting gas tonight. Again a valid reason. But what is stopping Billy for telling Joe that? What I'm seeing, and trying to address is more along the lines of Joe asking to Billy to pull into the store, and Billy telling, "No, and if you don't like it, your walking home!" Perfectly within in Billy rights to do and say, but not very nice. Lets try one more analogy, my political one. Does the governor of your state have the ability to dictate state policy? Yes. Does s/he need it to perform their duties? Yes. Are they still accountable to the people? I should hope so! suppose a governor made a controversial law, or policy on something. Naturally the press, and the people would question that, right? He may be right, and if it helps we'll assume he is, but the call he made was still controversial all the same. Now what do you suppose the reaction would be if he stood up in front of his sate, and said," Thats the way I'm running things. If you don't like it, move to Canada." Then left. Or worse called anyone who disagreed with him a whiner, or a traitor. Now granted things like do happen, but that doesn't make them right. I see DMing the same way. If I make a call that ruffles my players feathers, then I am obligated to explain it to them at the very least. I can only DM with their consent, and as such I am accountable to them. But like I said, you may not DM the same as I. Thats fine, its your game, don't let me tell you how to have. If you DM because you were somehow tricked into it, or its a dirty job and someone has to do it, then very well carry on. I just find that really sad, because the game will always be a lot more fun if everyone is doing what their doing because they want to, not because they feel they have to. I look at fun the same way as well. As player it is my job to ensure everyone, including myself as a good time. By Player I mean someone who plays the game. DM, and PC a like. Everyone should take responsibility for not only their own fun, but also everyone else's. I think if everyone did that then a lot of these, paladin vrs black guard, or dougebag player vrs strict DM arguments would become moote. I guess it really boils down fairness. Either it is a part of your game or it isn't. And there really isn't more I can add then that. Good day sir.
Caelic 07-19-07, 08:25 PM	I'll concede that players can be dougewads, if you'll concede that DMs can be dougewads as well. When did I ever say that they couldn't? The thing is: "strict" does not equal "douchewad." (I'm assuming that's what you mean, since I have no idea what a "douge" is.) Its ok if you can't come up with a situation in which the player isn't being a jerk about wanting a supplement, and yet the DM still can't give a good reason for saying no. I don't really think there is one. And that is my point. Sure there is, but there's no point to giving the example, which is why I didn't do it. "Hey, Mike, I'd like to play a Crusader." "No, Bob. Sorry, but I'm not allowing that for this campaign." There's your example, start to finish. Pointless, isn't it? If you are going to say "no", then you should have good reason for doing so. If you have that reason, then why can't you share it with the players when asked? The problem is, you insist that there has to be "good reason." I consider some things "good reasons" that you don't--including "I don't like it." Who gets to make up the list of "good reasons?" But why can't they tell it to their players? Why do the players not have a right to ask? They have a right to ask. They do not have a right to demand. Further on that notion, is the DM always right about everything? Does DMing somehow transform you into being being infallible, and perfect? Nope. He doesn't have to be. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. That doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes a committee affair. ("Gee, dinner was a little burned yesterday! Guess we'd all better head on into the kitchen and tell Mike how to cook!") So if the DM is still human, and subject to human error, then maybe, just maybe that made a human error on their rules call? Yep. And if the players are mature, they'll accept that, sometimes, the call doesn't go the way they want it to, that everyone makes mistakes, and that it's not the end of the world and they don't have to stand there peering over the DM's shoulder. Or to put it another way, suppose a newer DM thinks something is over powered, because they miscalculated something, or weren't familiar with he rules entirely. Say a more experienced player were to point out their error, is that a bad thing? Like say a DM banning the spiked chain because they feel that 5 AoOs is to much for them. Then the player points out that ranged weapons could over come it, and further the tripper can only take as many AoOs as are provoked, thus if fewer are provoked then fewer can be taken. Suppose the DM simply banned the spiked chain...or the dire flail or the Gnomish hooked hammer...because it's a goofy weapon? From my perspective, that's valid. From yours, I doubt very much that it is. Lets look at that car example again: Billy is giving Jeo a lift home. Joe wants a pack of cigs, and asks Billy if he's mind pulling into the store. Billy says no, he hasn't the time. How about if Bill just says, "No, I don't feel like it?" Is that a valid reason? Apparently, from the way you've been passionately arguing against it, it isn't. What I'm seeing, and trying to address is more along the lines of Joe asking to Billy to pull into the store, and Billy telling, "No, and if you don't like it, your walking home!" Perfectly within in Billy rights to do and say, but not very nice. Actually, I've seen rather more "...and if you don't like it, you're walking home!" from the Players' Rights contingent. Usually in the form of "...and if the DM doesn't do it that way, he won't have any players!" Does the governor of your state have the ability to dictate state policy? Yes. Does s/he need it to perform their duties? Yes. Are they still accountable to the people? I should hope so! To some extent. When the people vote in the Governor, they agree to trust him to make a lot of decisions on which they will never be consulted. Beyond choosing him as Governor, they have no say whatsoever in those decisions. That's just the way it works. The Governor doesn't have the time to go door to door and double-check every decision he makes with the voters. If one of those voters bursts in on the middle of one of the Governor's strategy sessions demanding an explanation of his new tax bill, though, the Governor certainly isn't under any obligation to stop what he's doing and justify that bill. If he's very generous, his security people will just restrain the person rather than beating him. suppose a governor made a controversial law, or policy on something. Naturally the press, and the people would question that, right? He may be right, and if it helps we'll assume he is, but the call he made was still controversial all the same. Now what do you suppose the reaction would be if he stood up in front of his sate, and said," Thats the way I'm running things. If you don't like it, move to Canada." Then left. Or worse called anyone who disagreed with him a whiner, or a traitor. We're getting perilously close to real-world political discussion there, which is against the rules, so I'm going to let that one lie. I see DMing the same way. If I make a call that ruffles my players feathers, then I am obligated to explain it to them at the very least. I can only DM with their consent, and as such I am accountable to them. Well, no. That's not quite true. There are certainly more options than that. Just as your players could find a new DM, you could find new players. I realize that, in your opinion, a DM walking is a minor inconvenience while players walking is the ultimate threat, but the truth is that it works both ways. And you may be obligated to explain. That, however, is your own choice. I am under no such obligation. I may choose to do so, but nobody has a right to require it of me. But like I said, you may not DM the same as I. Thats fine, its your game, don't let me tell you how to have. If you DM because you were somehow tricked into it, or its a dirty job and someone has to do it, then very well carry on. ...which, of course, you already know not to be the case. I just find it incredibly presumptive of you to decree the "right" or "wrong" reasons for DMing, and to proclaim that anyone who isn't doing it for the same reason you are shouldn't be DMing. I just find that really sad, because the game will always be a lot more fun if everyone is doing what their doing because they want to, not because they feel they have to. I've seen games where one person DMs because nobody else is willing to, even though he'd rather be playing. I have a lot of respect for such folks, because it's nice of them to do that. I disagree that the game would be more fun if they were doing what they wanted...because, in that case, there'd be no DM and no game. I think if everyone did that then a lot of these, paladin vrs black guard, or dougebag player vrs strict DM arguments would become moote. ...as would this suspicion that the DM is a power-crazed madman who needs to be constantly monitored to ensure that he doesn't attempt to overstep his bounds. I guess it really boils down fairness. Either it is a part of your game or it isn't. ...and being strict or permissive has nothing to do with fairness, and neither does "obligation." It's entirely possible to be a scrupulously fair DM without feeling the need to constantly justify yourself.
Alyri 07-19-07, 08:32 PM	Honestly why is this highhanded abusive mentality tolerated here? How would you feel if: Your walking in the with your S.O. You want to go look at store X. s/he says, "No we're not going there. I don't care if you like it or not. We're not going there, and if you keep bringing it up then I'm going home. And yaa I'll do everything I can to make the rest of this trip miserable for you if we don't go every-were I want to go, and only there." I would take that kinda crap form anyone, let alone this guy who is pretending to be my friend. And what about the players/ Should they be forced into a campaign they don't like because the DM is too spoiled to run anything else? Well with this statement all of us married folk can tell that you sure are not married
kalyb 07-20-07, 12:50 AM	OK...I know I shouldn't be getting in the middle of this, but I'm going to anyway. I should mention now that all comments I make are how I am interpreting comments, and in no way am I saying that this is the definite explanation of what anyway is saying. TPK..to me it seems that you are saying that a DM shouldn't ban anything for any reason other than mechanical reasons (flavor, balance, etc). Dm preference should not play a role in the decision. I.e., if the player wants to play something that the DM doesn't want to deal with (he thinks it sounds stupid or whatever), the DM should allow the player to do that, even if the players reason for wanting to is he thinks it sounds cool. I think the argument to the Dm banning something vs player banning something (if the DM can ban stuff he doesn't like, then the player can ban what they don't like) is that if the players don't like the psionic mind flayer, they run away or go around it and move on with the adventure (unless the DM is being a real douche and saying, "No, you have to fight this creature; there's no way for you to leave without killing it). If the DM doesn't like the players class, he has to deal with it if the character insists on playing it. The DM can't make the world get away from the player. Plus, if he makes an exception and lets the player play a banned class, then either a)the DM has to populate the world with others, or b) the DM needs to create a reason why there is only one. On the other hand, there are DMs who try to railroad characters (I was the victim of one who went so far as to say, "No, your character wants to go down into the cave. That's what your character wants to do.") Those DMs are being douches. Those DMs are on a power trip and are arrogant and all that. Caelic...it seems to me that you're saying that, as the DM is the one creating the world, the DM has the final say in what is or is not allowed regardless of what the other players want. If players don't want to be in the game, they are free to leave; it's not that big a loss. The rest of the group can have fun without him (or her). The problem with this view, in my opinion, is that the player leaving is a loss. Any player leaving my table (except big-time trouble players) is a loss. Part of the joy in DMing is watching the players explore your world. The ways they react to it; the things they seek out and discover. The loss of that player (especially if it's one of your friends) is loss of their reactions and enjoyment. That being said, the loss of the DM ends the campaign. I stress her that it ends that specific campaign. The players (including the ex-DM) are free to [immediately] begin a new campaign, with the same DM or with a new one. The problem with this thread (Everybody feel free to begin attacks on me for suggesting there might be a problem with this thread............................now) is that it moved beyond a discussion of DMing philosophies and gone to "people who don't game the way I do is either a high-handed player hater or power hungry player who wants everything their way." No one is going to agree on this because everyone has their own DMing style. I'm assuming that, like me, both of you have been DMing for quite some time (exact time isn't important). Therefore, both of you have found groups (maybe even multiple groups) that agree with and enjoy your DMing. Everyone is having fun in your groups, so why argue about it? True, there are groups where the DM is power hungry and the players are worried about finding other groups. There are also groups where the players insist on having the final say in whats allowed, and the DM is equally miserable. Two people in good groups arguing about who's right or wrong isn't going to change that either. Those "bad" groups are always going to exist.
solbergb 07-20-07, 11:40 AM	What I'm seeing is that "On Wings" sees only one true way to play and most of the folks debating him say "no really, there are other good ways to play too". I don't think he'll change his mind though, until he experiences such a game and has fun. Which may be never if he reacts to the slightest restriction by walking away in a huff.
Caelic 07-20-07, 02:03 PM	Caelic...it seems to me that you're saying that, as the DM is the one creating the world, the DM has the final say in what is or is not allowed regardless of what the other players want. Ultimately, I'm saying he has to be the one that makes that call. I'm not saying he should exercise is arbitrarily or capriciously. I'm not saying he shouldn't respect player input. But when it comes right down to it, if the DM says "This isn't allowed" and a player says "Yes, it is," it's the DM's voice that prevails--simply because he's the one running, and if he chooses not to include Book X in the game he's running, then Book X doesn't get included. It's not about "should" or "shouldn't"; that's just the way the game works. If players don't want to be in the game, they are free to leave; it's not that big a loss. The rest of the group can have fun without him (or her). "It's not that big a loss" depends very much on the player in question. Yes, there have been certain players who have joined my campaign and been incompatiblee; yes, I have not considered it a particularly big loss when they left. They weren't a good fit; they'll be happier at another table; we'll be happier with them at another table, and not ours. On the other hand, I consider the loss of one of my regular players...one of the ones I know fits well with the group...to be a significant loss each and every time it happens. And it does happen; in twenty years, people move away, people have kids, people just don't have time for gaming anymore. Any player leaving my table (except big-time trouble players) is a loss. Part of the joy in DMing is watching the players explore your world. The ways they react to it; the things they seek out and discover. The loss of that player (especially if it's one of your friends) is loss of their reactions and enjoyment. Agreed. On the other hand, I have to take a long-term view. In a campaign as long as the ones I prefer to run, I'm going to lose players, no matter how good a job I do of entertaining them. Consequently, I can't make my decisions based solely around the premise that losing players is bad and to be avoided at all costs. That being said, the loss of the DM ends the campaign. I stress her that it ends that specific campaign. The players (including the ex-DM) are free to [immediately] begin a new campaign, with the same DM or with a new one. Certainly. My point of contention here is with those who brush off the end of that campaign as insignificant; it's not, and to treat it as such belittles the DM and the effort he puts into it. (And, yes, I know that mentioning the DM's effort is taboo in some circles, but I continue to think that it's significant and worthy of recognition.) The problem with this thread (Everybody feel free to begin attacks on me for suggesting there might be a problem with this thread............................now) is that it moved beyond a discussion of DMing philosophies and gone to "people who don't game the way I do is either a high-handed player hater or power hungry player who wants everything their way." If I've taken that position, I apologize...but, to be fair, I don't believe I've ever taken that position. I've taken the position that there are unreasonable players out there, certainly; that's just a statement of fact. I have stated that, in my experience, highly permissive campaigns tend to be fairly short-lived. I don't think that's an attack; many people prefer short-lived campaigns, and I acknowledge that preferring campaigns that last for years if not decades is the exception rather than the rule. Highly-permissive is not conducive to my preferred style of play; that's all I'm saying there. I have objected fairly strenuously to the notion that a non-permissive DM is inherently an inferior DM, and a permissive one is inherently superior/more fun/more concerned with his players' fun. I will continue to object strenuously to that notion. Everyone is having fun in your groups, so why argue about it? To be honest, because I get tired of threads that constantly recycle the idea that permissiveness is the mark of a good or enlightened DM, and restrictions are the mark of a bad/power hungry DM who doesn't respect his friends. Yes, I should probably just ignore them, but they tend to be very pervasive...and when you're part of a community, and a certain part of that community loudly and frequently denigrates you, it's tough not to be a bit thin-skinned about it.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-20-07, 03:39 PM	Ultimately, I'm saying he has to be the one that makes that call. I'm not saying he should exercise is arbitrarily or capriciously. I'm not saying he shouldn't respect player input. But when it comes right down to it, if the DM says "This isn't allowed" and a player says "Yes, it is," it's the DM's voice that prevails--simply because he's the one running, and if he chooses not to include Book X in the game he's running, then Book X doesn't get included. It's not about "should" or "shouldn't"; that's just the way the game works. I agree with this 100%, and am not diputing it in anyway shape or form. I just want to tack on to the end of it, that a a DM should have a reason. Thats it, thats all. I'm not trying to say that they have to allow everything, or their a bad DM. Thats a fabrication on your part. I'm simply arguing that a reasonable DM, like a reasonable person will listen to what their players/other people have to say before dismissing it out of hand. "It's not that big a loss" depends very much on the player in question. Yes, there have been certain players who have joined my campaign and been incompatiblee; yes, I have not considered it a particularly big loss when they left. They weren't a good fit; they'll be happier at another table; we'll be happier with them at another table, and not ours. And losing a good DM is a big loss. As big a loss as losing a regular, good player. However loosing a bad DM really isn't much more of a loss then losing a bad player. Agreed. On the other hand, I have to take a long-term view. In a campaign as long as the ones I prefer to run, I'm going to lose players, no matter how good a job I do of entertaining them. Consequently, I can't make my decisions based solely around the premise that losing players is bad and to be avoided at all costs. Well until you run out of them at any rate.... Certainly. My point of contention here is with those who brush off the end of that campaign as insignificant; it's not, and to treat it as such belittles the DM and the effort he puts into it. (And, yes, I know that mentioning the DM's effort is taboo in some circles, but I continue to think that it's significant and worthy of recognition.) As it does with players, and DMs it depends on the quality of the camapign ending. If it sucked to begin with, for whatever reason, then its ending may be a good thing. If it was a good campaign then yaa it sucks, but life goes on. To take a look at the longer picture, all campaigns, good or bad end eventually. My position is simply. DMs should listen to their players. And be acocuntable for themselves. They don't have to give in, but at least listen to what they have to say. To be honest I'm having trouble understanding how that equates to players are always right, or any of the other crap I'm being accused of saying. And honestly if a DM can't listen to their players, then yes I do think their on a bit of a power trip. To reiterate, DMs should have a good reason for disallowing things. That right there assumes that they do indeed disallow things. I'm just saying they should: 1) have a good reason for why they disallow what they do. 2) be able to example it to their players. Who decides what is and is not a good reason? Ultimately it will be the players in that particular group. Ok I'm done now, you can go back to calling me a whinny player, and dismissing my point with straw man, and ad hominem attacks now.
Caelic 07-20-07, 03:59 PM	I agree with this 100%, and am not diputing it in anyway shape or form. I just want to tack on to the end of it, that a a DM should have a reason. Thats it, thats all. ...and you insist that that reason has to be a "good reason," and you maintain that "I don't like it" is not a "good reason." You have further characterized those who don't share your opinion on this matter...who feel that, in fact, a DM should be able to decline to use a source he doesn't like...as "jerks." Therein lies the point of contention. And losing a good DM is a big loss. As big a loss as losing a regular, good player. There's really no way to respond to that that won't be taken wrong, but it's just not accurate. You're obviously arguing from a mentality that says the DM is always replaceable, and that if he steps down, another player can and will always step in. The reality is that that's not always true. If you're in a group that's lucky enough to have many DMs, good for you. It's extremely presumptive to assume that, because you're that fortunate, "There are more than enough players and DMs to go around" is a universal truth. The truth is that some groups do not have an endless supply of DMs waiting in the wings. Some players just plain don't want to DM. Some players just plain aren't good at DMing. For those people who don't share your good fortune, losing a DM has a bigger impact than losing a player. That's not belittling players. It's not minimizing the loss that comes with a player. But if you have six players and only one of them is willing to DM, losing him has more of an impact on the game than losing any of the other five. That's just fact. Well until you run out of them at any rate.... ...which people keep predicting. I can't help but wonder when this is going to happen. I mean, given how many times I've been told that by not bending over backwards to retain all my players, I'm going to wind up with none, you'd think it would have happened by now...or at least that I wouldn't have a waiting list by this point. My position is simply. DMs should listen to their players. And be acocuntable for themselves. They don't have to give in, but at least listen to what they have to say. ...and mine is that it's up to each DM to determine his relationship with his players, which will vary from group to group depending on the personalities involved, and it's presumptuous for anyone outside that group to say that that relationship is "right" or "wrong." Or that the DM's reasons for disallowing something are "good" or "bad." To be honest I'm having trouble understanding how that equates to players are always right, or any of the other crap I'm being accused of saying. I'll answer that if you can tell me how not believing that I'm always obligated to provide a specific answer for why I'm disallowing something equates to "treating my players like servants" or being "abusive." And honestly if a DM can't listen to their players, then yes I do think their on a bit of a power trip. The problem is, you treat "can't listen to their players" and "doesn't listen to their players and react the way I do" as being synonymous. They're not. Ok I'm done now, you can go back to calling me a whinny player, and dismissing my point with straw man, and ad hominem attacks now. TPK, Over the last several pages...in between talking about how much you respect DMs and different styles of play...you have called DMs who don't see things your way (meaning DMs who don't feel obligated to always explain their rulings, or who don't agree on what constitutes a "good reason") manipulative, arrogant, childish, "jerks," and "asshats." You have accused us of everything from blackmail to abuse to treating our players like servants. Are you honestly going to sit there and pretend that you have the moral high ground when it comes to ad hominem? Personally, I'm willing to lay off the insults. I honestly don't think I've called you a whole lot of names, have I? I just dislike the fact that, on one hand, you're claiming to be tolerant of other viewpoints, and on the other, throwing some very strong perjoratives in the direction of those of us who do things differently than you.
maharai23 07-20-07, 04:04 PM	First, the DM is always right. Even when his ruling directly contradicts RAW, he is right. That is the way the game works. Second, the ruling "that's not allowed for campaign-storyline reasons." is perfectly ok, and all a player will ever get from me when there's a reason for the denial.
Alyri 07-20-07, 04:30 PM	TPK, Over the last several pages...in between talking about how much you respect DMs and different styles of play...you have called DMs who don't see things your way (meaning DMs who don't feel obligated to always explain their rulings, or who don't agree on what constitutes a "good reason") manipulative, arrogant, childish, "jerks," and "asshats." You have accused us of everything from blackmail to abuse to treating their players like servants. Are you honestly going to sit there and pretend that you have the moral high ground when it comes to ad hominem? QFT
OravennasBrother 07-20-07, 04:59 PM	To reiterate, DMs should have a good reason for disallowing things. Would the simple fact that at my table I run CORE ONLY be enough? Or would you insist that core lacks so much that it requires supplements? Ok I'm done now, you can go back to calling me a whinny player, and dismissing my point with straw man, and ad hominem attacks now. I've never met you, so I don't know if that fits; but, all the players who refuse to play "Core Only" that I have met in person were whiny plower mad munchkins. All the others were fine with Core, even when I have more serious restrictions (Humans Only in a setting with ONLY Humans)
Roog 07-20-07, 05:06 PM	First, the DM is always right. Even when his ruling directly contradicts RAW, he is right. That is the way the game works. Thats not the way the game works. Statements like that however, are what drive people like On_the_wings_of_TPK into bouts of GM whipping. Second, the ruling "that's not allowed for campaign-storyline reasons." is perfectly ok, and all a player will ever get from me when there's a reason for the denial. So you never ban anything for reasons of balance (etc)?
DarthMidget 07-20-07, 07:24 PM	Thats not the way the game works. Statements like that however, are what drive people like On_the_wings_of_TPK into bouts of GM whipping. Actually...it is. See Rule 0.
Roog 07-20-07, 08:22 PM	Actually...it is. See Rule 0. Rule 0 means that all GM rulings follow RAW, even when they seem to contradict it. That does not mean "The GM is always right". By any sensible definition the GM can be wrong. Technically a GM who lies to, steals from, or even kills his players, can claim to be RAW legal (by rule 0). That does not make him right. Rule 0 gives the GM unlimited game power, but that does not make any arbitrary exercise of that power right. Some people do not seem to grasp the concept that having a power does not make all use of that power right. Why is abuse of power such a foreign concept? Note: And now you have made me sound like I hate GMs.
Tyraxus 07-20-07, 09:03 PM	I've never met you, so I don't know if that fits; but, all the players who refuse to play "Core Only" that I have met in person were whiny plower mad munchkins. All the others were fine with Core, even when I have more serious restrictions (Humans Only in a setting with ONLY Humans) Never seen a Cleric or Druid built for sheer power before, have you? Because I guarantee, they do just as well if not much better with the same sources than anything that isn't straight from the TO board (Pun-Pun, Hulking Hurler, and other builds never meant to see play). Believe me, after seeing one, it's very hard to call anything else, regardless of source, "power mad munchkining."
Optimized_Commoner 07-20-07, 09:55 PM	Rule 0 means that all GM rulings follow RAW, even when they seem to contradict it. Where is this mysterious magical "Rule 0" people keep mentioning. I just flipped through my entire DMG and checked the index and I can't spot it. Can someone give me a page number please? Or am I looking in the wrong book? Some people do not seem to grasp the concept that having a power does not make all use of that power right. Why is abuse of power such a foreign concept? Nicely put. Note: And now you have made me sound like I hate GMs. No they haven't.
DarthMidget 07-20-07, 10:41 PM	Posted by Roog Rule 0 means that all GM rulings follow RAW, even when they seem to contradict it. Posted by Optimized_Commoner Where is this mysterious magical "Rule 0" people keep mentioning. I just flipped through my entire DMG and checked the index and I can't spot it. "Good players will always recognize that you have the ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in the rulebook." - p. 9, Dungeon Master's Guide. By default the DM is always right. On any ruling during the game the DM is always right. The DM can change anything about the rules as he sees fit. That is Rule Zero. It's been around basically forever. Technically a GM who lies to, steals from, or even kills his players, can claim to be RAW legal (by rule 0). That does not make him right. Rule 0 gives the GM unlimited game power, but that does not make any arbitrary exercise of that power right. If your DM is lying to you then you shouldn't play with him. If your DM steals form you you should contact the police. If your DM kills you then hopefully your relatives will contact the police. Or did you mean player-characters? The DM can do whatever he wants to player-characters. NPCs can lie to them. NPCs can steal from them. NPCs can kill them. Whatever happens to the PCs does not matter in terms of the rules. The DM is always right. The DM is the ultimate arbiter of authority and power in D&D. Thus it is incumbent upon the DM above all other players that he ensure the game is fun. If the game is not fun then the DM is still not 'wrong'. He has just failed.
Caelic 07-20-07, 10:51 PM	Some people do not seem to grasp the concept that having a power does not make all use of that power right. Why is abuse of power such a foreign concept? Certainly I can grasp that. I don't dispute it. However, some people seem to be unable to grasp the corrolary: The rightness or wrongness of exercising a power does not mean that the DM does not have that power. Those who continually insist that the DM is no different from any player in the game in terms of authority either cannot grasp this point, or refuse to acknowledge it. They don't believe the DM should exercise the power, and they do not distinguish between "The DM shouldn't do this" and "The DM can't do this."
DarthMidget 07-20-07, 11:06 PM	Those who continually insist that the DM is no different from any player in the game in terms of authority either cannot grasp this point, or refuse to acknowledge it. They don't believe the DM should exercise the power, and they do not distinguish between "The DM shouldn't do this" and "The DM can't do this." Exactly! A DM can do anything he wants in a game. A DM should do whatever makes the game more fun for all involved.
kalyb 07-21-07, 01:41 AM	Who decides what is and is not a good reason? Ultimately it will be the players in that particular group. And that's what's getting missed in this discussion. TPK's group (I'm assuming) want a mechanical reason for banning something. In that group, I reason like, "I don't feel like having that in the campaign," is not a good reason. In Caelic's group, that is a perfectly reasonable answer. TPK's group is not involved with some power struggle to take over the campaign, and Caelic's group is not cowtowing beneath the ruthless DM. The lines are just drawn in different places.
Archangel62 07-21-07, 02:26 AM	General rules in my group go that the DM is free to allow whatever books they are comfortable with but we are all allowed to make a case and the DM has reversed decisions sometimes based on the debates. Also, we have a simple rule, the DM is infallible, however there are times where the DM might need to let us know that he or she is being infallible (for example if they make a mistake on a ruling or decide to change something we need to know that since rules changes affect campaign continuity)
Roog 07-21-07, 07:48 AM	... the DM is still not 'wrong'. He has just failed. Why do we insist on brutalizing the English language like this?
Count_Chumleigh 07-21-07, 09:53 AM	Why is abuse of power such a foreign concept? The problem with saying that a DM is abusing his* power is that it acknowledges the DM has whatever power he* is accused of abusing. This quote also sums up the debate, crude, debased, and abused though it is now, that's occurring on this thread. TPK's faction is inclined to treat every exercise of the DM's "power to disallow" (I prefer "power to exclude," myself, since "disallow" suggests a baseline assumption of allowance, which is patently not the case; even the 3.0 DMG makes this clear with its introduction of Prestige Classes) as an abuse of that power. To this side, the DM is being a petty tyrant by arbitrarily refusing a player's request or is a poor, misguided soul whose grasp on the rules in inferior to that of his* players. The latter DM can be persuaded to see reason, at least in theory. Caelic's side, on the other hand, sees any given exercise of a DM's "power to disallow" as simply that: an exercise of a power that the DM has. The DM's reasons for making use of this power in any given instance are irrelevant, or at least presumed valid from the outset, because the "power to disallow" is a power that the DM has. In case it wasn't already apparent, I tend to side with Caelic on the issue. A DM has the power to exclude anything from his* campaign for any reason, because that's what DMs do. On the other hand, in practice I do try to work with my players to get an idea of what they want their characters to be able to do, and do so within the framework of the rulebooks I do allow. Because I wouldn't want to abuse my power as a DM, now would I? Cheers, --Count Chumleigh *I know there are female DMs, but this is the internet; everyone knows there's no girls on the internet.
DarthMidget 07-21-07, 01:03 PM	Why do we insist on brutalizing the English language like this? It's not my fault your illiterate.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-21-07, 02:00 PM	Lets try a different tack on this. So far I've heard lots of reasons for why a DM can disallow things, and thats cool, I'm not disputing any of them. (Although I personally find, "because I don't it." To be both selfish, and highhanded, but whateve that really isn't the point.) Anyways, I think I've made my point clear as mud, and well, no matter how many times I try to explain it everyone seems to hear, "Players should get everything." Which isn't what I'm saying, but hey people will read what they want to. So lets turn this around then shall we. You tell me why a DM shouldn't give his/her reasoning when questioned. We'll assume (I know this is hard) that the player isn't being an ass. And also that they have a good reason for wanting to play what they. As a DM you have decided that they can not have it. Now tell me why you can't/won't tell why you've disallowed it. Oh and before i forget can we try and do this with out appealing to tradition, or false authority, or the majority. An argument based on logic would be appreciated, thanks. Now onto rule zero, oh i love the abuse this thing gets. DMG 3.5 PG 6: "Good players will recognize that you [the DM] have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule with out a good logical justification so that players don't rebel." I bolded the part you forgot to mention. So I ask again, if you have a good logical justification, why can't you share it with your players? And further if it is a good logical justification, then it can with stand a challenge to it, can it not?
DarthMidget 07-21-07, 04:39 PM	DMG 3.5 PG 6: "Good players will recognize that you [the DM] have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule with out a good logical justification so that players don't rebel." I bolded the part you forgot to mention. So I ask again, if you have a good logical justification, why can't you share it with your players? And further if it is a good logical justification, then it can with stand a challenge to it, can it not? First things first: I never said a DM should not give a justification. I only said a DM cannot be wrong. As a DM's rulings supersede something in a rulebook the DM cannot be wrong. I have made no statement as to whether or not a DM should give his players a justification. You, TPK, are assuming things in my position which I have not stated. For the record, before someone else puts words into my mouth, I do think that under virtually all circumstances a DM should give justification for his rulings. Simply saying, "I dislike that prestige class/rule/item/feat etc," should be sufficient. A DM has as much right as anyone else to fit a campaign to his tastes. That being said I cannot think of a reason why a DM would disallow certain things for, "no reason." There is always a reason even if the DM doesn't enumerate that reason. Should he? Probably. I disallow most everything, but CORE in my game simply because I don't care to take the time to read any of the other supplements. I'm sure some of them are fine, but I have alot to do in my life and I'm more interested in the story than game mechanics. As such my main reason for most 'disallowments' (if that is a word) is because I don't want to take the time to learn new rules. My games are very rules light anyway with more focus on flavor than mechanics so it hasn't caused any problems. Your own mileage may vary.
Alyri 07-21-07, 04:59 PM	Anyways, I think I've made my point clear as mud, and well, no matter how many times I try to explain it everyone seems to hear, "Players should get everything." Which isn't what I'm saying, but hey people will read what they want to. So lets turn this around then shall we. You tell me why a DM shouldn't give his/her reasoning when questioned. We'll assume (I know this is hard) that the player isn't being an ass. And also that they have a good reason for wanting to play what they. As a DM you have decided that they can not have it. Now tell me why you can't/won't tell why you've disallowed it. Sure. Just as soon as you can give me a logical, reasoned explaination why players pick certain spells, feats, prestige classes, items.
Comus 07-21-07, 06:59 PM	Sure. Just as soon as you can give me a logical, reasoned explaination why players pick certain spells, feats, prestige classes, items. I could give you a logical, reasoned explanation for each and every choice I make for my character builds. Do you mean you want a specific example of a reasonable request to work from? I could give one of those, if you like.
geekmasterflash 07-21-07, 07:06 PM	First I make my players have a complete background about their characters, have them list the wants and dreams, and their character concept from 1-20. How direspectful to your own game and the player involved. I say that because having a concept mapped out from 1-20 leaves no room to develop a character as the story progresses. Maybe the fighter wanted to start taking Knight Protector when he started, but because of game dynamics (lets say a dragon ate his best friend) he instead wants to take a dragon slaying prestige class? This sort of DM micromanagement gets old very quickly.
Optimized_Commoner 07-21-07, 10:40 PM	You tell me why a DM shouldn't give his/her reasoning when questioned. In my opinion of course they should. The only reason I could think of that perhaps they shouldn't give their reason is, "Dude, it's 3am and you're ringing me to talk about your concept. Go away, I'll talk to you tommorow". Of course, if the DM doesn't have a reason that they can justify, one wonders why they want to ban the concept.
Roog 07-21-07, 11:13 PM	It's not my fault your illiterate. :D
Optimized_Commoner 07-22-07, 01:48 AM	:D Ironic, huh? :D
Alyri 07-22-07, 03:39 AM	I could give you a logical, reasoned explanation for each and every choice I make for my character builds. Do you mean you want a specific example of a reasonable request to work from? I could give one of those, if you like. And those explainations have everything to do with the game world presented and not about personal power. Correct? Isn't that the major stumbling block between the two camps? How direspectful to your own game and the player involved. I say that because having a concept mapped out from 1-20 leaves no room to develop a character as the story progresses. Maybe the fighter wanted to start taking Knight Protector when he started, but because of game dynamics (lets say a dragon ate his best friend) he instead wants to take a dragon slaying prestige class? This sort of DM micromanagement gets old very quickly. What part of have them list the wants and dreams, and their character concept from 1-20. are you failing to understand? Wants and dreams and concept are ideas. This gives me material for the overall campaign. Billy has always wanted to be a grand fighter, someone dedicated to protecting the innocent and his dreams became reality when he reached his age of majority, setting out on the adventuring life.< skip forward x numbers of years> Bobby, Billy's friend, gets ate by Smarmyvansmokinghouse the green dragon. Billy then decides to dedicate his life to killing dragons, avenging his friends death as best he can. Notice how his concept changes from Knight Protector to Dragon Slayer because of his actions during the campaign. That is part of wants and dreams they interacted and changed his concept. In my opinion of course they should. The only reason I could think of that perhaps they shouldn't give their reason is, "Dude, it's 3am and you're ringing me to talk about your concept. Go away, I'll talk to you tommorow". Of course, if the DM doesn't have a reason that they can justify, one wonders why they want to ban the concept. Because a Dm shouldn't have to 'justify' why a Aventi Shark Lord wouldn't work in a Sandstorm setting. Same as a Dm can give sound reasonings why a player should take certain spells, play a certain class, take certain feats, aquire certain items and so on and so forth. Yet isn't that a Dm sticking his nose in a player's character? Why do some have such a hard time understanding that they may be doing the same thing with a Dm and his campaign?
Optimized_Commoner 07-22-07, 04:18 AM	I'll be honest here, I haven't got a clue what you're saying here. But I've attempted to figure it out to the best of my ability and respond. Because a Dm shouldn't have to 'justify' why a Aventi Shark Lord wouldn't work in a Sandstorm setting. If the player is asking, then clearly they do. It's not like it's difficult, "this setting isn't going to have enough water for your character to use their abilities, it's not going to be fun for you and the power disparity will make the game less enjoyable for everyone else including me. Also it won't fit the tone of the game and it's not a PrC that'll be available from this region." Same as a Dm can give sound reasonings why a player should take certain spells, play a certain class, take certain feats, aquire certain items and so on and so forth. This sentence is a little unclear. Same as what? Yet isn't that a Dm sticking his nose in a player's character? What's wrong with a DM making some suggestions to a player and showing some interest? Why do some have such a hard time understanding that they may be doing the same thing with a Dm and his campaign? I assume that in this context 'same' refers to 'sticking his nose in'. It is generally considered the role of players to 'have their nose in' the DM's campaign. Else the DM could just write a setting and neatly file it in a drawer where no-one can get to it.
Count_Chumleigh 07-22-07, 09:50 AM	In my opinion of course they should. The only reason I could think of that perhaps they shouldn't give their reason is, "Dude, it's 3am and you're ringing me to talk about your concept. Go away, I'll talk to you tommorow". Of course, if the DM doesn't have a reason that they can justify, one wonders why they want to ban the concept. So is, "I just don't like it" an acceptable reason?
Caelic 07-22-07, 11:09 AM	So lets turn this around then shall we. You tell me why a DM shouldn't give his/her reasoning when questioned. We'll assume (I know this is hard) that the player isn't being an ass. And also that they have a good reason for wanting to play what they. As a DM you have decided that they can not have it. Now tell me why you can't/won't tell why you've disallowed it. We've done this dance already, but so be it. How about "I have a purely visceral or aesthetic dislike of this particular concept. It isn't logical, it isn't rational, but guess what? Human beings aren't always logical and rational. Sometimes, we do things for reasons that are emotional, rather than rational. A DM does not give up his right to be a human being when he becomes the DM, and he does not give up his right to have likes and dislikes that are not founded on pure logic." There you go. There's your answer. Here's the catch: ninety-nine in a hundred people will never give you that answer, because it will never occur to them. Ninety-nine in a hundred people don't make a hobby out of navel-gazing self-introspection. The more likely answer is "I don't know why, I just don't like it." That's a human response. Everyone does it from time to time. Some are capable of stepping back and acknowledging to themselves that that's what they're doing; others just accept that they don't like it and move on, not worrying about why. Anyone who claims that they don't do this--that all of their decisions are based on sound logic and reasoning--either has a profound lack of self-insight, or is an outright liar. Oh and before i forget can we try and do this with out appealing to tradition, or false authority, or the majority. An argument based on logic would be appreciated, thanks. Again and again, you come back to this: "The DM has to have a good reason, and a good reason has to be mechanical and/or logical." Let me ask you this, my friend: why do you play this game? What is the logical reason for sitting around a table and playing make-believe? When it comes right down to it, I'm willing to bet you can't give me one. When it comes right down to it, if you're honest, your answer is going to be "Because I like it." Which is fine...because "I like it" or "I don't like it" are valid reasons. Don't let anyone tell you they're not.
Alyri 07-22-07, 01:05 PM	I'll be honest here, I haven't got a clue what you're saying here. But I've attempted to figure it out to the best of my ability and respond. If the player is asking, then clearly they do. It's not like it's difficult, "this setting isn't going to have enough water for your character to use their abilities, it's not going to be fun for you and the power disparity will make the game less enjoyable for everyone else including me. Also it won't fit the tone of the game and it's not a PrC that'll be available from this region." First I would walk outside laugh and shake my head. Maybe it's my age and/or upbringing. I would never sit down, talking kindly and with a soft voice, and try to explain to someone why a water themed character wouldn't work in a desert. If you can't figure out simple enviromental 'issues' how will you be able to understand riddles, puzzles, and a somewhat more complex political discussion? What's wrong with a DM making some suggestions to a player and showing some interest?At what point does suggestion become domination? If a player asks for advice/help by all means give it. Don't however sit right down next to someone when they level and 'give advice'. "you should take shield spec and heavy armor spec" "but I'm not playing that type of a fighter I'm a duel wielding light armor fighter" "You should play what I suggested" It is generally considered the role of players to 'have their nose in' the DM's campaign. Else the DM could just write a setting and neatly file it in a drawer where no-one can get to it.I never considered the role of the players to be just how much they can tick off the DM with assinine questions, inane character concepts, and the like. Generally considered...heh that's a new one..<walks outside>
Caelic 07-22-07, 01:44 PM	One big problem with the notion that as long as the DM has a "good reason" to disallow something, everything will be fine, is simply this: Different players will have different definitions of "good reason." Therein lies the reason that some of us are not willing to accept the notion that a player objection automatically means it's time for the DM to start explaining. The situation came up just yesterday, for me. I'm going to be running a new campaign as sort of a sideline: alternate Earth, low fantasy. One relatively new player came to me with an extremely high fantasy anime-esque character concept. To put it plainly, it didn't fit the campaign world or genre. I could see that; the other players could all see that; the player in question could not. Moreover, I happen to know that a number of the other players just plain don't like anime-style characters or roleplaying. I explained to him that it didn't fit the campaign world, but he kept insisting that it could (His explanations, when he was pressed, typically involved rather massive changes to the campaign setting.) There wasn't a lot of negotiation possible; what he liked about the concept was the very "I'm the focal point of cosmic forces and fate" aspect that was incompatible with the campaign we were starting. Ultimately, after about an hour of explanation from me (and the other players,) he gave up. So: at what point does the DM cease being obligated to explain? I think I had pretty darned valid reasons for rejecting the concept. Stylistically, it wasn't a good fit with the campaign; metaphysically, it would've required me to completely rewrite the backstory for the campaign (yes, his character was that "cosmic" in background); on a practical level, including the character would have by definition taken the campaign off in a completely different direction than the one a number of players were looking forward to. And yet, I still had to spend an hour discussing the issue--an hour I really would have preferred to devote to character creation. That is why I firmly believe that sometimes, the DM is not only justified in simply saying, "No," but has to do so. In the end, I had to do that in this situation; if I'd done it forty-five minutes sooner, we would've gotten a lot more accomplished.
kalyb 07-22-07, 11:08 PM	(Although I personally find, "because I don't it." To be both selfish, and highhanded, but whateve that really isn't the point.) But if Caelic's group, or miy group, or anyone else's group does not think that it's selfish and high-handed, then why is it a problem? And also that they have a good reason for wanting to play what they. As a DM you have decided that they can not have it. Now tell me why you can't/won't tell why you've disallowed it. Can you give us an example on what a good reason is (since I'm assuming that "I think it would be cool to try" is not a good reason)? DMG 3.5 PG 6: "Good players will recognize that you [the DM] have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule with out a good logical justification so that players don't rebel." True. But the beginning of each of the Complete series it mentions, that if you're playing with older works, you should not feel compelled to change.
Optimized_Commoner 07-22-07, 11:37 PM	So is, "I just don't like it" an acceptable reason? Not by my standards. If I was playing I would expect a better reply than that and if I was DMing I'd want to give a better reply than that... but hell, everyone has different standards. Just matters where your fellow gamers draw the line. My opinion only really matters if you're gaming with me. First I would walk outside laugh and shake my head. Maybe it's my age and/or upbringing. I would never sit down, talking kindly and with a soft voice, and try to explain to someone why a water themed character wouldn't work in a desert. Perhaps it's my age and/or upbringing but I would consider that behaviour extremely rude and inconsiderate. Anyway... Clearly they need the explanation if they're asking. Don't look at me, it's your example. If you can't figure out simple enviromental 'issues' how will you be able to understand riddles, puzzles, and a somewhat more complex political discussion? If you're not willing to game with them, why did you invite them to your game? Your example seems a little lacking in internal consistancy. I never considered the role of the players to be just how much they can tick off the DM with assinine questions, inane character concepts, and the like. Wow... I wonder why I said that it was... wait I didn't. Generally considered...heh that's a new one..<walks outside> When you're interested in discussing what I'm actually saying rather than making up your own interpretations to laugh at, you're welcome back inside. I'll hold the door open for you.
Caelic 07-23-07, 12:00 AM	Not by my standards. If I was playing I would expect a better reply than that and if I was DMing I'd want to give a better reply than that... ...and I guess that my question for you, Commoner, would be: what would you do if the DM's reason wasn't up to your standards, or if you didn't consider his reason for disallowing something valid?
Alyri 07-23-07, 01:03 AM	My own campaigns I run, every potential player will recieve a short background on what type of campaign it is, races, classes, etc. everything the players will need to know so they can make approperiate characters for the campaign. If I have a player ask something like in my example above, I don't let them play. If they can't read the background and understand what the campaign is. How can I rely upon them to be an effective roleplayer and party member?
Optimized_Commoner 07-23-07, 01:52 AM	...and I guess that my question for you, Commoner, would be: what would you do if the DM's reason wasn't up to your standards, or if you didn't consider his reason for disallowing something valid? That's a very good question. Firstly, I give people the benefit of the doubt when I can. Maybe they've had a bad day and are on edge or my concept brings up a memory of some disasterous game they ran once or treads on a personal experience they've had. Also if they're new and this is the first game they've run, I cut them a lot more slack than I would an experienced DM. So if a DM does something I don't like, I don't let that one experience stop me. If there's an appropriate chance I'll point out to the DM what I found objectionable. Otherwise I'll just suffer through it that first time to see if things get better. But if it becomes a trend, and it seems like the game is going to continously have problems, or I tell the DM and they disagree that it's a problem, then I have to seriously weigh up whether I'm going to enjoy playing in this game. If I'm not then I leave the game or don't go to that person's games in the future (if it's towards the end of the game). For example I was recently invited to a game which I turned down, because I know from past experience that the DM railroads to a degree that I don't enjoy his games. This was a hard choice since it was with a group of friends I don't get to see often and it means missing out on the chance to spend time with them. I was recently playing in a different game at my FLGS which I left after the first session when I realised that one of the players was a spotlight hogger with an annoying character and the DM lacked the experience to control that player. I must admit I didn't treat this one with the same courtesy I normally would since it was with a group of strangers. I feel bad about it actually since I dropped out without letting them know why I was leaving and that I wouldn't be coming back. However, turning down a single concept for a bad reason is a pretty minor thing and you really do have to combine it with other problems before it gets me to leave a game.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-23-07, 03:26 AM	Ok i think everyone who is going to wiegh in on this has. So well take it from the top. Optimized commoner came up with a very good reason as to why the DM should explain themselves. That being that the timing is inappropriate. However I would a clevet that when the appropriate time comes around, then the reason should be explained. Clearic: In your example you did in fact have the the DM give a reason. "I don't like it" is a reason. Although I personally don't find it a good, and would not except it (see spoiler block) it is a reason none the less. Thus your example is not valid for the criteria" I set forth. A reason why the DM should not explain themselves. In your second example you again have, and gave a reason to the player, why s/he could not play their concept. You'll note that in my OP i listed setting as what I considered a good reason why something may not fit. Because one player choose to argue it for an hour is not relevant to this discussion, because at the end of the day you met everything I've set forth. You gave a reason for saying, and then listen (I hope) to the player while they tried to make it work. In the end it didn't work out, but hey that life. Again a DM can still say no, they should just have a good reason for doing so. I had a feeling that we were arguing to different points, you seem like a nice reasonable chap. Again a DM has every right to say no. They should not do so lightly, and thus should have a good reason for it. Alyri did however give a reason for why players should not be told the DMs reasoning. If they are not smart enough to figure it out on their own then they are too stupid for the campaign. Although I am appualed at the arrogance of this, and am left wondering with an attitude like that who'd be masochistic enough to want to play in his games. It is a reason none the less. "But if Caelic's group, or miy group, or anyone else's group does not think that it's selfish and high-handed, then why is it a problem?" It isn't a problem per-say. If the group is all having fun, and no-one feels trampled then It really isn't a concern of mine. However it is when poeple are not having fun that it becomes a problem. I personally could not except, "becuase I don't like it" as a good reason. And heres why: When a DM says, its not allowed because I don't like it, they are essentially putting what they like ahead of the group. Basically it says that they their fun, and their likes are more important then everyone else's at the table. None of the players have this much, and ultimately to use to craft the game were they are the only ones who decide whats in or out based on whatever they please is at its core an abuse of the power invested int he DM. I could never trust a DM who did that to run a fair game. The use of rule 0 to back up the notion of DM infallibilityis further insult to this problem. Dms, are still poeple, and can still make mistakes. Granted they can change the rules, however using this to cover up an error, or lack of knowledge of the RAW is both foolish and stupid. Yes the DM is in charge, in that they are the final arbiter of the rules, and they do act as the physics engine of the game, etc, etc. This however is not an excuse to put your feelings, likes, and dislikes ahead of your friends. Now there is an exception to this. If the dislike is so strong that one would refuse to play in the campaign at all, then one can't expected to DM it. For example, I dislike FR with a passion such as I would never play in one. There is no way I'd DM an FR game. However I dislike half-anything so much I'd never consider playing one myself. However I would not bar one my players from playing one. The difference is that while I would not play a half-anything myself, I would not walk from a game if one were an NPC, or PC. However I would not physically play in a FR game. "Can you give us an example on what a good reason is (since I'm assuming that "I think it would be cool to try" is not a good reason)?" Firstly, just as "I think it suckth" may a good reason in some games, so is I think it cool. However perhaps the players wants to experiment with the mechanics. Maybe they like the flavor. Maybe they feel that those mechanics are the best way to represent the of their character. heck I've chosen PRCs, and feats because I liked the art work. For me choosing a particular mechanic is done by first narrowing down all the different mechanics that could realistically represent the flavour I'm going for. Then choosing the best otpion based on mechanics, sence of character, and coolness factor. For example: I want a "gish" concept. Some who combines both sword, and spell. Now I narrow down everything I could do with that. Wiz/fighter/eldritch night, spell sword, spell singer, cleric, monk/cleric, enlightened fist, warmage, wu-jen/martial class, etc. I then narrow out my concept a bit. I want a ritualistic fightery, spell slinger. Some who practices the martial arts, and combines them with magic, almost as if in poetics. Maybe like a wizard/sameri. Now I go looking for mechanics again. I still have big list, but I really like the swordsage. I haven't played one yet. I like the versitilty behind the maneuvers. I also like the flavour of a martial sage who becomes one with their weapons. Kinda like a monk, but with a sword. But I'm still lost one what spell casting class to combine with it, and a PrC if any. So I'll lot for a PrC see if one interests me. Well enlighted, and sacrid fist don't fit with the sword sage, I want this character to use a weapon. Some inside of me is saying that he uses a bastard sword, sence of character, i guess. so there out along with spell sword, (no heavy armour) as spell singer. (Close but just not him) Then I stumble across Jade pheonix. It looks good. It combine the maneuvers I like, and arcane casting. Further it is exotic, and better yet it carries the flavour of the swordsage that I feel in love with. Ok so I have a PrC and my martial class. But I'm still searching for an arcane class. I want something exotic....hmm wu-jen or warmage.....I still haven't actually decided on that yet.
Count_Chumleigh 07-23-07, 08:38 AM	Thank you, Optimized and TPK. It appears, then, that there is a fundamental disagreement over a most basic assumption between us, meaning there can be no meaningful further discussion. That said, I would truly, desperately hope that you could be persuaded to see that, taken in context, sentiments such as When a DM says, its not allowed because I don't like it, they are essentially putting what they like ahead of the group. Basically it says that they their fun, and their likes are more important then everyone else's at the table. are at least as "selfish" as such a DM supposedly is, because it amounts to one player putting what he likes ahead of the group--ahead, moreover, of a group member the player knows not to like whatever he wants to play. If that isn't the very meaning of a selfish player--spiteful, too, I could see an argument for--then I don't know what is. --Count Chumleigh
maharai23 07-23-07, 09:53 AM	Everyone at the table is there to have fun. To that end, logic has its place, only after the fun has been resolved. 1) Would it be more fun if a particular troublesome concept were allowed to a player? a. To the player, perhaps. If such an allowance caused an issue with the game such that it wasn't much fun for anyone, that great concept is going to go wasted to a hostile environment. Certainly it won't help with the fun of the DM, and that could quite forseeably affect the quality of the game. I know, as a DM, I certainly do better work when I'm having fun. 2) Would it detract from the game? a. Perhaps. The DM, if he allows it, will have some adjusting to do. If he can adjust fast enough, his mindset, his campaign, and his knowledge of the rules and themes of his campaign, it may not detract at all, and could even add to the enjoyment of the party. 3) Is it fair of a player, who spends a few hours, at most, coming up with a character concept, to ask the DM to add to his already strenuous amount of prep work, and change a concept that a lot of thought and effort has gone into? a. If a player asks that of me, and I agree, I expect him to be my personal story bi... well, you get the idea. I expect him to be very cooperative to the story, since I've had to redesign it for him or her. I want that player to give me a couple GOOD hooks to drive the story with, and I may give the player one myself. Why? Because, when it comes down to everyone having fun, and there's a disagreement, sometimes the situation calls for compromise. And sometimes, it calls for a no. In the situations where it does... I don't feel necessary to go into details as to why... ESPECIALLY since it's usually a story-driven decision, and I don't want to spoil the story.
Caelic 07-23-07, 11:11 AM	That's a very good question. Firstly, I give people the benefit of the doubt when I can. Maybe they've had a bad day and are on edge or my concept brings up a memory of some disasterous game they ran once or treads on a personal experience they've had. Also if they're new and this is the first game they've run, I cut them a lot more slack than I would an experienced DM. So if a DM does something I don't like, I don't let that one experience stop me. If there's an appropriate chance I'll point out to the DM what I found objectionable. Otherwise I'll just suffer through it that first time to see if things get better. Excellent. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You have just perfectly illustrated the happy medium. While you would prefer to have a good, logical explanation from your DM...and there's no reason you shouldn't want that...you also accept that sometimes, DMs make decisions for reasons that are less than perfectly rational or logical, and you make allowances for that. At the same time, you don't hand the DM a blank check to constantly be arbitrary and capricious. If everyone would take this approach, these debates wouldn't exist.
Caelic 07-23-07, 11:19 AM	Clearic: In your example you did in fact have the the DM give a reason. "I don't like it" is a reason. Although I personally don't find it a good, and would not except it (see spoiler block) it is a reason none the less. Thus your example is not valid for the criteria" I set forth. A reason why the DM should not explain themselves. It seems to me that you're requesting something pointless, because by your criteria, the DM in the example simply is not allowed to say anything at all beyond "No."--anything else would constitute a reason, even "You're not allowed to know why." In your second example you again have, and gave a reason to the player, why s/he could not play their concept. You'll note that in my OP i listed setting as what I considered a good reason why something may not fit. Because one player choose to argue it for an hour is not relevant to this discussion, because at the end of the day you met everything I've set forth. You gave a reason for saying, and then listen (I hope) to the player while they tried to make it work. In the end it didn't work out, but hey that life. Again a DM can still say no, they should just have a good reason for doing so. I believe you may have missed my point. The second example wasn't an example; it was an illustration of why the notion of always explaining decisions is flawed. There will be times when explaining the decision is nothing but a waste of time, because the player is not willing to be convinced. Had I simply said "No" and stuck to my guns in that particular example, the end result would have been exactly the same--cranky player, concept still banned--and we would have saved forty-five minutes during which the rest of the group wouldn't have had to sit around doing nothing. When a DM says, its not allowed because I don't like it, they are essentially putting what they like ahead of the group. Basically it says that they their fun, and their likes are more important then everyone else's at the table. None of the players have this much, and ultimately to use to craft the game were they are the only ones who decide whats in or out based on whatever they please is at its core an abuse of the power invested int he DM. I could never trust a DM who did that to run a fair game. The use of rule 0 to back up the notion of DM infallibilityis further insult to this problem. Dms, are still poeple, and can still make mistakes. Granted they can change the rules, however using this to cover up an error, or lack of knowledge of the RAW is both foolish and stupid. Yes the DM is in charge, in that they are the final arbiter of the rules, and they do act as the physics engine of the game, etc, etc. This however is not an excuse to put your feelings, likes, and dislikes ahead of your friends. Now there is an exception to this. If the dislike is so strong that one would refuse to play in the campaign at all, then one can't expected to DM it. For example, I dislike FR with a passion such as I would never play in one. There is no way I'd DM an FR game. However I dislike half-anything so much I'd never consider playing one myself. However I would not bar one my players from playing one. The difference is that while I would not play a half-anything myself, I would not walk from a game if one were an NPC, or PC. However I would not physically play in a FR game. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay; I am now officially perplexed. Someone who bans something because they dislike it is (in your eyes) abusing their power and not to be trusted as a DM...but if they ban something because they REALLY dislike it, that's acceptable? How is "You can't play an Incantatrix because I really really hate FR" any less of an "abuse of power" than "You can't play an Incantatrix because I dislike the class?" How do you, as a player, determine whether the DM saying "No, you can't have that because I don't like it" merely doesn't like it--and is therefore selfish and abusing the rules and not fit to be your DM--or really hates it, and is therefore justified in banning it?
solbergb 07-23-07, 01:27 PM	One big problem with the notion that as long as the DM has a "good reason" to disallow something, everything will be fine, is simply this: Different players will have different definitions of "good reason." It's not just that. If you talk to a successful salesman, you will discover that a potential customer who gives reasons not to buy something is much easier to "overcome" than one who just says no. Someone good at arguing can beat down "logical reasons" even when he's wrong. I learned this by rooming with a communications major in gradschool. He could take either side of an argument and win it. It was freaking weird. The only way to win an argument with him was not to argue, but pick a position stick with it and refuse to argue about it. There are a variety of techniques. The one I see most often is. A gives 6 reasons why something is a bad idea. B starts refuting the points one by one, even though some of his refutations don't are internally inconsistent. A sees all of his reasons refuted, and gives in. The inconsistencies in B's "solutions" to the problem points start showing up in real play. A now kicks himself for giving in. In addition, there were really 12 reasons, but A only happened to think of 6 when put on the spot.... If a GM gets a player better at arguing his case than the GM is at articulating his reasons, he's best off with not giving his reasons. This is not at all an uncommon scenario. Very few people in the modern world are good at rhetoric if they don't do it for a living. Get one who is trained or naturally good at it in a group of 4-7 and it's likely he'll win any argument he starts with anyone who attempts to debate with him, because the other 3-6 won't be a "natural" or trained.
Puca 07-23-07, 02:12 PM	What is the point of D&D? I think its a game, and I play it because its fun. Basically, there are a few hours each week I can devote to recreation, and if it is fun, I devote some of them to playing D&D. Lets face it: between wives, kids, jobs, dogs, yards, and the million other things I could be doing, it is really easy to not play. And if it isnt fun, then why the hell would I? Why would anyone? Thats the first “foundation” on which Ive always reasoned in questions like this one. Fun. If it doesnt make the game more fun, then it really has no place. That should be something that goes unsaid. It should be obvious. But apparently, it isnt. It needs to be said. Looking at some of the arguments people have made, I really do wonder if they are having any fun at all. If this game provides any kind of rest, relaxation, amusement, hell anything positive in their lives? Anyway, one problem with “fun” is it is so subjective as to be almost meaningless for the purposes of discussions like this. There is an amazing range of ways one can have fun with D&D, only one of which is the roleplaying/rollplaying continuum. None of them are wrong, by the way. But I think the first rule of fun should be that he group should have some sort of consensus about what kind of game they all find fun. Lets face it: if you approach D&D as a hack-and-slash activity, you shouldnt be playing with a bunch of people who prefer deep-immersion role-playing. Youre going to have very little fun, and whats worse, youre going to wreck theirs. That sort of introduces my second “foundation”: D&D is a group activity. When you partake in a group activity that is supposed to be fun, you must, and there is no arguing with this, must approach things from the perspective of a group. Basically, we all want to have fun as individuals, but we recognize that we will have more individual fun in the group; therefore, the fun of the group needs to rank first in your priorities: No group, no D&D. No D&D, no individual is having fun playing D&D. It really is that simple. If you are the type of guy who is out to have his own fun, group be damned, you are a bad player. You should be drummed out of the game. You should have your picture posed as MOST UNWANTED in every bookstore and gaming shop or venue so no one accidentally invites you to join them. The basic fact of a group is that it is going to take compromise and consensus. It may be that you are with a group where every individual is in constant agreement and sees things the same way. You are a lucky bastard and no denying that. Your also part very, very rare occurrence. Im not really talking to you. The rest of us though are going to have to make compromises. The whole idea of a compromise is that you are going to have to accept some things you are 100% in favor of. If you got your way on everything all the time, it wouldnt be compromising. If you think thats what a compromise is, youve no business being part of any group, let alone a D&D game. You do deserve to get your way on some things. Dont mistake me there. You deserve it because it is about having fun. You should get to have fun too. If you dont get enough in a compromise for you to have fun, leave. Leave nicely and quietly and with good feelings. It isnt bad that you disagree with the rest of the group. No one can blame you if you decide to have fun some other way, playing D&D with another group that fits you better, or playing basketball or something. We can blame you for being a poison pill, for staying and trying to wreck things or to try to get your own way in spite of the group. If you do that, youre a bad player and probably a crappy person. Were making posters of you,too. Staying with a group means youve accepted the groups compromises. If you havent, youre not part of a group; youre an individual versus a group. Just to recap, since this is long and is going to get longer: Two basic foundations of the game are: 1) Its supposed to be fun. If you arent having fun, do something else. 2) Its a group activity. That takes compromise and consensus. If youve gotten anything else out of what I said, youve missed my point. The hard part about D&D and groups though, and this might be more on topic, is that there are in any game two sub groups: The players and a group of one, the DM. What makes a game fun for players is not what necessarily makes a game fun for DMs. Wish it wasnt that way; but it is. More on this later, but there is something that needs to be established first. The DM is one of the individuals. As an individual, he is no more and no less entitled to have his fun. If he isnt having fun in that role, he shouldnt be doing it. If that means there is no one to do it, then too bad. You either find someone who is, or get yourselves a basketball, or something. Players: The DM is “playing D&D” too. He gets to have fun. Part of his fun is creating a world and a campaign and sharing his vision. Remember that. He deserves to enjoy this too. If you think hes your servant, a resource for your enjoyment that you can put on the same level as your splat-books, to be used as you see fit, youre a jerk. Show some freaking gratitude and treat him like part of the group. DMs: If you arent having fun in your role, dont do it. The world wont stop because theres no one willing to DM in your neighborhood. Dont nail yourself to that cross. We will find another game. If you are DMing, Im going to assume you have fun creating worlds and campaigns and all that. Dont use it as an excuse to get your way. I know you do a lot more work than the players. Thank you. But if you werent having fun doing it, then why were you doing it? Its a game! If you werent having fun, then I fail to understand you. If you thought preparing a campaign was some tedious chore, you should have called and said you werent going to do it; dont come over - theres no campaign. Yeah, Ill be disappointed, but it isnt the end of the world. I might even be ****** off, but not as ****** off as Ill be when you try to act like all the extra work that you had fun doing somehow entitles you to a position of primacy when we try to reach a compromise. Enough with the stories of your sacrifices for “our benefit.” If youre getting nothing out of it, quit. We will all manage to move on. You are one member of the group. Youre just as entitled to have fun as every other member, but not more either. The subgroup-of-one that is the DM is not more important than group as a whole. Good DMs are rare? Too true. But ways to have fun arent. You arent indispensible because at the very worst case scenario, neither is D&D. I dont want to bash DMs. I love DMs. Mostly because I love being a player. I think DMs deserve every break, every consideration, and every benefit they are due. Free beer and Cheetos, surely, but total control without question is just not one of those things they get. Moving on, players and DMs approach the game from different perspectives, and so what makes it fun for them is going to be different. DMs have to focus on all the players. This tends to make them more inclined to consider the group. And most do this well. Their representation in public discussions not withstanding, it is only, I believe, a fraction of the smallest percentage who think they are the group. That what is in their interest and fun is the definition of fun. Just leave them. Dont cry or whine, ***** or moan. Just leave them. If you, the player, stay, that means you must be having more fun than you would doing something else with your time. If your having fun, dont bore us with your complaints about your DM. Players can focus their energy on their individual characters. I wish this werent the case, but it is true that this tends to make them less cognizant of the needs of the group. I wish I could say that every player considered the group as a whole, the other players, the other characters, the setting, and the campaign, from concept through character creation. But most of them dont. Knock it off! I firmly believe that 99.9% of you, of us, are not the gits that deserve to have MOST UNWANTED posters out there emblazoned with your photos. Think. This might be fallacious, the reasoning certainly is, but the gamer I know the best is me. And, I tend to assign the traits of the individual to the whole. At any given time, as a player, I have like three or four interesting (to me) character concepts dancing around in my head. They vary in how developed they are, but at any time I could be equally happy to fully develop any one of them. I assume that other players are like that too. If Im right, at least about you, then why not talk to the group and pick the one that fits the best? If you have two ideas, and one doesnt conflict with the setting, pick that one! If you are dead-set on playing a half demon, quarter dragon, 7/16ths celestial aberration thri-keen monk/dread necromancer/master thrower/ur-priest, and thats the only character you want to play, and the DM created a world with no dragons where the campaign is based on noble, good heroes who are out to save the world, then *******it – either come up with something that fits or find another group or go do something else. It bothers be that things this obvious need to be said. But they do. SOme characters don fit. If the only character you want to play doesnt fit, you dont want to play in that setting. If you did, youd find a character concept that fit it. What you really want is a setting compatible with your only concept. So go find it already! Back to the DMs. I know you have a vision. And I dont want to wreck your vision. But I came to have a good time too. Maybe you could trust me? At least wait until I do something disruptive to act instead of preemptively smacking me down? Just because the last guy you knew with two PrCs was a powergaming twink and a card-carrying member of the Lollipop Guild doesnt mean I am. And if I am, then get rid of me. Dont needlessly limit the other three guys who arent. I know you have a vision. But youre still part of a group. If you have no concern for the fun of the others and you consider your vision so sacrosanct that no alterations for the sake of compromises are possible, even for the sake of being yourself a part of a group committed to having fun, you should probably not be a DM. You should be an author. You can control the setting, the campaign, and the characters in it too. Copyright it an sue the crap out of anyone who tries to use it in a way you object to. If you want to be part of a group, remember why the players are there. No one, at least not me, is telling you have to accept everything, but yeah, you do have to compromise. If some ruling of yours doesnt make the game better for the group, then it has no place. Im your friend. Or at least a friendly acquaintance. If you cant tell me how something you want makes the game better, then *******it maybe it doesnt. If it doesnt then dont ask anyone to agree to it, because if my playing a half demon, quarter dragon, 7/16ths celestial aberration thri-keen monk/dread necromancer/master thrower/ur-priest makes me happy and in no way upsets the fun of everyone else, then well, why not let it go? What is the worst that can happen? Anyway, thats my rant. You can report me using the icon on the upper right-hand side of the post. Or you can go to my public profile to use the “ignore all posts by Puca” option.
Caelic 07-23-07, 02:36 PM	Back to the DMs. I know you have a vision. And I dont want to wreck your vision. But I came to have a good time too. Maybe you could trust me? At least wait until I do something disruptive to act instead of preemptively smacking me down? Just because the last guy you knew with two PrCs was a powergaming twink and a card-carrying member of the Lollipop Guild doesnt mean I am. And if I am, then get rid of me. Dont needlessly limit the other three guys who arent. I know you have a vision. But youre still part of a group. If you have no concern for the fun of the others and you consider your vision so sacrosanct that no alterations for the sake of compromises are possible, even for the sake of being yourself a part of a group committed to having fun, you should probably not be a DM. You should be an author. You can control the setting, the campaign, and the characters in it too. Copyright it an sue the crap out of anyone who tries to use it in a way you object to. I just wanted to respond to this. Y'see, Puca, there's the thing: I am an author. Have been for quite a long time now. It's part of what makes me a good DM--skills like creating vivid settings, developing compelling characters, and coming up with interesting plots and subplots are all honed by writing. I can't just turn off the aesthetic that guides me as a writer. If I'm creating a world for a game, I'm going to put the same amount of research and effort into it that I'd put into creating a world for a book. I want to get the details right, even the little details. I want that world to be logical and internally consistent, given the premises of the campaign. I have fun DMing, absolutely...but that consistency and internal logic is a big part of my fun. Now: that means that my campaigns tend to generate a lot of enthusiasm. People like the campaign materials I create, they like the number of plot hooks and the fact that I try to make each campaign into something different. It also means that I tend to be fairly strict about what is and isn't allowed into each campaign. I don't have fun with "Okay. You're in an inn in some country somewhere, and there's a dungeon down the road, and nobody seems to bat an eyelid at the fact that your group consists of a Jermaline, a half-dragon, an anthropomorphic Baleen whale, and Bob the kobold." Some DMs and some groups enjoy very casual campaigns, with just enough setting to get them from one dungeon to the next; I don't. So I have a choice: run the kind of campaign I enjoy, the kind of campaign I'm good at running, or try to run the kind I don't enjoy and am not good at running. In the former case, some players will not like my campaign. Players who prefer "anything goes" will probably hate it. But the right players will like it, and they will stay. They'll have fun, I'll have fun, everybody wins. In the latter case, the players who like consistent and coherent campaigns probably won't have any fun; the players who like "anything goes" probably won't have very much fun, because I'm honest enough to say that I'd probably do a pretty bad job of running such a campaign. My heart wouldn't be in it. I wouldn't be having any fun. One way winds up with a group of players having fun. Yes, it means that not every potential player will get the kind of campaign they want, but there's nothing saying they can't start another campaign. The other way attempts to make everybody happy and winds up making nobody particularly happy. Which is the better approach? Go with your strengths and acknowledge that they won't make everybody happy, or try to make everyone happy and in the process stop doing what you're good at?
Alyri 07-23-07, 02:38 PM	Alyri did however give a reason for why players should not be told the DMs reasoning. If they are not smart enough to figure it out on their own then they are too stupid for the campaign. Although I am appualed at the arrogance of this, and am left wondering with an attitude like that who'd be masochistic enough to want to play in his games. It is a reason none the less. What arrogance? What is so evil and/or highhanded? My best example I can give you: Just after 3.0 came out we were playing almost at the end of a campgain arc and I was asked to Dm the next arc. 3 weeks before the current game arc ends. I tell everyone that I'll be running a dwarf and gnome only underdark game. I tell them again the next week. Last week I give everyone the handout. Start of the game(the next week) 6 people at the table 3 dwarves , 2 gnomes, and 1 human. I tell him to roll up a new character or switch the current to dwarf or gnome. He launches into his concept of why he has a human character. I ask why are you human, he starts to explain, I ask why are you human, he starts to explain, I ask why are you human, he says because I don't like dwarves or gnomes. Which I ask, then why did you sign up to play in the game? Telling someone verbally twice and once in written form. That is plenty. Any reasonable person would have understood by then.
Puca 07-23-07, 03:44 PM	I can't just turn off the aesthetic that guides me as a writer. If I'm creating a world for a game, I'm going to put the same amount of research and effort into it that I'd put into creating a world for a book. I want to get the details right, even the little details. I want that world to be logical and internally consistent, given the premises of the campaign.So, do you think you dont have to compromise? Does the quality of your work mean you never need to? Or the effort you put into it mean you arent willing to? Im just asking: Do you think willingness to compromise is part of being a good member of any group, including a D&D group? Is the DM part of the group? So I have a choice: run the kind of campaign I enjoy, the kind of campaign I'm good at running, or try to run the kind I don't enjoy and am not good at running.There is a choice to not run any campaign. In the former case, some players will not like my campaign… But the right players will like it, and they will stay. They'll have fun, I'll have fun, everybody wins… because I'm honest enough to say that I'd probably do a pretty bad job of running such a campaign. My heart wouldn't be in it. I wouldn't be having any fun.And I totally agree. I wouldnt ask anyone, anyone, to do something recreational, like play a game, that wasnt fun. Players who prefer "anything goes" will probably hate it… In the latter case, the players who like consistent and coherent campaigns probably won't have any fun; Now, dont get mad at me. Im just asking, but isnt this a false dichotomy? No, when “anything goes” literally means “any-freakinthing,” sure, you cant have consistency there. But moving from that extreme, there is a ton of middle ground. Isnt stating it, even for arguments sake, as A or B, black or white, any(stupid/crazy/obnoxious)thing goes or coherency a bit misleading? I dont know what you allow and what you dont. It may well be that you allow everything a rational player would want and are only arguing on principle. One way winds up with a group of players having fun. Yes, it means that not every potential player will get the kind of campaign they want, but there's nothing saying they can't start another campaign. The other way attempts to make everybody happy and winds up making nobody particularly happy. Which is the better approach for a DM? Besides the bifurcation, I dont think “attempting to make everybody happy” has to automatically result in no one being happy. If the result is no one is having fun, then I would suggest that the individuals in the group are too far apart in their views of how the game is fun. In which case, yeah, they should be in different groups. At least in theory, if you could make a player happy and maintain an acceptable level of consistency and coherency (the values you have as a DM) would that be a good approach for a DM? Getting back to what you said earlier, is there no premise (among those premises which the internal logic and consistency of your campaign rest) that cannot be open to compromise? For my part, I agree there must be some which could not be altered without making the campaign entirely different. But it seems there must be some that can? Right? If so, is it worth it to do so? For the sake of the group?
Caelic 07-23-07, 04:01 PM	So, do you think you dont have to compromise? Does the quality of your work mean you never need to? Or the effort you put into it mean you arent willing to? Realistically, I shouldn't have to. Hear me out: If I have clearly communicated, prior to the start of a campaign, exactly what that campaign is going to entail...what rules it's going to involve, what the setting will be like, and so forth...then that should be sufficient. The players know what to expect; if it doesn't sound like something they're going to enjoy, they can decline the invitation to be a part of the campaign. For a player to say "Yes, I accept the invitation to play Campaign X," and then turn around after the fact and say, "I'm not going to be satisfied playing Campaign X, and I want these changes"...well, that just seems rude. Im just asking: Do you think willingness to compromise is part of being a good member of any group, including a D&D group? Is the DM part of the group? I think that this notion of the "D&D group" as an entity unto itself is misguided. In many cases, the campaign dictates the group, not the other way around. I know that if we're playing Champions at the moment, certain people are going to be in that campaign group; likewise, I know that others will not, because they don't like Champions. If we play a comedy-oriented D&D game, I know that the makeup of players will change; players who enjoy D&D will return to the mix, players who dislike comedy will depart. It's a difference of approach. Within our extended group, it's not a matter of saying, "Here's the group--make a campaign for us." It's a matter of saying "Here's a new campaign, who wants to be part of the group?" There is a choice to not run any campaign. ...in which case, again, no fun is generated for anyone. Sure, there are other fun things to do out there, but let's be real: is anyone seriously going to take the position of "If you can't make everybody happy all of the time, it's better not to run at all?" And I totally agree. I wouldnt ask anyone, anyone, to do something recreational, like play a game, that wasnt fun. Now, dont get mad at me. Im just asking, but isnt this a false dichotomy? Not really. Not in my experience. Ironically enough, the 3.5 rules...which were supposed to allow flexibility...seem to have had the opposite effect. I encounter more and more players who have the philosophy that "Anything goes" is the default state, that all rules from all sources are allowed, and that the DM, if he dares to tamper with that, had better have good justification. I dont know what you allow and what you dont. It may well be that you allow everything a rational player would want and are only arguing on principle. I think that's a disservice to rational players. It's entirely possible for two rational players to want two completely different and incompatible sets of things. One might want an earth-shattering cosmically powered campaign, while the other wants gritty low fantasy, where three orcs on one PC is an epic battle. Both are rational; any given DM is not going to be able to accomodate sets of wishes at the same time, though. If the result is no one is having fun, then I would suggest that the individuals in the group are too far apart in their views of how the game is fun. In which case, yeah, they should be in different groups. ...which is essentially the philosophy I espoused. I don't struggle to accomodate players who aren't a good fit, because I know that they'll be happier at another table, and that the right players...the players whose philosophy and play-style meshes well with mine...will stay, Getting back to what you said earlier, is there no premise (among those premises which the internal logic and consistency of your campaign rest) that cannot be open to compromise? For my part, I agree there must be some which could not be altered without making the campaign entirely different. But it seems there must be some that can? Right? If so, is it worth it to do so? For the sake of the group? That depends entirely on the campaign and the situation. Certainly, there's room for player creativity and originality, but without discussing specific campaigns, there's no real way to say what would be open to negotiation and what would not. If I'm (for example) running a campaign where magic is an entirely internal and individual art, though--and, hence, only spontaneous casters exist--I'm not going to be very receptive to someone coming to me with a wizard. I'd be willing to consider different types of spontaneous casters, ones that I hadn't previously considered, but I'm not willing to toss a central premise out the window.
Puca 07-23-07, 06:46 PM	For a player to say "Yes, I accept the invitation to play Campaign X," and then turn around after the fact and say, "I'm not going to be satisfied playing Campaign X, and I want these changes"...well, that just seems rude. Im not asking anyone to tolerate rudness. If I want a concession, I ask nicely. If I have clearly communicated, prior to the start of a campaign, exactly what that campaign is going to entail...what rules it's going to involve, what the setting will be like, and so forth...then that should be sufficient. The players know what to expect; if it doesn't sound like something they're going to enjoy, they can decline the invitation to be a part of the campaign.What we have here is a situation that is entirely different than what I described. Looking at the gameplay, they might seem the same, but theyre not. The group/compromise/fun/censuses D&D game I described is not what you are describing here. (Frankly, it explains a lot.) What I described was 4-7 guys coming together to form a game. What you describe is one guy who forms a game, and invites 3-6 people to play. What I described was a group comprised of equals. What you described was two distinct groups on an unequal footing, the players and the DM. What I described was something that would be described as “our game.” What you described was “my game.” It's a difference of approach. Within our extended group, it's not a matter of saying, "Here's the group--make a campaign for us." It's a matter of saying "Here's a new campaign, who wants to be part of the group?"More accurately, wouldnt it be you saying, “Heres my new campaign.” Thats how Im reading you. I say it explains a lot because Ive been “invited” to play in games. I went with my attitude: a group of guys coming together to play a game, together. But the DM had your perspective. It is “my game” to which you (Puca) have been accepted. I have wondered, “Just who the hell does this guy think he is?” Now I know. He made the game. It is “his” to do what he wants with it, and people can either play, or not. I get it, and should say I do think you are a decent enough fellow, but I dont care for it. Its like playing baseball with the kid who insists on pitching because he brought the only ball. I hope youll pardon the connotation that there is childishness involved. Thats not my point. Its that even if that kid were the best pitcher, and even if we would have all wanted him to pitch anyway, there is an unequal distribution of power in a group where we really all should be on an equal footing. It rankles. What I will never do, what I have never been able to do is enjoy myself in an activity where someone else regards my being there as a privilege, a privilege they bestowed and a privilege they have the power to withdraw. Even if it is a tacit assumption, never stated, never coming to the fore. I guess its only fun (for me) to play with friends, and if someone doesnt regard us as equals, then we cant be friends. Like I said, you seem a decent fellow. Im sure you would never make someone feel like that. Im only discussing the principles of the situation. ...in which case, again, no fun is generated for anyone. Sure, there are other fun things to do out there, but let's be real: is anyone seriously going to take the position of "If you can't make everybody happy all of the time, it's better not to run at all?"I dont think thats the choice. I know you cant make everybody happy. If two people have radically different views of what make a good game, they shouldnt really be gaming together. My point was I dont think: So I have a choice: run the kind of campaign I enjoy, the kind of campaign I'm good at running, or try to run the kind I don't enjoy and am not good at running.is a fair statement of the choice either. Using Alyris example of the “all dwarf and gnome” game above, well first the player did everything wrong. He showed up with something the DM said three times was not allowed and hoped she wouldnt have the guts to call him on it. Wrong. No excuses for him. But… The situation was this guy didnt enjoy gnomes or dwarves. (I sympathize, neither do I.) From the “my game” perspective, Alyris was, I suppose, right: It is all dwarves and gnomes. If you want to play something else, do it somewhere else. From the “our game” perspective (and with a moderately polite/intelligent player) a non-dwarf/gnome race that still fit could have been found. I mean, if I had gone to the DM and said, “hey, I wanna play, but I dont care for these races. Is there something else I could do? What about a _________? Or a _____________?” I would think that there was something we could work out. I can accept being wrong. We might not be able to work it out. I can accept no agreement being reached. I cant really accept none being sought. I cant really accept the point of view that trying isnt worth the couple minutes it takes. That, Im not worth the couple of minutes it takes to see if there is a chance to agree. But like I said, I like to think of the people I play with as friends. Not really. Not in my experience. Ironically enough, the 3.5 rules...which were supposed to allow flexibility...seem to have had the opposite effect. Actually, I was just trying to keep it friendly. I still am, but it is a false dichotomy. There isnt a slippery slope where allowing one thing means you are now unable to say, “I dont think so” to anything else. I encounter more and more players who have the philosophy that "Anything goes" is the default state, that all rules from all sources are allowed, and that the DM, if he dares to tamper with that, had better have good justification.I dont think Im going to take up the “justification argument.” Its doubtful Id add anything new. But I will say that even if I accept your experience as the norm, it doesnt mean there is no middle ground. I understand the impulse to “hold the line” and all, but like I said above, I would like the DM to trust me. Again, this assumes the “our game” perspective, but, if I have a sense of ownership, if I feel that it is not yours, but ours (and so on some level mine) you have to trust that I dont want to wreck it. Right? We might disagree on what does or does not wreck or even what constitutes wrecked, but we should agree on what counts: That neither of us want it wrecked for group. As such, Im not going to regard one concession on the part of a friend as a concession on anythig else. I think that's a disservice to rational players. It's entirely possible for two rational players to want two completely different and incompatible sets of things. One might want an earth-shattering cosmically powered campaign, while the other wants gritty low fantasy, where three orcs on one PC is an epic battle. Both are rational; any given DM is not going to be able to accomodate sets of wishes at the same time, though. My “first rule of fun” was that [t]he group should have some sort of consensus about what kind of game they all find fun. Lets face it: if you approach D&D as a hack-and-slash activity, you shouldnt be playing with a bunch of people who prefer deep-immersion role-playing. Youre going to have very little fun, and whats worse, youre going to wreck theirs. Im not talking about tying to build a consensus where none is possible, not about trying to make a powergamer and a deep-immersion type happy with the same game. I am talking about working to reach agreements in the vast majority of situations: where people are somewhere fairly close, in the middle and not at the extremes, where the group has already established a consensus about the type of game they wish to play. If I'm (for example) running a campaign where magic is an entirely internal and individual art, though--and, hence, only spontaneous casters exist--I'm not going to be very receptive to someone coming to me with a wizard. I'd be willing to consider different types of spontaneous casters, ones that I hadn't previously considered, but I'm not willing to toss a central premise out the window.It is hard to put myself in the position of a guy who cant accept a sorcerer as an acceptable substitute for a wizard. Thats a bit too unreasonable for me. I mean, for this to work, I have to be willing to make concessions too and youre allowing pretty much every other arcane caster but the wu gen. To put is bluntly, youre being far to willing to work with me as a player for me to demonstrate my point about working with players. :) A better example of what I meant was already discussed above anyway.
Archtyrant Terevoth 07-23-07, 06:58 PM	When a DM says, its not allowed because I don't like it, they are essentially putting what they like ahead of the group. Basically it says that they their fun, and their likes are more important then everyone else's at the table. None of the players have this much, and ultimately to use to craft the game were they are the only ones who decide whats in or out based on whatever they please is at its core an abuse of the power invested int he DM. I could never trust a DM who did that to run a fair game. Why? DMs decide not to include certain things all the time. I mean, we have a huge abundance of rules. If you want you can crack open D20 modern and grab an assault rifle, and the only thing stopping you from doing that is the DM telling you that assault rifles don't exist in his world. The same is true of psionics or Abjurant champions or any other race/class/spell or feat. Now, a DM should try to accomodate players, but that doesn't mean sacrificing the integrity of your world. If you don't want your world having halflings or assault rifles, then it doesn't have halflings or assault rifles, and you shouldn't let players tell you otherwise.
solbergb 07-23-07, 07:11 PM	I get it, and should say I do think you are a decent enough fellow, but I dont care for it. Its like playing baseball with the kid who insists on pitching because he brought the only ball. . No, a better analogy is that we're playing in a baseball league with uniforms, equipment and playing fields provided free by the DM. But he insists that they're only used for baseball. No football. Not even softball. Just baseball, and furthermore it's restricted to high school boys. No adults, no females, no children under age of 13. Doesn't seem so weird then - that's how most sports leagues are. The people who do the work and put up the cash set the rules. The volunteers (coaches, umpires, team members, fans) play by the rules set by the sponsors who make the game possible. Actually a better analogy might be a poker game. Some poker games, usually informal ones, have all players equal. Dealer rotates, the game may even change from hand to hand. Everybody is a player, everyone enforces the rules of poker, dealer calls out any special rules for the hands. This kind of game is like the rotating GM game. The basic ground rules for the campaign are agreed upon by everybody (we're playing Poker, not Hearts), but each dealer has his favorite style (Joe likes draw games with lots of wildcards, Fred likes 5 card stud, nothing wild, Mary likes Holdem maybe with one wildcard sometimes) and there is veto power when somebody goes too far (the stud variant where your hole card is visible to everyone else but not to you is disliked by 2 players, so either they sit out that hand or everyone agrees not to play it). A structured campaign is more like poker in a casino. Not just Poker, but this table is 5 card draw, that table is hold-em, the table over there is 7 card stud. The site, the rules, all dealing/card handling and the guarantee that the game is fair is all done by the "house". In exchange the "house" gets a small rake-off of each pot, usually to a limit per pot. The players just bring their money and decide which table to sit down at. They don't get to change the game except by moving to another table. I'll point out that I enjoy both styles of poker. Neither is "better" than the other. They're just different, they're fun in different ways. The skills to be good at one or the other as a player are also different (as are the skills to host a home-poker-game vs run a card house) The analogy is inexact, because unlike the casino poker situation, the GM actually is also having fun, and doesn't need to be paid. But it highlights the differences nicely. There are things you can do in a structured campaign that you can't do in a round-robin campaign and vice versa.
Caelic 07-23-07, 07:54 PM	The group/compromise/fun/censuses D&D game I described is not what you are describing here. (Frankly, it explains a lot.) What I described was 4-7 guys coming together to form a game. What you describe is one guy who forms a game, and invites 3-6 people to play. What I described was a group comprised of equals. What you described was two distinct groups on an unequal footing, the players and the DM. What I described was something that would be described as “our game.” What you described was “my game.” More accurately, wouldnt it be you saying, “Heres my new campaign.” Thats how Im reading you. I say it explains a lot because Ive been “invited” to play in games. I went with my attitude: a group of guys coming together to play a game, together. But the DM had your perspective. It is “my game” to which you (Puca) have been accepted. I have wondered, “Just who the hell does this guy think he is?” Now I know. He made the game. It is “his” to do what he wants with it, and people can either play, or not. I get it, and should say I do think you are a decent enough fellow, but I dont care for it. Its like playing baseball with the kid who insists on pitching because he brought the only ball. Puca, I think you're seeing the trees, but not the forest. What you missed was the fact that these campaigns don't exist in isolation. Yes, I might be running a campaign at the moment, and that campaign might be functioning under rules that are different from what Bob would choose...but Bob ran the last campaign, and ran it according to his rules, which were different from what Cindy would choose, and Cindy will run the next campaign... I hope youll pardon the connotation that there is childishness involved. Thats not my point. Its that even if that kid were the best pitcher, and even if we would have all wanted him to pitch anyway, there is an unequal distribution of power in a group where we really all should be on an equal footing. It rankles. Where's the inequality in the situation I presented above? "Equality" doesn't mean "Everybody has the same say in every decision all the time." If I get to choose where we go to dinner tonight and you get to choose where we go tomorrow, there's equality--even though tonight, I have more "power" than you do and tomorrow night, you'll have more "power" than I do. What I will never do, what I have never been able to do is enjoy myself in an activity where someone else regards my being there as a privilege, a privilege they bestowed and a privilege they have the power to withdraw. Even if it is a tacit assumption, never stated, never coming to the fore. I guess its only fun (for me) to play with friends, and if someone doesnt regard us as equals, then we cant be friends. What about when someone invites you over to their house for dinner? Same thing. You know it's their house, you know they're doing the cooking, you know you're not going to have any significant input into the menu. You know that, if you do something that really annoys them, they could ask you to leave. Do you let that spoil the occasion? Do you decide that you can't be friends because of it? Like I said, you seem a decent fellow. Im sure you would never make someone feel like that. Im only discussing the principles of the situation. I try not to. It just seems that, for all of the people who complain about strict DMs being obsessed with power, people who dislike strict DMs worry far more about relative power. I don't think of this in terms of "power," and neither do the members of my group. We don't worry about whether the DM's "power" makes us "unequal," any more than we worry about whether the chef's "power" to set the menu makes us "unequal." I dont think thats the choice. I know you cant make everybody happy. If two people have radically different views of what make a good game, they shouldnt really be gaming together. I cant really accept the point of view that trying isnt worth the couple minutes it takes. That, Im not worth the couple of minutes it takes to see if there is a chance to agree. But like I said, I like to think of the people I play with as friends. As do I. But let me turn this around for a second. Usually, when I start a new campaign, I put a lot of time and effort into the prep work. The pre-campaign briefing packet is typically anywhere from 15-25 pages long, and I try to load it with as many interesting possibilities for players as possible. If a player basically skims through that and then says, "I want something different," how's that supposed to make me feel? Am I supposed to accept the fact that all of my effort to create an interesting game is worth so little that it's not even worth the player's time to try to come up with a character concept that fits those parameters? Actually, I was just trying to keep it friendly. I still am, but it is a false dichotomy. There isnt a slippery slope where allowing one thing means you are now unable to say, “I dont think so” to anything else. Well, there is, to an extent. Certainly, if you're concerned about fairness, there is. If I allow Feat X, which really doesn't fit the flavor of the campaign, and then another player comes to me with Feat Y, which is of comparable power and also really doesn't fit the flavor of the campaign, I'm going to have a much harder time saying "No" to Feat Y without looking like a hypocrite who plays favorites. I may or may not be able to explain my reasoning for allowing one and not the other to the satisfaction of the players involved, but it's certainly going to take more explaining than if I just stuck to my guns and said that neither one really fits well. I understand the impulse to “hold the line” and all, but like I said above, I would like the DM to trust me. Again, this assumes the “our game” perspective, but, if I have a sense of ownership, if I feel that it is not yours, but ours (and so on some level mine) you have to trust that I dont want to wreck it. Right? We might disagree on what does or does not wreck or even what constitutes wrecked, but we should agree on what counts: That neither of us want it wrecked for group. As such, Im not going to regard one concession on the part of a friend as a concession on anythig else. Why must "ownership" necessarily mean "equal ownership of all parts?" A player certainly has more ownership of his character than the DM, does he not? As a player, I know that I am very possessive of my right to make decisions for my character. I don't take it well at all if the DM starts attempting to tell me what my character thinks or does. That's not his right; my character is a part of the game over which I have far more ownership than he does. Likewise, I acknowledge that he has more ownership of the aspects of the game outside my character. I don't get to decide what the weather is like when my character wakes up in the morning, or dictate the stats of the NPC I'm fighting, or determine that the Kingdoms of Slobovia and East Bratnograd are at war this year. I have input into the game world, surely; I have yet to meet a DM who was insane enough to want to retain total control of every minor detail. Most DMs welcome players who flesh out the details of their character's family, or the town they come from. Players can bring adversaries into existence through backstory, adversaries who would not otherwise have existed; likewise, they can bring items into play through the same method. But as a player, I respect that the DM put a lot of time and effort into his campaign, and I make an effort to channel my creativity into concepts that fit that campaign. Perhaps I'm blessed with more creativity than some; certainly, I have never been in a situation where I had one and only one character idea, and was so determined to play that idea that I knew my fun would be spoiled if I played anything else. If anything, it's quite the opposite: when a DM presents me with a richly detailed and unique campaign setting, my usual response is not, "Oh, no, this means I can't play an Elf!" but "Wow! After reading that, I have all these great new ideas for characters! I'm going to have a hard time choosing just one!"
Alyri 07-23-07, 09:20 PM	So, do you think you dont have to compromise? Does the quality of your work mean you never need to? Or the effort you put into it mean you arent willing to? Im just asking: Do you think willingness to compromise is part of being a good member of any group, including a D&D group? Is the DM part of the group? I am quite sure that Caelic(I know I have) or any Dm has made plenty of compromises when he is running. The bad part is 90% of them are not seen by the players. There are certain points that I wont compromise on. The biggest is the campaign. I may be a fuddy-duddy, but no I do not think the Dm is part of the group. I chat my players up, am friends with all of them, we do other things outside the game, but when I sit down behind my Dm screen. I am not part of the group. It is why I leave the table when the group goes into any discussion that impacts the game.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-24-07, 03:23 AM	I may be a fuddy-duddy, but no I do not think the Dm is part of the group. I chat my players up, am friends with all of them, we do other things outside the game, but when I sit down behind my Dm screen. I am not part of the group. It is why I leave the table when the group goes into any discussion that impacts the game. This I think really highlights the difference in our philosophies. As DM I am a part of the group, and because we are all friends we are all equal. Sure there is compromise, but everybody has fun, and thats what counts. cealic: Since any feat/class/PrC/etc could be re flavored to be anything I find it hard to believe that you can't fit it into your world. Unless we're talking about something extreme. But I thought we agreed that we would talk about normal rational things, and not silly extremes such as the party consisting of a Whale, a half dragon, jedi, and captain kirk. lets take a power attacking raging barbarian. And a setting like ancient china. And for story reasons we'll say that the main arch resolves around the refined, and cultured players protected a city against the ravening hoards, so known as the huns. On the one hand the barbarian doesn't really fit because the fighting styles of the civilized people, of which all PCs must be for story reasons, does do the uncontrolled raging emotional smash **** thing. Now that right there is enough of a reason to disallow the concept. However we could say that the barbarian ows a life debt to one of the other PCs, and adventures with said PC until the debt is repaid. Or we could say that when said barbarian rages, he isn't going into a frenzy at all, but actually he is channeling the power of his ancestors, and getting strength from them. But it makes it hard for him to concentrate while doing so, and also leaves him more vulnerable to attack. Further instead of swinging for the fence when he power attacks, he instead is aiming at a more vital area, but it is harder to hit. I run a campaign that you would probably consider to be "anything goes". I don't have a list of acceptable books, or unacceptable books. I do want to know to what my players are picking up when they level, or buy gear. Not so I can say yes or no, but so I know what their doing, and plan the camapign around them. For example I have one of my players who is planning on a PrC at 10th that will have him gain a spirit mentor. I'm planning on having it be his mentor from his back story, and the hook will be him completing his mentors old quest. Actually while we're on the topic of my anything goes game, I have the following: 1 Grey elf psion (Telepathy) Tharalherder (cohort is a human ashbound druid 4) 1 Wild elf war blade 5/barbarian 1 1 human ranger 2/scout 4 going into dervish. Their having fun, and I can still challenge them. Plus all of their characters still fit thematically into the setting. (Eberron) I do however see two types of games emerging here, and I think Puca put it best. there is "our game" were everyone comes to a consensus on what the game will be like. And in that one the DM is obligated to communicate with he players, s/he is just one out X were X = total number of people at the table. And "My/your" were you writer the game, and then invite the players. Now in your example were Bob DMs his game, and then you yours, and Cindy hers. It is still a case of my/your game. Just instead of you writing the game, and inviting the players, someone else. neither one is better then the other, they are just different. Now personally I wouldn't play in a my/your style of game, unless it coincidentally happened to have everything I wanted in it, with out too many restrictions on the types of characters I like to play. basically it is what I would happy with, after compromising on a an our game. To address the you can use because I don't like it, if you really hate it, but not if you only dislike it. That is the difference between something you can live with, and a deal breaker. Basically if it is just the DM using his DMly authority so as to never have to compromise then, yea they suck. However if it something that hate enough that couldn't have any fun with its existence at, then a game with that is not the game for them, and thus they need to be with a different group. To put it another a DM using I don't like it, no. So as to get 100% his way, all the way is being a jerk. But occasionally their are deal breakers, and well you can't force someone to do something for recreation that they dislike. For me that deal breaker is FR. Your millage may vary. hers a good litmus test; would you play in a game as a player, that allowed it? If yes then it is probably something you can compromise on. Cealic: The best way to find out if that thing you want from the DM is deal breaker or not, by asking them. Of course that assumes a DM willing to communicate with their players. And Yaa I agree with pretty much everything Puca said...You rock dude!
shadzar 07-24-07, 07:12 AM	I am quite sure that Caelic(I know I have) or any Dm has made plenty of compromises when he is running. The bad part is 90% of them are not seen by the players. There are certain points that I wont compromise on. The biggest is the campaign. I may be a fuddy-duddy, but no I do not think the Dm is part of the group. I chat my players up, am friends with all of them, we do other things outside the game, but when I sit down behind my Dm screen. I am not part of the group. It is why I leave the table when the group goes into any discussion that impacts the game. i agree. the DM is not part of the group. is the DM a player? yes, but only in the sense that he/she participate in the game, not that he/she has a character in it nor does he/she mae decisions for the player's group. the DM is a special player in the group, but not part of the adventuring group.
Kursk 07-24-07, 11:09 AM	Since this thread was put onto the "What is a player to do" forum I'll answer from that viewpoint. Make a deal with your DM that you can dictate to him how to run the campaign to the degree that he gets to run your character in game. Problem solved and all happy. :)
Hugin 07-24-07, 12:30 PM	Since this thread was put onto the "What is a player to do" forum I'll answer from that viewpoint. Make a deal with your DM that you can dictate to him how to run the campaign to the degree that he gets to run your character in game. Problem solved and all happy. :) :cookie: for Kursk! The DM creates the game and presents it to the players. If they don't like it, they have the option to create a game of their preferences and present it to players. Sure it's about cooperation but the campaign world is to the DM what the PC is to the player.
Infernostrider 07-24-07, 01:01 PM	when a DM disallows a rule, and it's a major shift in the campaign or in what you are used to when playing D&D (like when you joined a new group, or started a new type of campaign), you should ask him directly why the change has been made. Don't wait for other players to ask him about it, it might not happen. You wonder? YOU ask! If it's not a big deal, and you can't figure it out but it DOES bug you albeit a little, DON'T hold up the game by asking the DM and getting into a long debate, talk to him afterwards or arrange some time with the DM to talk about whats on your mind
Kursk 07-24-07, 01:05 PM	when a DM disallows a rule, and it's a major shift in the campaign or in what you are used to when playing D&D (like when you joined a new group, or started a new type of campaign), you should ask him directly why the change has been made. Don't wait for other players to ask him about it, it might not happen. You wonder? YOU ask! ... This is why as a DM, I try to present to them, before we start, anything about the campaign that effects the players choices. Iron it out before starting so it doesn't waste time after you start.
Infernostrider 07-24-07, 01:12 PM	good point. i might have found you saying that earlier in the topic but i cba to read 12 pages, sorry ^^ but still; good point. make sure they know what they're up against rulewise, or they'll likely assume the last used set of rules or the basic rules
Caelic 07-24-07, 01:13 PM	cealic: Since any feat/class/PrC/etc could be re flavored to be anything I find it hard to believe that you can't fit it into your world. People keep saying this, and it's just not true. "Reflavor" a Mage of the Arcane Order all you want; it's still a Mage of the Arcane Order, and it still doesn't fit in a campaign world where magic is a totally individualistic art. I still shake my head at the notion that the mechanics of prestige classes are somehow so sacrosanct that they're worth preserving independent of their context. If I'm going to go to the trouble of rewriting a prestige class, I'm going to rewrite the prestige class--not graft my flavor text onto mechanics that don't work all that well, simply because they're "Real Official D&D Mechanics (tm)" On the one hand the barbarian doesn't really fit because the fighting styles of the civilized people, of which all PCs must be for story reasons, does do the uncontrolled raging emotional smash **** thing. Now that right there is enough of a reason to disallow the concept. However we could say that the barbarian ows a life debt to one of the other PCs, and adventures with said PC until the debt is repaid. Okay, but who's being more selfish here? The DM who set down a general guideline and really doesn't want to make exceptions to it, or the player who is unwilling to work within the guidelines and feels that exceptions should be made for him? I run a campaign that you would probably consider to be "anything goes". I don't have a list of acceptable books, or unacceptable books. I do want to know to what my players are picking up when they level, or buy gear. Not so I can say yes or no, but so I know what their doing, and plan the camapign around them. Yep. Wouldn't work for me. I can't get the consistency, internal logic, and longevity I want from a campaign with a setup like that. Now in your example were Bob DMs his game, and then you yours, and Cindy hers. It is still a case of my/your game. Just instead of you writing the game, and inviting the players, someone else. ...but you keep insisting that that makes people unequal...and asserting that that makes it impossible to be friends, which really bugs me. Can't you see that there's no inequality here, any more than if a group of friends took turns carpooling and the guy driving got to choose the route they took to their destination? neither one is better then the other, they are just different. Now personally I wouldn't play in a my/your style of game, unless it coincidentally happened to have everything I wanted in it, with out too many restrictions on the types of characters I like to play. basically it is what I would happy with, after compromising on a an our game. Who's the selfish one, then? You make much of how unfair it is for a DM to say "The campaign has to be the way I want it, or I won't run it," and then you turn around and say "The campaign has to be the way I want it, or I won't play in it." That is the difference between something you can live with, and a deal breaker. Basically if it is just the DM using his DMly authority so as to never have to compromise then, yea they suck. However if it something that hate enough that couldn't have any fun with its existence at, then a game with that is not the game for them, and thus they need to be with a different group. So when the DM says "No, because I don't like it," how do you decide whether he just dislikes it...in which case he's a selfish, totalitarian jerk who can't be trusted and who you shouldn't game with or be friends with...or if he has an irrational hatred of it, in which case it's okay and there's no problem? To put it another a DM using I don't like it, no. So as to get 100% his way, all the way is being a jerk. But occasionally their are deal breakers, and well you can't force someone to do something for recreation that they dislike. ...except that you've argued all the way through the thread that you CAN force a DM to accept things they dislike, and that if they don't suck it up and deal with it they're selfish jerks. All you're doing here, it seems, is coming up with a justification for why it's okay when you ban certain things because you don't like them, and not okay when other DMs ban certain things because they don't like them. "I really, REALLY don't like it" just doesn't wash as a difference, sorry. Either it's okay for a DM to ban things they don't like, or it's not. Only the DM knows how much he dislikes a given concept. Yes, there might be the occasional situation where you can know he doesn't dislike it all that much, because he played one in the last campaign, but how often is that really likely to happen? Usually, the players will have no way of knowing whether he's merely a concept-disliking-totalitarian-jerk, or a concept-hating-good-DM. Since you have (albeit indirectly) agreed that "No, because I don't like it" is a valid reason under certain circumstances, and since you as a player cannot know for sure whether those circumstances are or are not in effect, then "No, because I don't like it" must be accepted as a valid reason.
Puca 07-24-07, 01:47 PM	No, a better analogy is that we're playing in a baseball league with uniforms, equipment and playing fields provided free by the DM. But he insists that they're only used for baseball. No football. Not even softball. Just baseball, and furthermore it's restricted to high school boys. No adults, no females, no children under age of 13.That sounds like some sort of league, where the people who maintain the fields arent actually playing anything. Is the DM playing D&D? I always assumed he was. I feel sorry for him if he is an uncompensated groundskeeper. Actually a better analogy might be a poker game.The difference between me an six friends playing poker and me playing against the casino is precisely the difference between something friendly and something, well, not. Rotating the dealer/DM is an option you dont really have in most casino games, but it isnt a requirement for a "home style" poker or for "our game" D&D. I think your analogy is inaccurate in that. I also feel that it is inaccurate in saying that home games are inherently less structured. The fact that they can be is due to the flexibility of them; its because I have a relationship with, can talk to and reason with the "house." But the rules do not have to be any less in place and formal just because the players and the house negotiate them together. That fact that they can, even the fact that they (I assume in your experience) frequently are, does not mean they have to be. Other than that though, I agree with you, unfortunately. The power relationship between the gambler and the casino seems to be exactly what some people want. And its your D&D, as long youre all having fun, but the relationship between the gambler and the casino is impersonal, cold, and at its heart it cannot be anything but adversarial. Thats not the kind of D&D I like to play. ___________________ Yes, I might be running a campaign at the moment, and that campaign might be functioning under rules that are different from what Bob would choose...but Bob ran the last campaign, and ran it according to his rules, which were different from what Cindy would choose, and Cindy will run the next campaign...I dont think that the fact that person who is "in power" rotates changes the fact that there is at any given time only "one" in power. I dont know what the norm is either, but I dont know how often DMs rotate. It seems to me than many situations at least have more or less permanent DMs. I thought you were a more or less permanent DM? What about when someone invites you over to their house for dinner?If I were Jewish, would you ask me to eat pork? If I were vegetarian, would you suggest that I may either have the lamb or eat elsewhere? It this analogy, it seems to me that it is the hosts job to cater to the guest. To serve him. But that doesnt seem to be what you are wishing to advocate here. (And, for the record, I dont wish to suggest that the DM cater to the players either.) We don't worry about whether the DM's "power" makes us "unequal," any more than we worry about whether the chef's "power" to set the menu makes us "unequal."My focus on equality is secondary to my primary concern that “friendship” at least on some level is part of the whole game. I don't think of this in terms of "power," and neither do the members of my group.When every discussion of this nature includes at least one person saying something to the effect of, “Its my game, my rules: You have no right to question them so either accept them as they are or get out” how can we not characterize it as a “power” issue? Usually, when I start a new campaign, I put a lot of time and effort into the prep work. The pre-campaign briefing packet is typically anywhere from 15-25 pages long, and I try to load it with as many interesting possibilities for players as possible. If a player basically skims through that and then says, "I want something different," how's that supposed to make me feel? Am I supposed to accept the fact that all of my effort to create an interesting game is worth so little that it's not even worth the player's time to try to come up with a character concept that fits those parameters?Remember, I told players:The DM is “playing D&D” too. He gets to have fun. Part of his fun is creating a world and a campaign and sharing his vision... If you think hes your servant, a resource for your enjoyment that you can put on the same level as your splat-books, to be used as you see fit, youre a jerk. Show some freaking gratitude and treat him like part of the group. I also said:I wish I could say that every player considered the group as a whole, the other players, the other characters, the setting, and the campaign, from concept through character creation. But most of them dont. Knock it off!And more, all to the way players should act twards the DM. I think that while I might have devoted more text space to how the DM should be, I was no less sincere in my expressed opinions on how the players should be as well. When the game is an agreement between equal players and DM, respect and compromise have to go both ways. It is not only the DM who has to be willing to make concessions. A player certainly has more ownership of his character than the DM, does he not? As a player, I know that I am very possessive of my right to make decisions for my character. I don't take it well at all if the DM starts attempting to tell me what my character thinks or does. That's not his right; my character is a part of the game over which I have far more ownership than he does. But isnt this precisely the point? The DM cannot tell me what to do and think but we both agree there are things about my character that have to be accepted by the DM: class, race, feats, etc. Even if I have freedom to dictate 99.9% of what my character is, a fraction of a percent has to be done with the consent of the DM. Why is that portion not up to my total control never something to be discussed? Never open to negotiation? For that matter, why is this not true for the setting as much as it is for the character? ...but you keep insisting that that makes people unequal...and asserting that that makes it impossible to be friends, which really bugs me. Can't you see that there's no inequality here, any more than if a group of friends took turns carpooling and the guy driving got to choose the route they took to their destination?But If I asked to stop and grab a cupa coffee on the way, is that reasonable? Are we friends going the same way? If so, then my needs should matter, even if you cant reasonably be expected to meet all of them, they should matter. I dont expect you to be my taxi; but you dont have to be a bus (with predetermined non-negotiable stops) either. ---------------------------------- I am quite sure that Caelic(I know I have) or any Dm has made plenty of compromises when he is running. The bad part is 90% of them are not seen by the players.I think the onus is on you guys then. I think a DM who makes it known that he/she is willing to negotiate some things is going to have a better relationship with their players than those who dont. There are certain points that I wont compromise on. The biggest is the campaign.Doesnt the word “campaign” sort of cover everything? I may be a fuddy-duddy, but no I do not think the Dm is part of the group. I chat my players up, am friends with all of them, we do other things outside the game, but when I sit down behind my Dm screen. I am not part of the group. It is why I leave the table when the group goes into any discussion that impacts the game.I find that sad. Friendship doesnt have a switch. You either are, or you arent. I hope its that you always are. ____________________ Make a deal with your DM that you can dictate to him how to run the campaign to the degree that he gets to run your character in game. Problem solved and all happy. :) I dont think that will work: he gets to decide what classes I can choose from, I get to decide what? Which monsters he can choose from? This was tongue-in-cheek, but your suggestion was too (I think) because it ignores the degree to which DMs can control my character by deciding what class he can be, what race, where he was born, so many factors that make him who he is. _______________________________ The DM creates the game and presents it to the players. If they don't like it, they have the option to create a game of their preferences and present it to players. Sure it's about cooperation but the campaign world is to the DM what the PC is to the player.Except that some seem to think it is not that way. That the DM is allowed to influence the character creation process, but not the other way around. Unless you were truly going for anything goes? The DM can do anything he wants with the setting and the players can do anything they want with their characters? Im pretty liberal, but I dont think I can go that far with you. :) \_______________________________________ _______ Yaa I agree with pretty much everything Puca said...You rock dude!:) Thank you. Actually, I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky.
Kursk 07-24-07, 02:28 PM	This was tongue-in-cheek, but your suggestion was too (I think) because it ignores the degree to which DMs can control my character by deciding what class he can be, what race, where he was born, so many factors that make him who he is. It was to a degree. As a player, if the DM knows how to run an entertaining game, I really don't have a problem with what I play. I can have fun playing a 3 Int Barbarian or a high Wis Cleric, a rogue, whatever. The story, excitement, suspense, wonder is primary for me. The challenge as a role player is how do I make my character relevant and contribute to the success of the group. I can do that with any character. The more challenging the better. How may people remember the 1st session you played? Do you remember the wonder, excitement of not knowing what was going to happen next, etc.? If the game has that I'm happy as a player. I try to create that as a DM also.
Puca 07-24-07, 02:44 PM	To each his own. But I think that there are a lot of us who really want a strong, personal relationship with our characters. Im not some ninny whining that I cant do that unless I have six PrCs and feat that lets me shoot Disintegrate rays out of my arse. But the DMs limitations and plans do have an impact on my decisions, on my character.
Kursk 07-24-07, 02:48 PM	To each his own. But I think that there are a lot of us who really want a strong, personal relationship with our characters. I do form a strong attachment to the characters I play. My decision to do so or not, regardless of what I am playing.
solbergb 07-24-07, 03:10 PM	I like the casino example because while it is a poor metaphor for the actual dynamics of a structured campaign vs a round robin game it is a decent metaphor for "it is poker, but it is structured differently and you get different things out of it". Casino poker players generally get these kinds of things out of the play 1. they can play for higher stakes without worrying about safety 2. they can play for higer stakes without worrying about keeping their buddy Bob from paying his mortgage. (Poker is an adversarial game. Most home poker games are "friendly") 3. there is generally more skill and less luck involved because the wilder variants aren't offered 4. you can play when you feel like it, as opposed to when everyone can get together 5. the average quality of your opponents is better. These are very different motivators from the "home poker game", where the poker is often just an excuse to sit around a table and socialize, drink and eat junk food (and yet many of them would be puzzled by our gaming hobby....) Generally the rewards of a structured game for the players in it are easier immersion, a better sense of how much leverage their characters can have on the world, and the ability to poke around in the world and have it all remain internally consistent and make sense. The round-robin worlds can be very rich, but they tend to have holes that nobody's developed, and sometimes different GM's start tugging the campaign in different directions, leading to an inconsistent player experience. There are also just some campaign story arcs that are easier to do if there is only one person running the show. It's easier to do any plot where "finding things out" is important if the guy who knows what is going on doesn't have to share it with the other GM's who also sit at the table as players. Things like military campaigns where the PC's are part of a larger structure and have less individual freedom than usual are also easier to do with one GM, usually.
Alyri 07-24-07, 03:21 PM	Is the DM playing D&D? I always assumed he was. I feel sorry for him if he is an uncompensated groundskeeper. In my opinion, no, the dungeon master(notice master in there) isn't playing D&D, he is running D&D. The players(notice the word we use) are playing. Is the football referee playing football? Isn't that what a Dm should be? I'm calling the game yet am having fun watching the game being played. I My focus on equality is secondary to my primary concern that “friendship” at least on some level is part of the whole game. It sounds to me like you are putting too much into the friendly part. Look thru all the threads about how such and such DM is favoring one player over another, it is usually because the favored player is a sibling/spouse/best friend/etc. When every discussion of this nature includes at least one person saying something to the effect of, “Its my game, my rules: You have no right to question them so either accept them as they are or get out” how can we not characterize it as a “power” issue? "it's my character and I can play him however I want" falls into that same category. If a player refuse to play within the rules of the game is that not the same? Why does so many think the Dm is the one that has to bend over? When the game is an agreement between equal players and DM, respect and compromise have to go both ways. It is not only the DM who has to be willing to make concessions. Because this isn't what you are saying. You are saying everyone at the table is an equal and everyone should have equal say in how the game is played. This is not true. The DM cannot tell me what to do and think but we both agree there are things about my character that have to be accepted by the DM: class, race, feats, etc. Even if I have freedom to dictate 99.9% of what my character is, a fraction of a percent has to be done with the consent of the DM. Why is that portion not up to my total control never something to be discussed? Never open to negotiation?As a Dm I don't have to accept your class, race, feats. You have to accept my limitations on them. I can't negotiate with Billy and not Bobby. If Bobby has made a character under the guidelines but Billy is having issues and I relent on an aspect, What is to stop Bobby from wanting to change something that is outside the guidelines? Now everyone wants to change something and my whole campaign gets turned upside down. I'm ******, players are happy, but yeah we are all friends and it's a friendly game just as long as the players get what they want. For that matter, why is this not true for the setting as much as it is for the character? Because then nothing is set in the game. You may as well just show up roll some dice get treasure and level up. I think the onus is on you guys then. I think a DM who makes it known that he/she is willing to negotiate some things is going to have a better relationship with their players than those who dont. I've never noticed that. I have seen vastly more games fall apart because the Dm wants to be 'one of the guys' and the games end up being a Monty Haul Doesnt the word “campaign” sort of cover everything? Not really. Campaign-Story-Adventure-Encounter Best example I can think of fairly quickly is Babylon5 Babylon5 had a 5 year story arc Babylon5(the campaign) The 5 years story arc(the story) Each episode(adventure) action during episode(encounters). If someone wanted to play a Jedi in that example I would say no. There are no Jedi, but there are Psionics, it may not be Jedi but it is close enough. I cannot compromise the campaign becuase someone wants to play something that isn't there. I find that sad. Friendship doesnt have a switch. You either are, or you arent. I hope its that you always are. Friendship isn't switching. I don't know why you would think it does. I want to stay neutral in all their gaming decisions. Sitting at the table and adding comments or helpful suggestions doesn't(imo) make for a good game. Now if there is a part where they are stuck at and can't figure something out, yes then I will make a suggestion
OravennasBrother 07-24-07, 04:52 PM	The whole DM's have to let me play X trend has become marked since 3.0 arrived. Before then I never saw DM's spending so much time with players whining about "But I MUST be allowed to play a Zentarian Colossal Sword Wielder and it's in an official book TOO!" they would look at a character and say "Nah, try something else for this campaign," and the onus was on the PLAYER to create something which fit the DM's world. 3.X seems to be about player "empowerment" at the EXPENSE of game balance and too many of the worst reprobates insist that they have a "Concept" in mind which "Requires" a particular PrC/Race/Feat/Whatever. Though as has been hinted at earlier on the thread it is the MECHANICS, not the CONCEPT which is sacrosanct. TO get their beloved "Red Hand of Doom" PrC they will take ANY fluff change to get the mechanics which make them UB3R.
Caelic 07-24-07, 05:29 PM	I dont think that the fact that person who is "in power" rotates changes the fact that there is at any given time only "one" in power. ...but why is there this assumption among so many that that's a bad thing? Why is it inherently bad to have one person in charge? It's not a bad thing to have one person in charge in an operating room, and I don't think the anaestheseologist or the nurses believe that they're being degraded by not having an equal share of power. It's not a bad thing to have one person in charge of driving the car; in fact, if there's a car where everyone's trying to have an equal say in the driving decisions, I want to know about it so I can be far, far away, because that's a car that's going to crash. There's an old aphorism in the business world: "A committee is the only creature with more than four legs and no brain." Humor aside, total group consensus just isn't the best way to do some things. I'll tell you what a roleplaying game is when every single person has exactly the same amount of say: it's the games of "Let's Pretend" we played when we were six. D'you remember how those usually wound up? "Fall down! I shot you!" "Nuh uh, you missed!" I dont know what the norm is either, but I dont know how often DMs rotate. It seems to me than many situations at least have more or less permanent DMs. I thought you were a more or less permanent DM? Yes. I have an ongoing Saturday afternoon campaign, but it doesn't run every Saturday afternoon. There's also typically a Friday night campaign, a second Saturday afternoon campaign, and occasionally a Sunday campaign. Not everybody in the group is involved in every campaign, but everybody who wants to DM gets their chance. If I were Jewish, would you ask me to eat pork? If I were vegetarian, would you suggest that I may either have the lamb or eat elsewhere? No. Then again, if I've told you in advance what to expect on the menu, and you accept the invitation knowing that I'm serving food you don't like, and then wait until I've already done all the cooking to say "I don't like this, serve me something else," then I'd argue that it's you being unreasonable, not me. My focus on equality is secondary to my primary concern that “friendship” at least on some level is part of the whole game. I think the thing that irritates me the most about this whole discussion is the frequent implications (or outright assertions) that strict DMing indicates a lack of regard for friends or is somehow destructive to friendship. That, to put it bluntly, is garbage. (No, that's not directed solely at you, Puca; a lot of people have been making comments of that sort.) When every discussion of this nature includes at least one person saying something to the effect of, “Its my game, my rules: You have no right to question them so either accept them as they are or get out” how can we not characterize it as a “power” issue? A good question. Particularly considering that every discussion of this sort also includes players saying "The campaign should be built around the players, it's the DM's job to make sure the players get what they want, and if he doesn't, he can go find a new group." Remember, I told players:I also said:And more, all to the way players should act twards the DM. I think that while I might have devoted more text space to how the DM should be, I was no less sincere in my expressed opinions on how the players should be as well. I think you're the exception, rather than the rule. Typically, I find that I hear a great deal about how important it is for the DM to make the players happy, but not much at all about the DM's happiness. Player happiness seems to be sacrosanct; the prevailing opinion seems to be that if the DM is unhappy, he's just being silly and should just get over it. When the game is an agreement between equal players and DM, respect and compromise have to go both ways. It is not only the DM who has to be willing to make concessions. Quite a lot of people seem to disagree with that. If we count up the number of people on this thread saying that DMs should change the campaign to allow a character concept, and people saying that players should change a character concept to fit the campaign, which one do you think we'd have more of? The DM cannot tell me what to do and think but we both agree there are things about my character that have to be accepted by the DM: class, race, feats, etc. Even if I have freedom to dictate 99.9% of what my character is, a fraction of a percent has to be done with the consent of the DM. Why is that portion not up to my total control never something to be discussed? Never open to negotiation? Why does it need to be, when the portion that is up to your total control is never open to negotiation? Why should the equation be "I own 99.9%, and the DM and I equally own the other .1%?" For that matter, why is this not true for the setting as much as it is for the character? Where's the DM's ownership in all of this? The proportions people seem to be advocating here are: 1. Characters: 99.9% exclusive player ownership; .1% joint ownership. 2. Everything else: 0% exclusive DM ownership; 100% joint ownership. But If I asked to stop and grab a cupa coffee on the way, is that reasonable? Sure, you can ask. That's not the same as having equal power. Does it bother you when you get in that car that you don't have equal power with the driver? Does it make you feel like less than his equal? Like you can't truly be friends? If not, then why should that be the case with D&D? I dont expect you to be my taxi; but you dont have to be a bus (with predetermined non-negotiable stops) either. Unless, of course, I have other obligations to worry about, too, and a schedule to keep. What if I'm already devoting as much time as I can afford to giving my friends a ride, and can't afford to make more time for detours, or to debate those detours?
Alyri 07-24-07, 05:30 PM	The whole DM's have to let me play X trend has become marked since 3.0 arrived. Before then I never saw DM's spending so much time with players whining about "But I MUST be allowed to play a Zentarian Colossal Sword Wielder and it's in an official book TOO!" they would look at a character and say "Nah, try something else for this campaign," and the onus was on the PLAYER to create something which fit the DM's world. 3.X seems to be about player "empowerment" at the EXPENSE of game balance and too many of the worst reprobates insist that they have a "Concept" in mind which "Requires" a particular PrC/Race/Feat/Whatever. Though as has been hinted at earlier on the thread it is the MECHANICS, not the CONCEPT which is sacrosanct. TO get their beloved "Red Hand of Doom" PrC they will take ANY fluff change to get the mechanics which make them UB3R. QFT. I too have noticed this definite change in players attitudes
shadzar 07-24-07, 05:43 PM	The whole DM's have to let me play X trend has become marked since 3.0 arrived. Before then I never saw DM's spending so much time with players whining about "But I MUST be allowed to play a Zentarian Colossal Sword Wielder and it's in an official book TOO!" they would look at a character and say "Nah, try something else for this campaign," and the onus was on the PLAYER to create something which fit the DM's world. 3.X seems to be about player "empowerment" at the EXPENSE of game balance and too many of the worst reprobates insist that they have a "Concept" in mind which "Requires" a particular PrC/Race/Feat/Whatever. Though as has been hinted at earlier on the thread it is the MECHANICS, not the CONCEPT which is sacrosanct. TO get their beloved "Red Hand of Doom" PrC they will take ANY fluff change to get the mechanics which make them UB3R. QFE yup that is among one of the many reasons i don't like 3.x brcause it give the idea to too many players that just because the book has it the DM must allow it. :rolleyes:
olshanski_home 07-24-07, 05:59 PM	I think the OP missed a fairly important reason why DMs would disallow certain books: Perhaps the DM feels it is unfair to the other players at the table who don't own the book. Just because one player has more spending money than the others, they should not have access to more spells, more feats, more powers, and more magic items than the other players. You might argue that its the DMs job to educate the other players on what these new abilities are that player "A" is introducing, but that seems like a heavy burden to place on the DM, who is arguably already putting in more prep time than any other player (and likely more than all other players combined). Some players like the simpler, gritty D&D of the older editions. They don't like the idea of characters walking around with empowering tatoos, cutting themselves to get more powerful spells, making leaping+charging+pouncing+thundering attacks; perhaps some players don't like the idea one-shot opponents using instant metamagic to wipe out the party in a single round. Just because one player spent some money in support of his hobby doesn't mean that everyone else must also spend their money on the same things. Of course, Hasbro has struck a gold mine when people believe that more$$ spent=more fun in the game.
Janitor 07-24-07, 06:06 PM	An argument that I've been missing a lot in this thread is that it's not about the DM making the game, it's about the players playing it. I get the impression a lot of people with significant DM'ing experience make a campaign with a lot of effort. It's like a freshly cleaned carpet, they don't want people rummaging all over it with dirty shoes, you have to take them off. Perhaps these people are forgetting that the players are not tools to bring your world to life in the way you see fit, the players are vital to the game. Players should be given room to play what they want. I, as a DM, merely provide a playing field. If Player X makes a character that is too powerful IMO I'll just tweak the playing field to keep it fair and challenging for all. DMs who cannot keep the game flexible enough to allow players to have their input in what is basically their own imagination should rethink why they are running this game at all.
Kursk 07-24-07, 06:12 PM	An argument that I've been missing a lot in this thread is that it's not about the DM making the game, it's about the players playing it. I get the impression a lot of people with significant DM'ing experience make a campaign with a lot of effort. It's like a freshly cleaned carpet, they don't want people rummaging all over it with dirty shoes, you have to take them off. Perhaps these people are forgetting that the players are not tools to bring your world to life in the way you see fit, the players are vital to the game. Players should be given room to play what they want. I, as a DM, merely provide a playing field. If Player X makes a character that is too powerful IMO I'll just tweak the playing field to keep it fair and challenging for all. DMs who cannot keep the game flexible enough to allow players to have their input in what is basically their own imagination should rethink why they are running this game at all. So I can play a god in your game? Cool, 'cause that's the only thing that will make me happy as a player and you should rework your world to accommodate ME. :cool:
Caelic 07-24-07, 06:14 PM	An argument that I've been missing a lot in this thread is that it's not about the DM making the game, it's about the players playing it. I get the impression a lot of people with significant DM'ing experience make a campaign with a lot of effort. It's like a freshly cleaned carpet, they don't want people rummaging all over it with dirty shoes, you have to take them off. Perhaps these people are forgetting that the players are not tools to bring your world to life in the way you see fit, the players are vital to the game. Players should be given room to play what they want. I, as a DM, merely provide a playing field. If Player X makes a character that is too powerful IMO I'll just tweak the playing field to keep it fair and challenging for all. DMs who cannot keep the game flexible enough to allow players to have their input in what is basically their own imagination should rethink why they are running this game at all. ...and there's the quintessential "Player's Rights" viewpoint. It's all about the players and their characters; the gameworld is unimportant, except that it gives them somewhere to stand while they kill monsters, and any DM who thinks differently is DMing "for the wrong reasons." It simply isn't so. That might work for you campaign, and more power to you if it does, but anyone who claims that it's the "right" way of playing...and that, by extension, daring to restrict choices for players is the "wrong" way...is off base and probably arguing from limited experience.
olshanski_home 07-24-07, 06:17 PM	Regarding "Rule 0" While I disagree with TPK about allowing supplements... (I think that no supplement should be allowed unless everyone in the group owns it). I do agree that "Rule 0" should be evoked only in the rarest circumstance. I view "Rule 0" as "DM can decide what happens when the rules are unclear on the situation"... for example: someone has a flaming sword that remains at a steady 500 degrees. He throws the sword into a pond. How long does it take for the increased heat to kill the natural animals and fish in the pond? How long does it take for the pond to boil away? I don't think "Rule 0" should come in to play when the DM just wants something cool to happen and needs to break rules... Say a rhino is going to charge the party, but the rhino needs to round a corner to attack the party. The DM shouldn't just decide "I'll ignore the rule about charging in a straight line" just because he wants to. Just like a DM shouldn't allow "light" to be cast in the eyes of a creature to blind it offensively. The rules expressly forbid this use of the spell, and the DM shouldn't break the rules simply because the player thought it would be cool.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-24-07, 07:19 PM	Okay, but who's being more selfish here? The DM who set down a general guideline and really doesn't want to make exceptions to it, or the player who is unwilling to work within the guidelines and feels that exceptions should be made for him? I don't find that either is being unreasonably selfish. It reasonable for both parties to want what they want. The DM his/her setting, and the player, in this case, the mechanics of power attack and the barbarian class. Now if neither were willing to comprise, then both would be behaving unreasonably selfish. If the flavor can be changed so as to fit within the campaign then I fail to see why it can continue to be used as a excuse. Unless there is another reason, but then that reason would have to stand on its merits. To clarify the difference between a Deal breaker, and a dislike, for the last time. A deal break is something that you just can't comprise on. It is something that for whatever it's very existence will make the game the game unfun. This is so regardless of campaign, DM or any other factors. Lets say you disliked the warlock. You think it is stupid, or whatever. Now if you refused to be a player, or DM or take part in, in anyway shape or form, a game that contained a warlock, then it would be a deal breaker. However if it was something you disliked, and would never use, but could life with it, if in another game not DMed by you, should another player choose to play. Another way to look at it is, as a DM you may not like, and therefor ban, the complete adventurer. However your willing to play in a game were the complete adventurer is allowed. Thus the complete adventurer is not a deal breaker for you, it just a dislike. So if you are banning the complete adventurer, but willing to play in games with it, then I have objections to that. And for the second time, the easiest and best way to know for sure if something is a deal breaker or not is simply to ask. "Hey Bob, I know you dislike fighters, but is it a deal breaker for you?" That assumes two things. 1) The DM is honest, and 2) The DM is willing to communicate. However I would refuse to play under a DM if either one of those were not the case. The reason why I want a more co0operative, and collaborative game is that I prefer to play the game with my friends. I know I could write the perfect game for me, one in which I got 100% of everything I wanted, and basically got my way all the way. And sure I could find players for it. But I would much rather play with my friends. And that means that they will want to have their fun too. Which means for me I have to take into consideration their preferences, and gaming styles, etc. Which means comprise on all of our parts. DM and player alike. Because like it or not the DM is part of the group, and is another player with different roles then the others. Its been said before, it all comes down to fairness. Either it is apart of your game, or it isn't.
Caelic 07-24-07, 07:53 PM	Another way to look at it is, as a DM you may not like, and therefor ban, the complete adventurer. However your willing to play in a game were the complete adventurer is allowed. Thus the complete adventurer is not a deal breaker for you, it just a dislike. So if you are banning the complete adventurer, but willing to play in games with it, then I have objections to that. So it seems like what you have a problem with is a DM who is willing to set aside his own personal dislikes when someone else is DMing and respect the choices they make, and who expects the same in return when he's DMing. I just don't see how that's a virtue. I don't see how "I'd prefer not to run a game with this, but I'm willing to respect the wishes of a DM who does" is less reasonable than "I hate this, and not only won't I run it, but if I don't get my way as a player concerning it I'll walk out of the game and not play." The reason why I want a more co0operative, and collaborative game is that I prefer to play the game with my friends. Remember how you said you were so sick of the "The DM does more work crap?" Uhh...yeah. I'm at least as sick of the "Well, I like collaborative games because I play with friends/value friendship/respect my players" crap. News flash for you: I play with friends, too. My DMing style does not compromise our friendship. I do not disrespect my friends with my DMing style. I am so sick of the implication that "Anything goes" DMs are somehow treating their friends better. It's garbage in the purest form.
Alyri 07-24-07, 07:59 PM	I'm at least as sick of the "Well, I like collaborative games because I play with friends/value friendship/respect my players" crap. News flash for you: I play with friends, too. My DMing style does not compromise our friendship. I do not disrespect my friends with my DMing style. I am so sick of the implication that "Anything goes" DMs are somehow treating their friends better. It's garbage in the purest form. QFT QFT I had to do that twice because it is so true oh and sigged
Comus 07-24-07, 08:02 PM	I am so sick of the implication that "Anything goes" DMs are somehow treating their friends better. It's garbage in the purest form. I'm sick of the implication that Core-Only games are the only 'real' way to play D&D. I'm sick of the implication that players should not be allowed to argue their case. And I'm really sick of the implication that restricting players is a form of respect for them rather than what it really is - controlling what is allowed in the game to make it easier and/or more fun for the DM. The DM needs to have fun too, but don't try and pass it off as something it isn't.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-24-07, 08:13 PM	Sorry for the double post, but I wanted a chance to respond to this. ...but why is there this assumption among so many that that's a bad thing? Why is it inherently bad to have one person in charge? It's not a bad thing to have one person in charge in an operating room, and I don't think the anaestheseologist or the nurses believe that they're being degraded by not having an equal share of power. It's not a bad thing to have one person in charge of driving the car; in fact, if there's a car where everyone's trying to have an equal say in the driving decisions, I want to know about it so I can be far, far away, because that's a car that's going to crash. There's an old aphorism in the business world: "A committee is the only creature with more than four legs and no brain." Humor aside, total group consensus just isn't the best way to do some things. And thats certainly true. I come for a bit of a military back ground myself, i can think of plenty of reasons why, and when one person should have the power to call the shots. I can also think of many times when that person needs said power to be unquestioned. But my game room is not a battle field, nor an operating room, nor car. I see no reason why one person has to have all the power, and be completely unaccountable for their actions in a game of D&D. Further I see no reason why the DM can't be on equal footing. Sure their role inbides on them as the final arbiter of the rules, but that does not make infallible, or does that give them their way, 100% of time. I'll tell you what a roleplaying game is when every single person has exactly the same amount of say: it's the games of "Let's Pretend" we played when we were six. D'you remember how those usually wound up? "Fall down! I shot you!" "Nuh uh, you missed!" I'm not sure about you, but I don't play D&D with 6 year olds. My players are more mature then that, so it usually doesn't happen. Yes. I have an ongoing Saturday afternoon campaign, but it doesn't run every Saturday afternoon. There's also typically a Friday night campaign, a second Saturday afternoon campaign, and occasionally a Sunday campaign. Not everybody in the group is involved in every campaign, but everybody who wants to DM gets their chance. However that is still them presenting their game to the players. Not everyone making a game that will be fun for everyone else. No. Then again, if I've told you in advance what to expect on the menu, and you accept the invitation knowing that I'm serving food you don't like, and then wait until I've already done all the cooking to say "I don't like this, serve me something else," then I'd argue that it's you being unreasonable, not me. Lets say you your allergic to peanuts, and I know this. Is it fair of me to even give you an invite to my dinner knowing I'm cooking with peanut oil. Even if I tell you in advance? To continue this line of thinking, when your cooking for someone, and deciding the menu, do you take preferences into account? Or do you simply make the meal, and then go and find someone who likes it? maybe post it on a cooking web form looking for someone with like minded tastes? I think the thing that irritates me the most about this whole discussion is the frequent implications (or outright assertions) that strict DMing indicates a lack of regard for friends or is somehow destructive to friendship. That, to put it bluntly, is garbage. (No, that's not directed solely at you, Puca; a lot of people have been making comments of that sort.) What irritates me is that a player who wants certain mechanics, and who is not willing to have their character dictated to them is a whiny power drunk munchkin. (not directed at you, of course.) But I will ask you this, when are designing your worlds, and researching, and flavoring, and writing them. Do you take what you know to be your friends preferences into consideration? Say if you knew Johny was a winged elf fan boy, and Cindy loved the Tome of Battle, would you try and write them in or find a place for them while writing the world? On that note, while your researching for your setting, do you ask for intended player input? Find out if the players have anything they'd like to see in the world, or setting? A good question. Particularly considering that every discussion of this sort also includes players saying "The campaign should be built around the players, it's the DM's job to make sure the players get what they want, and if he doesn't, he can go find a new group." Not that far off from, "If the players don't like my game they can find another one." Don't'cha think? I think you're the exception, rather than the rule. Typically, I find that I hear a great deal about how important it is for the DM to make the players happy, but not much at all about the DM's happiness. Player happiness seems to be sacrosanct; the prevailing opinion seems to be that if the DM is unhappy, he's just being silly and should just get over it. I think it is important for everyone to take everyone else's feeling into account. Players have to comprise, just as much as DMs do. I'm not that either side should get everything they want. I am saying everyone should be able to get at least enough of what they want to have a good time. Sure it means the DM will have to give a little ground, but then so do the players. Quite a lot of people seem to disagree with that. If we count up the number of people on this thread saying that DMs should change the campaign to allow a character concept, and people saying that players should change a character concept to fit the campaign, which one do you think we'd have more of? Since both positions in tail one side caving into the other, I find both of them wrong. So what does it matter which one is more popular? Where's the DM's ownership in all of this? The proportions people seem to be advocating here are: 1. Characters: 99.9% exclusive player ownership; .1% joint ownership. 2. Everything else: 0% exclusive DM ownership; 100% joint ownership. Why can't we leave ownership issues for the custody courts, and just have fun. Also as it stands now, the DM can hand a player of acceptable material from which to draw up a character. Can a player in kinda hand the DM a list of acceptable material from which they draw up adventures, encounters, the campaign, etc? Sure, you can ask. That's not the same as having equal power. Does it bother you when you get in that car that you don't have equal power with the driver? Does it make you feel like less than his equal? Like you can't truly be friends? If not, then why should that be the case with D&D? Do you regard driving a car the same as DMing? and if that is the case, why even bother with players at all. Wouldn't writing a book be more efficient at that point?
Caelic 07-24-07, 08:20 PM	I'm sick of the implication that Core-Only games are the only 'real' way to play D&D. Show me one person who's said or implied that. I'm sick of the implication that players should not be allowed to argue their case. Show me one person who's said or implied that. The closest anyone has come is that the DM should have the right to say "no" when a player argues his case. Which I realize is a notion some people despise. And I'm really sick of the implication that restricting players is a form of respect for them rather than what it really is - controlling what is allowed in the game to make it easier and/or more fun for the DM. The DM needs to have fun too, but don't try and pass it off as something it isn't. Please speak for yourself. I know why I design campaigns the way I do; you do not.
Caelic 07-24-07, 08:39 PM	But my game room is not a battle field, nor an operating room, nor car. I see no reason why one person has to have all the power, and be completely unaccountable for their actions in a game of D&D. Further I see no reason why the DM can't be on equal footing. That's what it boils down to: "You see no reason." That doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm not sure about you, but I don't play D&D with 6 year olds. My players are more mature then that, so it usually doesn't happen. I'll take your word for that, but given what you've been describing as the hallmarks of a good player, I'm not sure we'd agree on what constitutes "mature." I sure as heck don't think that someone who not only refuses to allow something as a DM, but also refuses to play as a player unless it's banned, is more mature than someone who disallows it as a DM but doesn't insist that it be banned when he's a player. However that is still them presenting their game to the players. Not everyone making a game that will be fun for everyone else. But that's irrelevant, because the game IS fun for everyone, and our consensus is that the games are more fun than "Games-by-majority-vote." None of us particularly like the "Oh, just make some characters and I'll make up the setting as I go along" style of campaign. Lets say you your allergic to peanuts, and I know this. Is it fair of me to even give you an invite to my dinner knowing I'm cooking with peanut oil. Even if I tell you in advance? I thought you were the one who wanted to stick to reasonable arguments? Of course that's not fair. Show me one person in the entire thread who has said or implied that they would invite a player to a game with rules they knew in advance the player would hate. On second thought, save your time; you and I both know that you won't find anyone doing that. You example is neither the situation I described, nor analogous to the gaming situations being discussed. To continue this line of thinking, when your cooking for someone, and deciding the menu, do you take preferences into account? Of course. But I don't put every item on the menu to a vote. What irritates me is that a player who wants certain mechanics, and who is not willing to have their character dictated to them is a whiny power drunk munchkin. I know you didn't direct this to me, but again: who in the entire thread has said they want to "dictate the character to the player?" There's a world of difference between asking a player to choose a character from one of three hundred prestige classes rather than one of five hundred, and "dictating the character to them." But I will ask you this, when are designing your worlds, and researching, and flavoring, and writing them. Do you take what you know to be your friends preferences into consideration? Say if you knew Johny was a winged elf fan boy, and Cindy loved the Tome of Battle, would you try and write them in or find a place for them while writing the world? To some extent. What I'm not going to do is produce campaign after campaign that features winged elf swordsages. That's another big minus of "Anything goes" campaigns, in my experience; they very quickly take on a sameness which I find tedious. On that note, while your researching for your setting, do you ask for intended player input? Find out if the players have anything they'd like to see in the world, or setting? I believe I already mentioned that the campaign I'm currently doing prep work was centered around a number of player requests: low fantasy, quasi-historical setting, generic character rules from UA. All by player request. The problem is, I also have other players who now want to include things that don't fit that setting and are incompatible with the initial player requests. In my ongoing campaign, the situation is a bit different, seeing as it's been going on for many years. Let me pose this question to you: A campaign has been running for 20 years. It has a very thoroughly developed setting, and very thoroughly developed rules. A new player comes in and wants to play something that doesn't fit that setting or those rules. Who should compromise? Should the DM alter a world and ruleset that have kept the campaign entertaining for 50-plus players, or should the player accept that this is a campaign with a lot of history and try to work within that history if he wants to play? Not that far off from, "If the players don't like my game they can find another one." Don't'cha think? That was sort of my point. People are making much of DMs with "power issues" and ignoring the fact that players have the same issues. Why can't we leave ownership issues for the custody courts, and just have fun. I'd like to, but people keep complaining about how players don't have enough power and who has what authority. Also as it stands now, the DM can hand a player of acceptable material from which to draw up a character. Can a player in kinda hand the DM a list of acceptable material from which they draw up adventures, encounters, the campaign, etc? From what you've said, you effectively do this to DMs. "No FR or I walk." Do you regard driving a car the same as DMing? and if that is the case, why even bother with players at all. Wouldn't writing a book be more efficient at that point? Now who's doing the "black or white" game? Why must it be "Anything goes" or "Writing a book?"
Puca 07-24-07, 08:57 PM	I like the casino example because while it is a poor metaphor for the actual dynamics of a structured campaign vs a round robin game it is a decent metaphor for "it is poker, but it is structured differently and you get different things out of it".But the basis on which I disagree is that a game we consder to be ours, where the DM (and the players) work together is not, necesarily a "round robin" game. And considering the arguments of Caelic, the "structured game" benefits from being a "round robin" type. So, the analogy just doesnt work for me. Generally the rewards of a structured game for the players in it are easier immersion, a better sense of how much leverage their characters can have on the world, and the ability to poke around in the world and have it all remain internally consistent and make sense. The round-robin worlds can be very rich, but they tend to have holes that nobody's developed, and sometimes different GM's start tugging the campaign in different directions, leading to an inconsistent player experience...Like I said, no need for different GMs in the "our game" style. Wouldnt that make all these issues go away? I feel like youre quoting me, but not really addressing the style or perspective I have proffered. ____________________ In my opinion, no, the dungeon master(notice master in there) isn't playing D&D, he is running D&D. The players(notice the word we use) are playing. Is the football referee playing football? Isn't that what a Dm should be? I'm calling the game yet am having fun watching the game being played. I ”Shouldnt be” is irrellevent as it cant be like that. Your model fails on two levels. 1) An organized sport, like you are thinking of is not like D&D. Take NCAA Basketball. Neither the teams nor the refs have any input as to the rules a particular game is played by. The rules are set by the governing body, the National College Basketball Association, or whatever the hell it is. Does WotC fix the rules for the game and dictate what is and is not allowed? No, and thank God. Unlike the teams in organized athletic leagues, home games are free to change the rules as they see fit. If you want to go with a sports analogy, this is more like when I played a rugby. Yeah, there were “official rules.” But I dont think we once followed them all. Soon as the teams met we started negotiating: number of players, length of the halves, substitutions, uncontested scrums (which suck.) About the only thing not up for discussion was who bought the first post-game keg. (Home team.) Incidentally, the ref wasnt part of the discussion. He was paid, and so he was merely informed of the rules he would be using. I dont think you want a D&D like that. :) Well, maybe youd like to be paid. :) 2) Theres another reason why your analogy doesnt work. At all. A referee is there to officiate between two equal teams. Both teams play by the same rules, and he is outside the situation. A DM is there to officiate between the players, and….himself? Your not merely an official limited to observing and arbitrating. Youre down there on the pitch. And youre not playing by the same rules. (I hope the DM is not trying to “win” D&D.) No, this doesnt work. A referee is a neutral official standing outside the game arbitrating between two opposing teams according to rules nether he nor they have the power to alter. Thats not analogous to D&D at all. It sounds to me like you are putting too much into the friendly part. Look thru all the threads about how such and such DM is favoring one player over another, it is usually because the favored player is a sibling/spouse/best friend/etc. The fact that the friend relationship can be abused, by being a better friend to some than to others in no way diminishes the value of my perspective. In fact, thats contrary to what Ive said. Treating one set of players better than another? How can that be acceptable to a person whos advocating everyone being on an equal footing? Id argue against that situation on the same foundations Im arguing here. "it's my character and I can play him however I want" falls into that same category. If a player refuse to play within the rules of the game is that not the same? Why does so many think the Dm is the one that has to bend over? Now please wait. If you read my initial post as well as the quotations from it in my last one, I think youll see that I am just as insistent that players act with respect and are just willing to compromise as I think DMs should do and be. Please, do not misrepresent my arguments. If that was a general complaint, please dont post it as a response to something I said. Im am in no way advocating some kind of “players get whatever they want and DM take in the rear” philosophy. I think Ive been clear enough on this that I shouldnt have to defend myself against that type of misrepresentation. Because this isn't what you are saying. You are saying everyone at the table is an equal and everyone should have equal say in how the game is played. This is not true.No Im not. I know Ive said nothing of the kind because there is no way to measure “equal participation.” I dont advocate things that are unworkable. I gave in on the ur-priest, therefore you are obligated to let me play an awakened oak tree! No, no. Thats not me. I think DMs should be open to the possibility of making compromises. While I think it unlikely that someone whos genuinely open would not eventually actually make a compromise, Im not even insisting that they actually make one. Open to compromise; remembering that we are here for the fun of everyone at the table, players and DMs, and seeing everyone as having an equal stake in the game we are playing together. Thats all I think it should be. It should have to be said again, but of course, the same goes for players. I actually think because of their approach, as a character, it is harder, and therefore more important, for them to be aware of these principles. As a Dm I don't have to accept your class, race, feats. You have to accept my limitations on them.You dont have to restate your opinion. We know it. It is precisely this attitude that we think is wrong. Its not good. Youre the kid insisting that he gets to pitch because it is his ball. And youre right. If we want to play, we will let you. But man, watch for the line drive because no one else really likes that situation. And dont, please, bore us with tales of all the people clamoring at your door for the privilege of sitting in on one of your games. If you arent even concerned enough about the fun of your players to entertain the thought of changing something, if on the list of priorities your campaign is of greater importance than the player you, I think, made it for, then no, sir, you arent that darn good. Cant happen. I can't negotiate with Billy and not Bobby. If Bobby has made a character under the guidelines but Billy is having issues and I relent on an aspect, What is to stop Bobby from wanting to change something that is outside the guidelines? Now everyone wants to change something and my whole campaign gets turned upside down. I'm ******, players are happy, but yeah we are all friends and it's a friendly game just as long as the players get what they want.Oh, the slippery slope. All us players are whining little babies counting how many pieces of candy the other kids have and crying if we think weve fewer. Were utterly incapable of discerning the difference between the request you approved and the ones you didnt because, well, were stupid. People, and players are people, act like you treat them. They live up, or down, to your expectations. All this reigning in and lack of trust results in players you have to reign in and cant trust. But beyond the self-satisfaction you get from being “right” regardless of your role in their behavior, it doesnt really make for a better game. See, I dont want my DMs game wrecked. Yours? Well why would I care about yours. I know how you see me. What do I care for you? I know youve been burned by dickweeds to whom you gave the benefit of the doubt and they screwed you over. But maybe we arent like that? Whats the worst that can happen? Because then nothing is set in the game. You may as well just show up roll some dice get treasure and level up.Oh, please. If its not set in stone, it falls apart? How much are these players asking for? Do they want to play Pelor? I've never noticed that. I have seen vastly more games fall apart because the Dm wants to be 'one of the guys' and the games end up being a Monty HaulIs Monty Hall the same as fall apart? Ive seen DMs get railroaded into running a game they didnt want because all the players wanted to play a different sort of game. See please the first rule of fun I mentioned previously. We all have to agree on the type of game were going to play. If youre all on the same page, it wont turn into the type of game you dont want. If youre not on the same page, you shouldnt be the DM for those players and vice versa. Little newsflash: If you make one little concession and find yourself on Oz, you had already been surrounded by munchkins. Not really. Campaign-Story-Adventure-Encounter <snip>So, youd alter the encounters to fit the players wants? Id rather not fight a bugbear, could it be a goblin instead? Face it, your statement meant, youre willing to make concessions on only those things you are willing to make concession on, e.i. nothing important to you. Well, you are the most important one, right? Best example I can think of fairly quickly is Babylon5 Babylon5 had a 5 year story arc Babylon5(the campaign) The 5 years story arc(the story) Each episode(adventure) action during episode(encounters). If someone wanted to play a Jedi in that example I would say no. There are no Jedi, but there are Psionics, it may not be Jedi but it is close enough. I cannot compromise the campaign becuase someone wants to play something that isn't there.Who the hell want to play a Jedi in D&D? No, I dont think you should hand out lightsabers at the whim of players. If youre willing to look at alternatives with me to help me realize my goals with as little impact as possible as yours, then great. Thats all I ask for. Using your own previous example, the gnome/dwarf campaign, had I behaved not like your player, but come to you in advance and said, “Hey, I really dont enjoy either of those races. Could I play a human if I come up with a backstory and concept that fits with your design?” How would you have replied. Honestly? Friendship isn't switching. I don't know why you would think it does. I want to stay neutral in all their gaming decisions.Friends with everybody is neutral with respect to everybody. You seem to be assuming that friends means “better friends with some than with others” and then going on to the conclusion that your “best friend” are going to put you in a shite situation by demanding special treatment. If your “best friends” act that way, youve crappy friends. If you think preferential treatment in a setting like this is a way to gain and keep friendships, thats a pity. Sitting at the table and adding comments or helpful suggestions doesn't(imo) make for a good game. Now if there is a part where they are stuck at and can't figure something out, yes then I will make a suggestionWhat? This mediun is unable to convey just how baffled I am by this statement.
Caelic 07-24-07, 09:17 PM	I'd actually like to touch on the whole "I play with friends" thing again, because something just occurred to me. A couple of people have asked if I would just send out invitations to strangers, or advertise a campaign. Well, the truth is that I don't typically run campaigns entirely for strangers, but, yes--I have had players join my game who I didn't know prior to that. Again, it seems to me as if this is a case of looking at the game from different perspectives. For some here, it starts with friends, and ends at D&D: "We're friends, so we play D&D together." For me, as often as not, it starts with D&D and ends at friends. "I share a mutual interest in D&D with this person, so I'll invite him to play, and we will become friends." And, y'know something? I really don't see that as a bad thing.
shadzar 07-24-07, 09:29 PM	Players should be given room to play what they want. I, as a DM, merely provide a playing field. If Player X makes a character that is too powerful IMO I'll just tweak the playing field to keep it fair and challenging for all. DMs who cannot keep the game flexible enough to allow players to have their input in what is basically their own imagination should rethink why they are running this game at all. "give them an inch and they'll take a mile." i prefer not to set precedent at the beginning af a game for players to think they create the world. they just shape its future with their actions. that said they can create characters that fit into that world. yes the players should be able to play waht they want within reason. i had dwarven paladins in 2nd edition. but that doesn't mean that a player could just be something that wouldn't fit in the party or with the world concensus. the thing about being able to buy multitudes of magic items from character creation is a problem in 3.x. it goes well above and beyond what a beginning player should have. magic should be placed by the DM. even in 2nd firearms weren't always allowed, and they were in the core rules. so why would splat book a be allowed if it contains things that don't fit the DMs world. where some people argue about classes and such not being balanced, is the way to fix it by unbalancing players? if the players have access to something then it would reason NPCs also have access to it and for the most part vice versa. of course PCs aren't going to have access to plot spells, or items. player: i want to play a pirate and sail the seas like in splatbook X. DM: the planet is mostly desert with rivers found n sound places and underground caches of water, but nothing that connects to land or offers trade routes like a sea or ocean. player: oh. where would a pirate fit into that type of game world? this example may be a bit extreme, but the concept remains the same. the players should have fun yes, but not at the expense of the DM not having fun. retooling an entire world structure to support every book the players may have and want random things out of is not fun. not every DM has access to all the books to find out about and adjust these items/classes/etc to fit within their world. players come to me and say they don't want to play in the world i took 100 plus hours developing and want a different world i respond with, ok who is running this world and how should i roll up my character. when it is the players have to think of the DM? DM flexibility doesn't mean stupidity on the players parts. they have to give something to get something. what they get is a DM willing to put time and effort outside the game to be ready for the game, what they give is things that doesn't fit within the world created by the DM. if they didn't want the chance something they wanted was going to be scraped then they should have mentioned it prior to the DM working on the world, or found a DM who was willing to create a world around them. i myself create a world that is full or color and intrigue. i don't try to cater to every whim of the players, but try to offer things that all players will enjoy in the course of the game. playing different characters was a part of older editions and required more imagination than 3.x considering that way you had to adapt your character to certain situations within the game rather than trying to minmax a character to metagame to beat every obstacle before your sit down to your first session.
shadzar 07-24-07, 09:35 PM	But my game room is not a battle field, nor an operating room, nor car. I see no reason why one person has to have all the power, and be completely unaccountable for their actions in a game of D&D. Further I see no reason why the DM can't be on equal footing. Sure their role inbides on them as the final arbiter of the rules, but that does not make infallible, or does that give them their way, 100% of time. hey i have an idea. run a game solely for the players with no DM, tell me and all other here that are interested in how well that works out for you. just take turns rolling things when the DM would, and put things like plot hooks out of a hat. that is the direction 3.x is going anyway... a tabletop MMO.
Count_Chumleigh 07-24-07, 09:35 PM	Do you regard driving a car the same as DMing? and if that is the case, why even bother with players at all. Wouldn't writing a book be more efficient at that point? Okay, I kinda-sorta implied that I wouldn't make any more posts in this thread, but I feel a strong need to address this point. Writing a book about an RPG campaign is never more efficient, because RPGs make for terrible fiction. There's just not enough narrative to go around, especially since half the fun in any RPG is off-topic banter and unexpected character reactions. Indeed, the very essence of gaming is probability and chance, while the sort of plot you'd need for a novel to make any kind of sense is an exercise is certainty and finality.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-24-07, 10:58 PM	hey i have an idea. run a game solely for the players with no DM, tell me and all other here that are interested in how well that works out for you. just take turns rolling things when the DM would, and put things like plot hooks out of a hat. that is the direction 3.x is going anyway... a tabletop MMO. Yaa know there are already threads about DMless D&D. I didn't want to turn this thread into another one. Perhaps if you used your search function, you'll find it?
shadzar 07-24-07, 11:19 PM	Yaa know there are already threads about DMless D&D. I didn't want to turn this thread into another one. Perhaps if you used your search function, you'll find it? well it seems a bit like you think jsut because there are more players quantitatively in a game than DMs then they should have more fun. but on average all should have fun, and if working on something for countless hours just to have it scrapped for a few people that aren't old enough for their wants to hurt them is fun for a DM then let him have at it. but most wont see it that way, and the DM isn't a tool for the players to use and abuse. thus a DM might have fun watching the players with limited resources come up with an idea he hadn't thought of for successfully overcoming this obstacle he has laid out for them. D&D is for ALL to have fun. Everyone gathered around an AD&D game table is playing a game. Games are entertainment, and entertainment is supposed to be fun. If the players don't have a good time playing in AD&D game sessions, it shows. Therefore, one of the goals of the AD&D game is to have fun. Much of the pressure to provide this elusive quality rests on the DM's shoulders, but the players can also contribute. the DM is a player and deserve to have fun, especially since the work being done by him, her is done for free. if you pay someone to do a job, then tell them how to do it. volunteers are able to walk away at any time without worry of reprecussions. deal with the fact some things aren't allowed at times and don't be a spoiled brat trying to get your way all the time just because you feel your character should have a lightsaber or something you found in some splat book.
8for47 07-25-07, 12:57 AM	See this is what I don't understand - just because I found something in a splat book doesn't mean I am trying to slip a light saber into the game or a pun pun build. And from reading this thread I know TPK detests FR material, however even though FR is a deal breaker for him I think I could ask whether he will allow a masterwork potion belt (which first appeared in a FR book) into his campaign and he may even allow it. And just because he allows a masterwork potion belt it doesn't mean I would expect him to allow an Incantrix into his campaign either or a light saber for that matter. All he was saying in his initial post was that if a player finds something that he wants for his character then instead of knee jerking that "omg you munchkin, you are trying to ruin my game with your pun pun build" that you consider what the player is asking for in power terms, see if more powerful stuff is allowed and consider whether you will allow him this new thing or not. I cannot believe the amount of arguement that this idea has generated.
Caelic 07-25-07, 01:13 AM	All he was saying in his initial post was that if a player finds something that he wants for his character then instead of knee jerking that "omg you munchkin, you are trying to ruin my game with your pun pun build" that you consider what the player is asking for in power terms, see if more powerful stuff is allowed and consider whether you will allow him this new thing or not. I cannot believe the amount of arguement that this idea has generated. That's not the idea generating the argument, 8. The ideas generating argument are: 1. The DM not only should consider player requests; he's obligated to consider each and every one. 2. If the DM says no, he'd better have "a good reason"--and disliking what's requested isn't a good reason. (But apparently REALLY disliking it is.)
Roog 07-25-07, 01:39 AM	That's not the idea generating the argument, 8. The ideas generating argument are: 1. The DM not only should consider player requests; he's obligated to consider each and every one. 2. If the DM says no, he'd better have "a good reason"--and disliking what's requested isn't a good reason. (But apparently REALLY disliking it is.) You know, if you added 3. The players better have "a good reason" for the request. Then you would be describing a situation I would be happy with, both as a player and a GM.
Janitor 07-25-07, 01:55 AM	...and there's the quintessential "Player's Rights" viewpoint. It's all about the players and their characters; the gameworld is unimportant, except that it gives them somewhere to stand while they kill monsters, and any DM who thinks differently is DMing "for the wrong reasons." It simply isn't so. That might work for you campaign, and more power to you if it does, but anyone who claims that it's the "right" way of playing...and that, by extension, daring to restrict choices for players is the "wrong" way...is off base and probably arguing from limited experience. I have my restrictions as well. It's not as black-and-white as either allowing everything or disallowing everything on the other hand. I usually run FR campaigns and it is very obvious what belongs in that world and what doesn't. If it's a gray area it depends on if it is a lot of work for me to work it into the game or not. I'm not judging DMs by the way they play. Actually, I played in a party where a DM disallowed almost everything and still I had the best time ever. But if you disallow everything because it is messing up the view of your own gameworld and how you want it to be...I think that's actually making your job as a DM harder. You can restrict players because their choices can make the game unbalanced, don't fit in with premade settings or because you as DM do not have unlimited time to accomodate for that player's choices. But the impression that I am getting from a few DMs is that they have this sacrosanct view of the world they created and they'd rather not have players mess with it. If it works for you and the players, then that is fine by all means, but I do think that the players are missing out on parts of the D&D experience that way. In the end it's just player and DM preference, I know. Just let it be known that it was not my intention to judge people on the way they run the game.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-25-07, 02:12 AM	That's not the idea generating the argument, 8. The ideas generating argument are: 1. The DM not only should consider player requests; he's obligated to consider each and every one. Why on earth would you dismiss a reasonable request out of hand? Are your likes as DM seriously that much more important then everyone else's at the table? Or is it something else that I'm missing...A need for control perhaps? 2. If the DM says no, he'd better have "a good reason"--and disliking what's requested isn't a good reason. (But apparently REALLY disliking it is.) A; I've explained that position multiple times now. Your choosing to take it out of its context, pretend I'm saying something I'm not. Further debate on that subject is pointless, as you will not listen to what I'm saying and instead hear only what you want. B: You have thus far failed to provide any form of logical argument as to why a DM can't provide their reasoning. So I ask again, why shouldn't the DM give a reason for why they say no? (Straw man, appeal to majority, appeal to tradition, and ad hominium attacks are not logical reasons.) You know, if you added 3. The players better have "a good reason" for the request. Then you would be describing a situation I would be happy with, both as a player and a GM. QTF. And yaa 8 hit the nail on the head. However I would add that if most of my players wanted lightsabers, and space ships, I'd go get the starwars d20 system. Shadzar: You say the game is fun for all, and I will agree to that whole heartedly. You also do not seem to have understood me, and I apologize if I have been unclear. What I am saying is that players likes should be considered as equally the DMs. If a DM is going to say no, and they do have to from time to time, then they should have a good reason for why the player has to comprise. If that reason is in error, then maybe it could change. Maybe the player could comprise a bit, by changing the flavor of the character. Either way, both parties are obligated to that dialog. Neither person, DM or player, is anymore, or less, right because of their seat at the table. Its a group game, and thus must be fun for the whole group. Not just the DM, or the players, but everyone.
DFoster 07-25-07, 02:31 AM	First I'd like to point out I run my games like Caelic (I make up a outline of the campaign which can include limitations of what may and may not be played). As I posted much earlier (and from what I've read since I think I turned out to be right) there are different ways people go about making/running campaigns each with their own advantages and disadvantages. I'm not judging DMs by the way they play. Actually, I played in a party where a DM disallowed almost everything and still I had the best time ever. But if you disallow everything because it is messing up the view of your own gameworld and how you want it to be...I think that's actually making your job as a DM harder. You can restrict players because their choices can make the game unbalanced, don't fit in with premade settings or because you as DM do not have unlimited time to accomodate for that player's choices. But the impression that I am getting from a few DMs is that they have this sacrosanct view of the world they created and they'd rather not have players mess with it. If it works for you and the players, then that is fine by all means, but I do think that the players are missing out on parts of the D&D experience that way. It doesn't really have anything to do with that. Sometimes for reasons of the story being told (or the setting it's being told in) there are some limitation. For example I'm currently running a psychic game in a modern setting (all the PCs had to be psychics and unaware of the truth of the supernatural, they could believe in it but not know it existed), now magic does exist in the game, and one of the PCs wanted to play a mage, however she had no problem with the fact that to start with she'd have to be a psychic. She will of course be able to pick up actual magical powers in a few sessions once they become available. With some people on this board I get the feeling I'd have been given a lot of hassle with the fact I was requiring her to pick up psychic abilities even though magic is in fact available. Especially because I never provided a reasoning behind it (of course she never even asked perhaps assuming quite rightly that if I could have explained it, I would have). The reasoning could have involved the fact all mages in the setting are also psychics and require training to actually learn magic (which isn't in fact the real reason but it's an example of a possible reason). Or it could be I have a plot in mind that is based on the fact all the PCs are psychic (perhaps even including a reason why they all coincidentally psychic, and gained their powers at roughly the same time about 3 months ago). I was more then willing to work with players to create something within the restrictions that the setting/campaign I made forced on them. But if someone had showed up with an actual mage, a supernatural being or a character without even the barest hint of psychic abilities, I would have almost certainly refused to allow the character (although I would have helped give the character without psychic abilities, psychic abilities that would help with his concept, but it wouldn't be approved without those abilities). Earlier I posted a hypothetical campaign idea (similar to this) in this thread in fact, and in spite of the fact it limits player choice (in the same way Caelic's campaigns do) no one seemed to have a problem with the concept. Although this campaign is generated by a different approach then that used by some people on this thread. I create the story outline (which may include some restrictions on character creation, as well as theme and setting information), then I propose this story to my previous players (including those that didn't play in my last one as it wasn't to their liking perhaps they didn't like the restrictions on character creation, or perhaps they don't like horror themed games) normally that's the final step as I have more then enough players at this point to run the game (although not always at my maximum), if I need additional players I'm more then happy to take on other people I don't know (perhaps a friend of another player that is interested, that would find this particular game cool). Once the PCs have all created characters (and I've read over the backstories for elements that I might want to include, such as the strange fact in my psychic game most the PCs don't have parents and those that do aren't on speaking terms with them) we begin gaming. Once the campaign is finished I go through the steps all over again. I'll admit I don't always end up playing with the same group, but I have too many friends that play RPGs to play with all of them in one game anyway. As for playing I've pretty much only playing in games of a similar type, then again all games have some kind of character creation limits (for example I play in a teen superhero game, where we are all studying at the same School for the Gifted, obviously all the player characters are teenagers of roughly the same age), mostly in D&D this is level but I haven't been in a D&D game without at least one other set of character restrictions (No LA races for example or it's an FR game so no warforged or other ECS material).
kalyb 07-25-07, 02:58 AM	Say if you knew Johny was a winged elf fan boy, and Cindy loved the Tome of Battle, would you try and write them in or find a place for them while writing the world? But, say Johnny comes up and says, "I want to play a winged elf. I think they're cool." The DM responds, "I think they're lame, and they're not in this world." Why is it ruining Johnny's fun if the DM disallows the winged elf, but it's not ruining the DM's fun if he has to allow the winged elf in?
Roog 07-25-07, 03:29 AM	But, say Johnny comes up and says, "I want to play a winged elf. I think they're cool." The DM responds, "I think they're lame, and they're not in this world." Why is it ruining Johnny's fun if the DM disallows the winged elf, but it's not ruining the DM's fun if he has to allow the winged elf in? Thats where disliking what's requested isn't a good reason. (But apparently REALLY disliking it is.) comes from.
Comus 07-25-07, 03:30 AM	But, say Johnny comes up and says, "I want to play a winged elf. I think they're cool." The DM responds, "I think they're lame, and they're not in this world." Why is it ruining Johnny's fun if the DM disallows the winged elf, but it's not ruining the DM's fun if he has to allow the winged elf in? Answer: It does not need to ruin the DM's fun to allow winged elves into the game. The DM never needs to run an NPC that's a winged elf. He never needs to make them a part of the campaign aside from noting that they exist somewhere. For him, the game can run exactly the same way. On the other hand, Johnny obviously has a character idea that involves being a winged elf. Likely, as he's bringing it up to the DM, the part about being a winged elf is fairly important to the concept. If he is not allowed to play a winged elf, he will have to use a different concept - one which he probably will not have as much fun with, as the winged elf thing came up first on his list. TL;DR - The DM doesn't have to make a faucet of the character an integral part of his game world. The player, on the other hand, has to deal with it all the time. Really, I don't see how the mechanical choices a player makes has much bearing on the DM's enjoyment of the game. Can someone enlighten me with an example, theoretical or not, that doesn't involve power-level issues* or simple bad roleplay - and is thus an example of the actual mechanics of the class/race taking away the DM's fun? *I really don't want to get into a debate about X or Y being broken. All I have to do there is think 'Planar Shepherd' and shudder. And it's all relative, anyway.
kalyb 07-25-07, 03:37 AM	The DM never needs to run an NPC that's a winged elf. Until Johnny's character wants to visit home, in which case the DM most now create a winged elf community or tell Johnny, no your character does not want to do that.
Janitor 07-25-07, 03:51 AM	But, say Johnny comes up and says, "I want to play a winged elf. I think they're cool." The DM responds, "I think they're lame, and they're not in this world." Why is it ruining Johnny's fun if the DM disallows the winged elf, but it's not ruining the DM's fun if he has to allow the winged elf in? The question who likes or dislikes winged elves in not of any importance. The question whether they are in the world is. But they whole 'dislike' issue seems a little overblown to me. I'd dislike a winged elf in the party too. I dislike all PCs that can fly, but if it is reasonably possible without overpowering the character, why is it even an issue whether I as DM like or dislike the concept? Other players might dislike halflings, and they're as much playing the game as we all do, but that seems no issue at all. There will always be elements in a party that don't fit well with your own personal preferences, whether you are a DM or a player. It's a fact of the game. As a DM I believe it is important to stay neutral on said preferences and let the setting you created be the deciding factor in what is possible and what not.
kalyb 07-25-07, 03:57 AM	The question whether they are in the world is. But who gets to make that call? If the DM is creating his own world, can't he say, "There are no winged elves in this world"? Or, does the player get to say, "I want to play a winged elf in this campaign, so there are winged elves in this world"?
Janitor 07-25-07, 04:11 AM	But who gets to make that call? If the DM is creating his own world, can't he say, "There are no winged elves in this world"? Or, does the player get to say, "I want to play a winged elf in this campaign, so there are winged elves in this world"? In the end the DM's the boss. I know that it opens the door for the DM 'abusing' some of his power to call the shots to turn the campaign into something he likes best at the cost of his players, but that's a fact of the game.
kalyb 07-25-07, 04:36 AM	In the end the DM's the boss. I know that it opens the door for the DM 'abusing' some of his power to call the shots to turn the campaign into something he likes best at the cost of his players, but that's a fact of the game. I think this is where some of the arguments are coming from. If the DM disallows something because he doesn't like it, he's doing it at the cost of the players' fun. But if the players insist on playing something they like, it's not at the cost of the DM's fun. Really when it comes to like/dislike issues, someone is not going to be happy. Generally, as you said Janitor, the DM's the "boss" and gets to make the call. That doesn't mean they're being arrogant or uncaring toward their friends, though.
Roog 07-25-07, 04:46 AM	Really, I don't see how the mechanical choices a player makes has much bearing on the DM's enjoyment of the game. Can someone enlighten me with an example, theoretical or not, that doesn't involve power-level issues* or simple bad roleplay - and is thus an example of the actual mechanics of the class/race taking away the DM's fun? It is difficult to think of examples that would seriously effect the GM's enjoyment, but there are several ways that I can see "actual mechanics of the class/race taking away the DM's fun" (as opposed to thematic elements of class/race). Although I can see ways around all of the problems that I list here. 1: Characters whose abilities will mean the use of badly written parts of the rule set, forcing the GM to use the bad rules, consistently wing it, or create a set of house rules. For example high Diplomacy skilled characters. 2: Situations where a PC using certain mechanics implies the widespread existence of NPCs using the same mechanics, which would increase the GM's workload to some degree. For example in a world with (for flavour reasons) no Psionics, a player wants to use reflavoued Psionics as power point based magic. 3: Situations where the GM dislikes the mechanic in question, because it makes some other aspect of his job more difficult. E.g. Save-or-die effects may make it more difficult for the GM to set up climatic BBEG battles that last a predictable amount of time (and make it difficult for the GM script without fudging). 4: Rules that the GM simply dislikes because of their complexity and the extra workload involved. If changing INT changed a character's skill points (the way changing CON changes a character's hit points), and a PC had spells/abilities/auras that increased or reduced the INT of those around them, then that could add a significant amount to the workload of the GM at certain times.
Optimized_Commoner 07-25-07, 05:46 AM	A couple of people have asked if I would just send out invitations to strangers, or advertise a campaign. I'll do that the day I start charging players for me to run a game for them. Seriously, DMing is like a job and often as much effort. I'm willing to do that for my friends for free because naturally they're my friends and I like doing nice things for them. but, yes--I have had players join my game who I didn't know prior to that. I've done that before for friends of friends, and just once because the guy was really cute (I'm only human). For me, as often as not, it starts with D&D and ends at friends. "I share a mutual interest in D&D with this person, so I'll invite him to play, and we will become friends." Nothing wrong with that. I've met many of my friends by us both being players in someone else's game. I just don't like DMing for people I don't know. And, y'know something? I really don't see that as a bad thing. It's not. And honestly, if I didn't already have a large group of roleplaying friends I'd probably do the exact same thing. Besides, I couldn't go without DMing... I'm addicted to the mental rush of it, it's one of the few things that occupy every part of my mind at once and push them all to the limit.
shadzar 07-25-07, 06:23 AM	Shadzar: You say the game is fun for all, and I will agree to that whole heartedly. You also do not seem to have understood me, and I apologize if I have been unclear. What I am saying is that players likes should be considered as equally the DMs. If a DM is going to say no, and they do have to from time to time, then they should have a good reason for why the player has to comprise. If that reason is in error, then maybe it could change. Maybe the player could comprise a bit, by changing the flavor of the character. Either way, both parties are obligated to that dialog. Neither person, DM or player, is anymore, or less, right because of their seat at the table. Its a group game, and thus must be fun for the whole group. Not just the DM, or the players, but everyone. well i had a very lengthy and thought out post but the stupid forums went into that random maintenance mode right as i went to post it and i couldn't go back to copy it out, so sorry if you don't like the tone of this, but i am just going to cut to it rather than try to rethink/retype all i had written... DMs disallow things because they can or want to for whatever reason. either grow up and deal with it and pick something else, or quit playing. and whoever decided to put the forums in maintenance mode at different times on different days need to be fired! it isn't like there are people who have sufficeint knowledge to change the forums so that any message posted after the forums go into maintenance mode get put to a psuedo preview mode of their post with an error message stating the forums are in maintenance mode so the type post can be saved via a copy paste into a text editor and posted later, rather than lose everything. :banghead: :hoppingma :headexplo
Optimized_Commoner 07-25-07, 06:34 AM	any message posted after the forums go into maintenance mode get put to a psuedo preview mode of their post with an error message stating the forums are in maintenance mode so the type post can be saved via a copy paste into a text editor and posted later, rather than lose everything. I don't know if this'll work for you, but as long as I don't hit the reload button I can hit the 'Go back one page' button and my text is still there. I use firefox.
Roog 07-25-07, 06:45 AM	DMs disallow things because they can or want to for whatever reason. either grow up and deal with it and pick something else, or quit playing. We have to deal with all sorts of unreasonable stuff in this life. This thread is about how we should deal this as both GMs and players. I'll leave the quitting to someone else, thank you.
shadzar 07-25-07, 07:00 AM	I don't know if this'll work for you, but as long as I don't hit the reload button I can hit the 'Go back one page' button and my text is still there. I use firefox. i don't use firefox, and purposefully set my browser to reload the page form the server with each visit. that way i can use the back button and see changes to the page rather than always go forward leaving an unwieldy mess in my browser history to sort through and find where i was at the beginning. i guess i am just wierd for backtracking rather than click a link that adds mutliple copies of the page into my history. it isn't just here, and it isn't just on vBulletin forums. i am sure i could write the code into the "disabled" portion of the forums software so i know people like Mark Jindra aka Wotc_Mark could do it, since their code is a bit better than mine. or hevaen forbid post the schedule so people know in advance and try not to go into maintenance every ngiht. the worlds largest forum (gaiaonline) doesn't go into maintenance every night so why should a site like this with much less traffic need to? anyhow this is all off-topic ranting back to on-topic ranting... Roog: that is how to deal with it. player accept that even though WotC makes it seem as though all these things are allowed because they are printed in the prdocuts, that unless a WotC employee is willing to run a game with all of them, then you aren't likely to find many people that will allow everything. ergo the players deal with it by growing up and accepting it, or quitting if they can't handle the fact that they can't always get what they want. there is no other method. DMs create the world, the players are only allowed to live in it. if you don't like who is DMing then get another DM. if your players are causing you stress then quit DMing or kick the problematic players.
Optimized_Commoner 07-25-07, 07:19 AM	if you don't like who is DMing then get another DM. if your players are causing you stress then quit DMing or kick the problematic players. I like to imagine that by the 13th page we've all already considered this posibility and are looking for something a little less obvious. Perhaps I'm merely a hopeless optimist.
Roog 07-25-07, 07:22 AM	there is no other method. DMs create the world, the players are only allowed to live in it. So what was I doing when I decided to let a player play something that was not originally in the world? Was I not role playing, because I decided it would be more fun for the whole group, if we came to a compromise and I let that player have some of what they wanted? Was the player not roleplaying because he asked for the world to be different (and got some of it)? if you don't like who is DMing then get another DM. if your players are causing you stress then quit DMing or kick the problematic players. Here's an idea - maybe if you have a problem you could talk about it. Why not consider the other persons point of view. Its not like you are playing a game that is based around communication or anything. #Edit For those reasonable people out there, I don't mean to imply that you should not do something different from what I did.
shadzar 07-25-07, 07:47 AM	I like to imagine that by the 13th page we've all already considered this posibility and are looking for something a little less obvious. Perhaps I'm merely a hopeless optimist. Occam's razor comes to mind here. :( Roog: So what was I doing when I decided to let a player play something that was not originally in the world? allowing the world to evolve? what i am sick of is this concept that after the game has been going the players want to complaignt hat the DM is still running the world his way. well why didn't the players mention before the game what they were interested in. they chose or decided to play int he DMs game, so it is only their fault for not planning ahead and seeing if the playstyles matched. don't go complainging later that you made a mistake. we all know hindsight is 20/20 so how about some forward thinking for once. pick the DM based on how you want to play. if your options for DMs are limited, then have someone new DM and if they can't handle it, then maybe they learn why DMs disallow certain things. someone who has never Dmed can't udnerstand why things aren't always allowed, and why the players can't have what they want. it just comes form expierence and ability. not just the ability of the DM to maintain balance of the world, but the ability of the players to not go overboard with requests and what they do with the "thing" in question when they get it. i played a stand in character for a DM to fill a whole in the group. it was his character that he had chosen characteristics of and gave me a basic idea of how this wizard/sorcer would react and do things. i ran with that and have a stone shape spell as an atack mode spell causing a column of stone project out of a ceiling and impaling a monster. he hated that he had to figure up how much damage it would cause, could the monster avoid the attack. if it survived would it be prone to attacks or able to move and evade them. just imagine giving an unconventional thinker like myself something crazy to wield with unlimited utility functions. i dont mind being restricted in what i am given, because then it challenges me to come up with new uses for the items i do have. :evillaugh
Roog 07-25-07, 08:05 AM	Roog: So what was I doing when I decided to let a player play something that was not originally in the world? allowing the world to evolve? Giving a player a chance to help create the world? what i am sick of is this concept that after the game has been going the players want to complaignt hat the DM is still running the world his way. well why didn't the players mention before the game what they were interested in. they chose or decided to play int he DMs game, so it is only their fault for not planning ahead and seeing if the playstyles matched. don't go complainging later that you made a mistake. we all know hindsight is 20/20 so how about some forward thinking for once. Yes, hindsight is 20/20. There is no way that you will foresee all the problems that will turn up in the game before you start. So you deal with them when they come up, and for some strange reason people seem to need to "go complaining" in order to make everyone aware of the problem. Wouldn't it be so much easier if everyone could somehow become aware of the problem without that? someone who has never Dmed can't udnerstand why things aren't always allowed, and why the players can't have what they want. Yeah, right. If I can't explain to a player why something is not allowed then my communication skills are lacking. If this happens repeatedly with different players then I don't have the communication skills to be a GM (at least with that group).
Count_Chumleigh 07-25-07, 08:16 AM	Giving a player a chance to help create the world? Which is not something a DM should be required to do. If I can't explain to a player why something is not allowed then my communication skills are lacking. If this happens repeatedly with different players then I don't have the communication skills to be a GM (at least with that group). So if you, as a DM, have an obtuse player who refuses to accept or even acknowledge why someone else would dare deny him his right to play a winged elf in a game where you have made abundantly clear time and time again that there are no winged elves, that's your fault, somehow? Becuase your communication skills, rather than this player being stubborn, are at fault? How very Italian Supreme Court of you. Mind you, I'm not saying all players who insist on playing things that don't fit the campaign setting are obnoxious morons, but the longer this thread goes on and the more entrenched everyone becomes, my guess is they will be by the end of page 15. EDIT: So will the side that says DMs have the right to disallow things from their games because they don't want to play with them, mind you. Because this is an internet argument. I'd offer y'all some juice, but I've got to go to work.
Roog 07-25-07, 08:44 AM	Which is not something a DM should be required to do. I did not say I was required to do it. I was replying to shadzar who said... there is no other method. DMs create the world, the players are only allowed to live in it. I was giving an example of another method. So if you, as a DM, have an obtuse player who refuses to accept or even acknowledge why someone else would dare deny him his right to play a winged elf in a game where you have made abundantly clear time and time again that there are no winged elves, that's your fault, somehow? Becuase your communication skills, rather than this player being stubborn, are at fault? How very Italian Supreme Court of you. Again I was replying to shadzar who said... someone who has never Dmed can't udnerstand why things aren't always allowed, and why the players can't have what they want. So unless every player who "has never GMed" is also "an obtuse player who refuses to accept..." then my communication is at fault. As I said... If this happens repeatedly with different players then I don't have the communication skills to be a GM (at least with that group). If I repeatedly cant explain my decisions to the group then it doesn't mater whose fault it is, there is not enough communication for me to GM. Without communication the game is going nowhere fast. If the group is a bunch of obtuse idiots then I'll need some pretty impressive communication skills to get through to them.
shadzar 07-25-07, 10:36 AM	why does a DM have to answer to the players? in doing so it may reveal hidden aspects of the world that the players shouldn't know yet. look at the, apparently controversial, Harry Potter series. had information been given formt he start that Albus was trying to take over the world before Voldy, then how would people have looked at him when they first met him with harry in his first year. when you find out information is key to plot development and suspense. the alternative is quit playing with that person as DM. players don't always need a reason from DMs. Rule #1: the DM is always right. Rule #2: when the DM is wrong, refer to Rule #1. those are the only two rules to D&D< if you find they don't fit with your current DM, then find a game or just a DM where those rules will work with. if the players don't trust the DMs reasoning without arguement then they should not be playing, and have more problems than just worrying about splat book Y being disallowed.
Roog 07-25-07, 10:55 AM	why does a DM have to answer to the players? in doing so it may reveal hidden aspects of the world that the players shouldn't know yet. And a good reason can be "trust me, I have a good reason, I can't tell you now but you will find out later", followed by a good reason (if it is still needed) after the aspect is revealed. the alternative is quit playing with that person as DM. You seem to be a big fan of that quitting. players don't always need a reason from DMs. Rule #1: the DM is always right. Rule #2: when the DM is wrong, refer to Rule #1. those are the only two rules to D&D< if you find they don't fit with your current DM, then find a game or just a DM where those rules will work with. if the players don't trust the DMs reasoning without arguement then they should not be playing, and have more problems than just worrying about splat book Y being disallowed. I have DMed and I knew when I was DMing that I was not always right. So, according to you, should I have got another DM? Those rules sound fine if you want to tell your players to "sit down, shut up, and do what you are told", and they would probably work for some healthy groups as well; but I know that I (and I suspect many other RPers) would have an instinctive gut reaction against those rules. In every group I have played in we have not felt the need to raise some god of a DM above us all. Someone is the GM, respect them for the work they are doing and the responsibilities they are taking on, and give them the trust they need to play their part in the game. But don't make them out to be some sort of infallible super being.
shadzar 07-25-07, 11:31 AM	And a good reason can be "trust me, I have a good reason, I can't tell you now but you will find out later", followed by a good reason (if it is still needed) after the aspect is revealed.the players should expect there to be a reason unless they are powergaming munchkin kids wanting to jsut blast through a gauntlet of monsters. just like in the real world you don't always know why things are how they are. maybe that is the point to try to figure it out...that would be roleplaying.You seem to be a big fan of that quitting.im not going to defend myself against people that chose me to DM. if they don't like what they get, then i wont exert anymore effort into it and they can have someone else DM. the only complaints i ever got form DMing was that i didn't give enough time to individual players (i was forced to run a game by the FLGS for 16 players ate once). and i made too complex a puzzle for the intelligence level of the players, vs what the party and people of the time could have figured out. based on real world timelines that could have ben researched online if someone would have taken the time to type the trap/puzzle into a lycos search. (this was before google became so popular). i fugred my players would have fun with something new and relevant to something in the ral world they could look up and maybe learn something rather than just roll a d20 to see if their character had any knowledge of how the thing worked.I have DMed and I knew when I was DMing that I was not always right. So, according to you, should I have got another DM? Those rules sound fine if you want to tell your players to "sit down, shut up, and do what you are told", and they would probably work for some healthy groups as well; but I know that I (and I suspect many other RPers) would have an instinctive gut reaction against those rules.this just goes with the DM is god theory. the DM create the world so he knows what is in it and what isnt, what belongs and what doesn't, what rules have changed when the players forget to refer to a hosue ruling and want to rules lawyer out of the book. example: character creation came about for the 16 player game. to simplify and speed up gathering items for the player i made some "kits" the players could buy or use as examples of what characters in this world would start adventuring with. the kits had a price total for it, but those wanting to buy their own things (knowing i believe in inflation and such in game world economies) had a problem figuring out what to buy because they didn't know the price i was assigning. my response. based on character creation just use the prices in the book to determine what you buy starting out and from there i will inform you of any changes at any shops that have inflated a price or offer it at a "discounted" price from what is written. later in the game two playes complained i said to use the prices in the book, when i quote a price for an item to them. they forgot i had stated that works only completely at character creation, and thereafter as long as i didn't give a psecific price. the item in question was being sold and the merchant appraised it as did the PC and the player to DM argued about the price rather than the PC to NPC haggling over what the price should be given for the item in question. In every group I have played in we have not felt the need to raise some god of a DM above us all. Someone is the GM, respect them for the work they are doing and the responsibilities they are taking on, and give them the trust they need to play their part in the game. But don't make them out to be some sort of infallible super being. but isn't the creator of the world a super being? the thing i mean is that the DM as you said puts effort and work into running the game, and that goes on mostly outside of game time, so why should the DM be harrassed in game time where it may interfere with other player because one player doesn't agree with the DM. ergo, while the game is going on refer to those 2 rules i listed. and appeals to DM decision should happen AFTER or BEFORE the sessions playing time. not that there isn't any room for discussion, but more often than not there is a player who refuses to wait until later to "argue" his case witht he DM and disrupts the gameplay for everyone possibly breaking down or wearing out the group. this turns everyone including the DM sour. once a DM is upset for the night it doesn't bode well for the players in the game. as a player i would be angry with the other player for interrupting the game rather than waiting instead of the DM that just doesn't give in to the player and allow his munchkin* item or class. *=munchkin used losely here for something that may disrupt the game balance or just doesn't fit in the game. the main focus of this thread seems more on what player can ask from the DM rather than why and when DM should be abel to disallow certain things. the why and when DMs should be allow to disallow things is simply when he/she doesn't feel it belongs in his/her game. end of story. either they don't think it works, they don't like it conceptually, or just dont wont to deal with it amongst the other stuff. none of which makes anyone a bad DM. i don't like psionics. maybe because the way it has been presented in all editions or maybe it just doesn't feel right in my model genre setting. so i don't allow it as a norm. when i get someone wanting to play one i discuss how i would have it work, what requirements the PC must follow to be a psionicist rather than drop to a wizard (so they can stil function in a similar fashion in the party). if they pull it off then fine, if they don't they become a wizard with no turning back. if the player can accept that the fine. if they can't then i am not the right DM for them. all DMs have things they don'y like and alter within the game. can anyone in this thread say otherwise? if so then maybe we are all bad DMs. or we just dislike different things.
Kursk 07-25-07, 11:36 AM	Janitor? So I can play a god in your game? Cool, 'cause that's the only thing that will make me happy as a player and you should rework your world to accommodate ME. :cool:
Roog 07-25-07, 11:48 AM	this just goes with the DM is god theory. the DM create the world so he knows what is in it and what isnt, what belongs and what doesn't, what rules have changed when the players forget to refer to a hosue ruling and want to rules lawyer out of the book. So my character should worship the DM because he is the real power in the PC's universe? Seriously, saying that "the DM is god", is just setting the DM up for an ego trip. The GM may know what rules have changed, but I know I have had times where I have forgotten a house rule and a player has politely reminded me about it - and thats not the way it works for a God. Another thing I know when I GM is that there are many things that the other players know more about than me. If I want to keep suspension of disbelief for those players, I often need their opinion on how something should work, and I need to get it subtly enough that it doesn't spoil the flow for everyone else. Thats the sort of thing that doesn't fit with your rules, they just wouldn't work for my group. but isn't the creator of the world a super being? You may be a super being compared to my PC, but so am I; and you are definitely not a super being compared to a player. the thing i mean is that the DM as you said puts effort and work into running the game, and that goes on mostly outside of game time, so why should the DM be harrassed in game time where it may interfere with other player because one player doesn't agree with the DM. The players should respect the GM (they should also have respect for each other), you don't need to treat the GM as infallible to have that.
Alyri 07-25-07, 12:10 PM	”Shouldnt be” is irrellevent as it cant be like that. Your model fails on two levels. analogy:Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect Perhaps instead of trying to come up with ways of making my analogy dissimilar you should have been concentrating on the points where it was similar. I think DMs should be open to the possibility of making compromises. While I think it unlikely that someone whos genuinely open would not eventually actually make a compromise, Im not even insisting that they actually make one. Open to compromise; remembering that we are here for the fun of everyone at the table, players and DMs, and seeing everyone as having an equal stake in the game we are playing together. Thats all I think it should be. It should have to be said again, but of course, the same goes for players. I actually think because of their approach, as a character, it is harder, and therefore more important, for them to be aware of these principles. Compromise: A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. Concession: the act of conceding or yielding, as a right, a privilege, or a point or fact in an argument What concessions is the player making when the Dm allows something into his game that wasn't there? This is what this whole thread is about. If I run a game with no humans in it and someone wants to play a human and I allow it(compromise) What is the player giving up to play the human? It isn't a compromise it is the Dm giving into the players demands/wants. You dont have to restate your opinion. We know it. It is precisely this attitude that we think is wrong. Its not good. Youre the kid insisting that he gets to pitch because it is his ball. And youre right. If we want to play, we will let you. But man, watch for the line drive because no one else really likes that situation. Not having something in the game is wrong? Why? And dont, please, bore us with tales of all the people clamoring at your door for the privilege of sitting in on one of your games. If you arent even concerned enough about the fun of your players to entertain the thought of changing something, if on the list of priorities your campaign is of greater importance than the player you, I think, made it for, then no, sir, you arent that darn good. Cant happen. Why the personal slam? The Op and you seem to be making great leaps. 'My game doesn't have Duskblades in it' "Good gawd man get off your powertrip. You know you need people to play in your precious campaign world" All us players are whining little babies counting how many pieces of candy the other kids have and crying if we think weve fewer. Were utterly incapable of discerning the difference between the request you approved and the ones you didnt because, well, were stupid. Well, yes. People, and players are people, act like you treat them. They live up, or down, to your expectations. All this reigning in and lack of trust results in players you have to reign in and cant trust. But beyond the self-satisfaction you get from being “right” regardless of your role in their behavior, it doesnt really make for a better game. I don't spend 45 minutes every game session berating my players as you are inferring. See I play with like minded people. My group has no problems with something being limited or not even there. See, I dont want my DMs game wrecked. Yours? Well why would I care about yours. I know how you see me. What do I care for you? Another slam? I know youve been burned by dickweeds to whom you gave the benefit of the doubt and they screwed you over. But maybe we arent like that? Whats the worst that can happen? From your latest postings I wonder.... Is Monty Hall the same as fall apart? From my experiences, yes I have seen very few games that were 'good' that were Monty Hauls. However my definition of good(when it comes to D&D) is most likely vastly different from yours. Ive seen DMs get railroaded into running a game they didnt want because all the players wanted to play a different sort of game. See please the first rule of fun I mentioned previously. We all have to agree on the type of game were going to play. Well then, a player should never ask a Dm to give in and allow him something that isn't there. If youre all on the same page, it wont turn into the type of game you dont want. If youre not on the same page, you shouldnt be the DM for those players and vice versa. And my do not. Face it, your statement meant, youre willing to make concessions on only those things you are willing to make concession on, e.i. nothing important to you. Well, you are the most important one, right? Please refer to your statement; If youre all on the same page, it wont turn into the type of game you dont want Who the hell want to play a Jedi in D&D? No, I dont think you should hand out lightsabers at the whim of players. Again I didn't say anyone wanted to play a Jedi. I was explaining that just because Babylon5 is a scifi story doesn't mean that someone can play a Jedi from Star wars(scifi) Hence just because Billy is a huge fan of Drow(fantasy) doesn't mean there are drow in my campaign world(fantasy) If youre willing to look at alternatives with me to help me realize my goals with as little impact as possible as yours, then great. Thats all I ask for. Using your own previous example, the gnome/dwarf campaign, had I behaved not like your player, but come to you in advance and said, “Hey, I really dont enjoy either of those races. Could I play a human if I come up with a backstory and concept that fits with your design?” How would you have replied. Honestly? "Dave, there is absolutely no way you can come up with a backstory and concept that will allow you to play a Human. Here look at what is going on in the world as far as the players would know" You know, if you added 3. The players better have "a good reason" for the request. Then you would be describing a situation I would be happy with, both as a player and a GM. Again this depends on how you play the game. Some of us like to hand out well handouts before the game starts so people know what is going on and can make characters accordingly. When a player comes to the Dm and wants his concept into the game is he not saying " your idea isn't good enough for me. I want this instead" ? Why on earth would you dismiss a reasonable request out of hand? Are your likes as DM seriously that much more important then everyone else's at the table? Or is it something else that I'm missing...A need for control perhaps? Back to the power mad control freaking Dm argument? A; I've explained that position multiple times now. Your choosing to take it out of its context, pretend I'm saying something I'm not. Further debate on that subject is pointless, as you will not listen to what I'm saying and instead hear only what you want. B: You have thus far failed to provide any form of logical argument as to why a DM can't provide their reasoning. So I ask again, why shouldn't the DM give a reason for why they say no? My Dwarf/Gnome only game where someone wanted to play a human. The campaign was all about finding and restoring humans. No human had been seen in 5 centuries. Now had the player actually read the handout he would have realized that the only races that were known to the Dwarves and Gnomes were each other, Except for the NPC races. You also do not seem to have understood me, and I apologize if I have been unclear. What I am saying is that players likes should be considered as equally the DMs. If a DM is going to say no, and they do have to from time to time, then they should have a good reason for why the player has to comprise. If that reason is in error, then maybe it could change. Maybe the player could comprise a bit, by changing the flavor of the character. Either way, both parties are obligated to that dialog. Neither person, DM or player, is anymore, or less, right because of their seat at the table. Its a group game, and thus must be fun for the whole group. Not just the DM, or the players, but everyone. The player isn't compromising anything. Changing the flavor of a character is not a compromise. The barbarian doesn't fly into a 'rage' he is infused by the 'power' of his ancestors. hmm okay what does that mean mechanically? Oh nothing...
shadzar 07-25-07, 12:42 PM	So my character should worship the DM because he is the real power in the PC's universe? Seriously, saying that "the DM is god", is just setting the DM up for an ego trip. The GM may know what rules have changed, but I know I have had times where I have forgotten a house rule and a player has politely reminded me about it - and thats not the way it works for a God. Another thing I know when I GM is that there are many things that the other players know more about than me. If I want to keep suspension of disbelief for those players, I often need their opinion on how something should work, and I need to get it subtly enough that it doesn't spoil the flow for everyone else. Thats the sort of thing that doesn't fit with your rules, they just wouldn't work for my group. You may be a super being compared to my PC, but so am I; and you are definitely not a super being compared to a player. The players should respect the GM (they should also have respect for each other), you don't need to treat the GM as infallible to have that. ok firstly the game is D&D, dungeons and dragons. the person running the game is called a Dungeon Master aka DM. don't let other games and wikipedia fool you into thinking GM is an acceptable term for D&D use. General Motors, nor General Mills runs my D&D games! no the Gods of the world abide by the DMs wishes. nobody has to "worship" the DM. well my players know less than me in most cases. especially dealing with the world i created they have never seen before. i don't know everything, but i do know everything about my world. if the players guess it the so be it good for them for figuring out the clues i laid for them. XP award time! if a player has an idea different about the base rule than i have, it has nothing to do with my world, it has to do with the game mechanics. they may or may not work the way the player suggest depending on what way my world works. maybe magic alltogether works differently slightly than what is printed in the "core" books. You may be a super being compared to my PC, but so am I; and you are definitely not a super being compared to a player. what? that made no sense. no DMs aren't above making errors. but it is there job to fix the rror they made, not the players. and you also dno't need to interrupt the game to tell the DM you think he screwed up over something minor either. we must deal with the extremes here. many people are looking at this whole concept from little subtle things, but those subtle things are not the only way. you have to be able to duplicate the results always for a conclusion to be fact. 1+2=3 a=1 b=2 c=a+b therefore a+b=c, c-b=a, c-a=b, 1= c/(a+b), 1= (a+b)/c, etc it seems some people here prefer to make D&D about DM vs players than playing a game they chose who would assume the role of the DM.
Caelic 07-25-07, 01:41 PM	Why on earth would you dismiss a reasonable request out of hand? Are your likes as DM seriously that much more important then everyone else's at the table? Or is it something else that I'm missing...A need for control perhaps? It always comes back to that, doesn't it? Every time a DM takes the position that not every player request is reasonable and deserves to be considered, someone whips out "power hungry" or "need for control." It's so predictable it's almost...almost...funny. It's particularly funny because the word "control" is treated as if it's so...dirty. Of course there's a need for control. Control is built into the fabric of the game. The DM is supposed to control the power level of encounters; he's supposed to control the amount of wealth given out; he's supposed to control the actions and reactions of NPCs to ensure that they're logical and reasonable. If there's no control, the campaign, bluntly, sucks. A; I've explained that position multiple times now. Your choosing to take it out of its context, pretend I'm saying something I'm not. Further debate on that subject is pointless, as you will not listen to what I'm saying and instead hear only what you want. You've explained the position, and the position is a double standard. You're attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable: namely, your assertion that "I don't like it" isn't an acceptable reason for banning things and your own admission that you ban things because you don't like them. Let me pose you this question: You are about to run a new campaign. Of your five players, four come to you and say "We'd like to use Forgotten Realms material." 1. Do you refuse to run a Forgotten Realms campaign, thus placing your wants over those of the majority of your players? 2. If so, when you tell them, "No, I really hate Forgotten Realms," do you expect them to accept and respect that? B: You have thus far failed to provide any form of logical argument as to why a DM can't provide their reasoning. So I ask again, why shouldn't the DM give a reason for why they say no? (Straw man, appeal to majority, appeal to tradition, and ad hominium attacks are not logical reasons.) Wow. Did you just cut-and-paste that from earlier in the thread? It's nearly word-for-word. I answered it then, and I answered it (as per your request) without logical fallacy. You chose to ignore the answer provided. Perhaps you overlooked it; perhaps you rather carefully avoided it. I don't know which it is. At any rate, I'll give it to you again, and we'll see if you choose to respond this time. The DM cannot always provide his or her reasoning, because not every like or dislike is rational. Sometimes a DM will dislike something strongly and not know exactly why. This is simply human nature. I have no rational explanation for why I dislike the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard; that does not in any way reduce the intensity of my dislike. If a player were to say to me, "Hey, I think it would greatly enhance my enjoyment of the campaign if we were to all scrape our fingernails over the chalkboard at the start of each session," I wouldn't be amenable to that suggestion, despite the fact that I can't provide a rational and logical reason for my dislike. This is the crucial, glaring flaw in your argument: you presume that every objection must be predicated on rational reasons in order to be a "valid" objection, and that's not how the human mind works. Everyone has irrational, gut-level dislikes. I do; you do, if you're willing to be honest and admit it. The fact that those dislikes are not totally rational or explainable does not make them any less real or valid. I posed you a question the last time I answered this; you never responded to it. I ask again: What is your logical, rational reason for playing D&D, as opposed to engaging in any other recreational activity? Again, if you're honest, you'll realize that your reason comes down to "Because I like it." And that's a valid reason. Just as "Because I don't like it" is a valid reason. What I am saying is that players likes should be considered as equally the DMs. If a DM is going to say no, and they do have to from time to time, then they should have a good reason for why the player has to comprise. If that reason is in error, then maybe it could change. Maybe the player could comprise a bit, by changing the flavor of the character. Either way, both parties are obligated to that dialog. Neither person, DM or player, is anymore, or less, right because of their seat at the table. But, of course, there are four to six players and only one DM. So in your model of the ideal D&D game, the DM is obligated to make four to six times as many compromises as the players, and to spend four to six times as much time haggling over player desires as any given player, when he's already investing considerably more time into the game than the average player to begin with. Is that fair?
Caelic 07-25-07, 01:45 PM	There will always be elements in a party that don't fit well with your own personal preferences, whether you are a DM or a player. It's a fact of the game. As a DM I believe it is important to stay neutral on said preferences and let the setting you created be the deciding factor in what is possible and what not. I can completely subscribe to that theory, Janitor. The problem is that it's being argued strenuously that that should not be the case--that the DM should not be neutral, and should not let the setting created be the deciding factor, but should instead discard whatever elements of the setting stand in the way of player wishes and wants.
Caelic 07-25-07, 02:27 PM	Deleted duplicate post.
OravennasBrother 07-25-07, 02:29 PM	It seems there are two views of "COmpromise" I'll call it Camp1 and Camp 2 for clarity Camp 1 Player "I want to play a barbarian." DM "There are no barbarians in this setting." Player "Fine, I'll call his rage Ancestral Guidance." DM "That doesn't really fit either." Player "Oh come on I'm trying to compromise here. Let me play what I want. Barbarians are Core classes and a Druid is a lot more powerful." DM "I'm not allowing Druids either." Much whining, err discussion, later the DM caves, err compromises, and lets the player have his barbarian with slightly different fluff. Camp 2 Player "I want to play a character based on this miniature, so I'll go with a barbarian." DM "Sorry, but this is set in a Duke's court, so no barbarians." Player "What if I'm an outland mercenary?" DM "No, there aren't any barbarian cultures nearby." Player "I really want to play that figure, what if I'm a fighter from the hill country, sort of a back-woods minor gentry third son, or perhaps illegitimate, but the culture is just enough different to cause him to do a double-take...." Eventually the player and DM agree on a character who will fit in the campaign; a Fighter who dips Ranger and acts a little rough around the edges. As for me I'm firmly in camp 2
Caelic 07-25-07, 02:29 PM	It is difficult to think of examples that would seriously effect the GM's enjoyment, but there are several ways that I can see "actual mechanics of the class/race taking away the DM's fun" (as opposed to thematic elements of class/race). Although I can see ways around all of the problems that I list here. 1: Characters whose abilities will mean the use of badly written parts of the rule set, forcing the GM to use the bad rules, consistently wing it, or create a set of house rules. For example high Diplomacy skilled characters. 2: Situations where a PC using certain mechanics implies the widespread existence of NPCs using the same mechanics, which would increase the GM's workload to some degree. For example in a world with (for flavour reasons) no Psionics, a player wants to use reflavoued Psionics as power point based magic. 3: Situations where the GM dislikes the mechanic in question, because it makes some other aspect of his job more difficult. E.g. Save-or-die effects may make it more difficult for the GM to set up climatic BBEG battles that last a predictable amount of time (and make it difficult for the GM script without fudging). 4: Rules that the GM simply dislikes because of their complexity and the extra workload involved. If changing INT changed a character's skill points (the way changing CON changes a character's hit points), and a PC had spells/abilities/auras that increased or reduced the INT of those around them, then that could add a significant amount to the workload of the GM at certain times. Well thought out, Roog. May I add a fifth, somewhat similar to the second, and a sixth? 5. Rules that would undermine or contradict certain key assumptions of an existing campaign. For instance: in a campaign where no pure spellcasters exist, because the art of magic has largely been forgotten--and thus, the most powerful spellcasters can't manage spells above level 6--the Ur-Priest is clearly inappropriate. 6. Rules that are inextricably linked to certain actions that genuinely offend the DM's moral sensibilities. For instance: the rules for human sacrifice in the Book of Vile Darkness. I've known quite a number of DMs who ban these rules (and much of the BoVD) because they're simply not comfortable with running a game that rewards players for acts that depraved.
Caelic 07-25-07, 02:41 PM	It seems there are two views of "COmpromise" I'll call it Camp1 and Camp 2 for clarity Camp 1 Player "I want to play a barbarian." DM "There are no barbarians in this setting." Player "Fine, I'll call his rage Ancestral Guidance." DM "That doesn't really fit either." Player "Oh come on I'm trying to compromise here. Let me play what I want. Barbarians are Core classes and a Druid is a lot more powerful." DM "I'm not allowing Druids either." Much whining, err discussion, later the DM caves, err compromises, and lets the player have his barbarian with slightly different fluff. Camp 2 Player "I want to play a character based on this miniature, so I'll go with a barbarian." DM "Sorry, but this is set in a Duke's court, so no barbarians." Player "What if I'm an outland mercenary?" DM "No, there aren't any barbarian cultures nearby." Player "I really want to play that figure, what if I'm a fighter from the hill country, sort of a back-woods minor gentry third son, or perhaps illegitimate, but the culture is just enough different to cause him to do a double-take...." Eventually the player and DM agree on a character who will fit in the campaign; a Fighter who dips Ranger and acts a little rough around the edges. As for me I'm firmly in camp 2 Yessir, the tents and shower facilities in Camp 2 are looking a lot nicer to me, as well. Ideally, what you'll get is a DM who suggests various existing options that might give some of the feel the player is going for. Of course, I suspect that there are some who won't see that as compromise--because the player didn't get the mechanics he initially wanted.
Archtyrant Terevoth 07-25-07, 02:44 PM	6. Rules that are inextricably linked to certain actions that genuinely offend the DM's moral sensibilities. For instance: the rules for human sacrifice in the Book of Vile Darkness. I've known quite a number of DMs who ban these rules (and much of the BoVD) because they're simply not comfortable with running a game that rewards players for acts that depraved. In fact, banning evil alignments is probably the most common DM ban of all.
Comus 07-25-07, 02:58 PM	Of course, I suspect that there are some who won't see that as compromise--because the player didn't get the mechanics he initially wanted. I don't see it as a compromise for a different reason. In both cases, the DM is disallowing Barbarian based on the fluff of the class. In the first case, the player is willing to change the fluff to fit - and gives a suggestion on how to do so. In the second, the DM suggests a build that gives the fluff of a barbarian without the mechanics - despite the fact that he's said the reason he isn't allowing Barbarians is because of the fluff! If the fighter-ranger is acceptable, why the heck isn't Barbarian? The same background he gave for one, he can easily apply to the other. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a character build. There is nothing wrong with deciding a character concept isn't going to be fun to play without certain mechanics. Maybe that means you aren't going to be able to play that character in a given game. But I wish people would stop putting people down that want to play a character that has a strong background and a strong build.
Kursk 07-25-07, 03:07 PM	But I wish people would stop putting people down that want to play a character that has a strong background and a strong build. I have no problem with it. If it fits in my game great! If not, better luck next time.
Alyri 07-25-07, 03:42 PM	I don't see it as a compromise for a different reason. In both cases, the DM is disallowing Barbarian based on the fluff of the class. In the first case, the player is willing to change the fluff to fit - and gives a suggestion on how to do so. In the second, the DM suggests a build that gives the fluff of a barbarian without the mechanics - despite the fact that he's said the reason he isn't allowing Barbarians is because of the fluff! If the fighter-ranger is acceptable, why the heck isn't Barbarian? The same background he gave for one, he can easily apply to the other./ Where did you get the Dm wasn't allowing the barbarian based on it's fluff? Case 1 says nothing about fluff, only says "There are no barbarians in this setting." Case 2 only goes with fighter/ranger to be like his fig and decides to play him a bit rough around the edges. Probably from the fact that he spends alot of time out in the country. There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a character build. There is nothing wrong with deciding a character concept isn't going to be fun to play without certain mechanics. Maybe that means you aren't going to be able to play that character in a given game. But I wish people would stop putting people down that want to play a character that has a strong background and a strong build. Well count yourself lucky to find a player who came make a strong background and a strong build.
Comus 07-25-07, 04:20 PM	Where did you get the Dm wasn't allowing the barbarian based on it's fluff? I'll show you. Case 1 says nothing about fluff, only says "There are no barbarians in this setting." That is the fluff. The Barbarian class can represent a lot of things, not just a savage from the wilderness. I cannot think of a setting wherein the Barbarian class can't be used with altered fluff. Case 2 only goes with fighter/ranger to be like his fig and decides to play him a bit rough around the edges. Probably from the fact that he spends alot of time out in the country. DM "Sorry, but this is set in a Duke's court, so no barbarians." Player "What if I'm an outland mercenary?" DM "No, there aren't any barbarian cultures nearby." That's the fluff, and why the DM is disallowing it. It doesn't matter to me why the player wants it. Explain to me why a fighter/ranger who grew up in the country is acceptable when the barbarian is not. But let's say the player wanted the mechanics, because he has fun playing Barbarians. He says "But I don't care about being from a savage tribe. Can't I be a minor nobleman who has a bad temper?" Does that not fit the setting even better than the fighter/ranger? Well count yourself lucky to find a player who came make a strong background and a strong build. Here's the thing - in my group, everyone gets strong builds if they want one. People who are good at it help those who are not. Same thing for backgrounds. In the end, everyone has a character that is realized well for both roleplay and game mechanics.
Kursk 07-25-07, 04:26 PM	in my group, everyone gets strong builds if they want one. My group doesn't play "builds". They play characters. I think this may be another difference in the two camps...
OravennasBrother 07-25-07, 05:00 PM	Explain to me why a fighter/ranger who grew up in the country is acceptable when the barbarian is not. Because the Character grew up in THAT country - ie a rustic Englishman of the minor gentry is a FAR better fit than some frothing savage from the frozen wastes. The Ranger/Fighter might lack some of the niceties of fine society but still shares the SAME basic culture. The Barbarian isn't even literate. As for the "I want the mechanics and am willing to change the fluff" that is TOTAL nonsense. At that point the player DOES NOT CARE about a concept, just the mechanics. IN THE COMPROMISE SCENARIO (yes this is shouting) of Camp 2 The DM finds a Class/Concept which fits the miniature - the "concept" which the player wanted. In the non-compromise scenario of Camp1 the player bullied the DM into taking a Class whose mechanics he (the DM) did not care for. No Compromise at all, save perhaps the DM's principles.
Caelic 07-25-07, 05:03 PM	There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a character build. There is nothing wrong with deciding a character concept isn't going to be fun to play without certain mechanics. Maybe that means you aren't going to be able to play that character in a given game. But I wish people would stop putting people down that want to play a character that has a strong background and a strong build. Ah, but that's not what your example represents, is it? Invariably, someone defines "compromise" as "Allowing the mechanics the player wants and discarding the fluff." Now, this has several things wrong with it. First is that all-pervasive assumption that flavor text is "fluff," and therefore unimportant, but mechanics are "crunch," and therefore important. This is simply not true; mechanics without their context are as worthless as the context divorced of mechanics. In many cases, they are more worthless. I could take my "fluff," apply a new rules system, and still have a campaign. If I take the mechanics and get rid of the fluff, I have...a not-particularly-brilliant set of mechanics, and no campaign. Second: if a player is willing to discard the "fluff" of a class as long as he gets to retain the mechanics, then it's clear that what he wants is not based on a "strong background"; it's a given mechanical effect. He doesn't want to play a Frenzied Berzerker, per se; he wants to play a character who can do 100 points of damage with Power Attack, and he's willing to alter his background in whatever way allows him to do that. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but it's disingenuous to pretend that it's anything other than what it is. Yes, yes, I know--"Wanting a powerful character doesn't mean you're not a good roleplayer." It also doesn't mean that you are, and it doesn't mean that there aren't players out there for whom mechanics are all-important and background is an afterthought. Considering "fluff" to be dispensable and mechanics to be indispensable, I would argue, is fairly strong evidence of such leanings. In such a case--where a player isn't enamored of a character concept, but rather a mechanic--I'm going to evaluate the mechanic. I would disallow, say, Frenzied Berserker, not because the flavor did or did not fit my campaign, but because Frenzied Berzerkers tend to get out of control and I know for a fact that numerous other players at the table dislike having them in the party. In general, though, I know that I can come up with better mechanics than most of what comes out of WotC nowadays...mechanics that are better-balanced and better-suited to my particular campaign world. If I'm discarding the "fluff" of a given prestige class, why on earth would I bend over backwards to retain the empty numbers left behind?
Comus 07-25-07, 05:15 PM	My group doesn't play "builds". They play characters. I think this may be another difference in the two camps... No. A build is the mechanical representation of a character. If it's a difference, it's only one of used terminology. Really, I don't even see two camps there. Neither of the two examples given as 'camps' are good. All they show is that OravennasBrother hates it when players disagree with the DM and the DM decides to give a little. You want my view on the two 'camps'? 1: The DM has to make decisions about what is allowed and what isn't. Players don't do as much work, so they don't get as much say. If the DM says No, then that is final and the players are overstepping the bounds if they question it. 2: The DM has to make decisions about what is allowed and what isn't. Players are part of the game, too, though. They should be able to have fun. If the DM won't let them play what they want, they should be able to ask him why and expect a reasonable answer. I see the first 'camp' as being like a ride, or a tour - it's been planned out well in advance and you might have more fun than if you drove yourself... but on the other hand, you don't get to decide where the tour goes. The second 'camp' is more like a roadtrip - maybe you don't get to see some of the sights you need to be on a tour to see, but it goes a lot of places the tour doesn't, and some of those places can be even more fun for everyone involved, even if the roadtrip means more work for the driver.
Kursk 07-25-07, 05:23 PM	No. A build is the mechanical representation of a character. If it's a difference, it's only one of used terminology. Not in my experience. From what I've encountered it's a difference of how the character is viewed by the player. If it's not different for you, great. I've just experienced what I have experienced.
Comus 07-25-07, 05:26 PM	Because the Character grew up in THAT country - ie a rustic Englishman of the minor gentry is a FAR better fit than some frothing savage from the frozen wastes. The Ranger/Fighter might lack some of the niceties of fine society but still shares the SAME basic culture. The Barbarian isn't even literate. No. That doesn't answer my question. Tell my why my Barbarian can't be a local thug from the bar, or some noble's dull cousin, or a Master Swordsman who falls into a fighting trance. I mean, it isn't as though the Barbarian can just pay a few skillpoints and read, right? :rolleyes: As for the "I want the mechanics and am willing to change the fluff" that is TOTAL nonsense. At that point the player DOES NOT CARE about a concept, just the mechanics. No, what you are saying is total nonsense. I start with concept, then look for the mechanics to represent it - and often need altered fluff from the mechanics to represent my concept. For instance, let's say I want to play Mechagodzilla. I need a robot dragon with integrated weapons systems. Robot means I'll need warforged. Dragon I can either just leave at appearance or use the Dragonborn rules from Races of the Dragon. The weapons, though, are best represented by spells. So he's a Sorc or a Warmage. But it isn't a fireball - it's a magical cannon! It isn't magic missile, it's a pulse-laser! I had to alter fluff to get my concept to work within the rules. It happens. IN THE COMPROMISE SCENARIO (yes this is shouting) of Camp 2 The DM finds a Class/Concept which fits the miniature - the "concept" which the player wanted. In the non-compromise scenario of Camp1 the player bullied the DM into taking a Class whose mechanics he (the DM) did not care for. No Compromise at all, save perhaps the DM's principles. That is because your Camp 1 is flawed and has a bully for a player. Your Camp 2 has a DM who is clearly insane, as he could just say "Barbarian? Okay. But we'll need to work on the backstory a bit"... AND ENDED UP AT THE SAME BACKSTORY.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-25-07, 05:36 PM	It always comes back to that, doesn't it? Every time a DM takes the position that not every player request is reasonable and deserves to be considered, someone whips out "power hungry" or "need for control." Here we're back to this. "If you disagree with me, your saying all DMs are power mad. And any player who would dare to request something not in my railroad is a whine munchkin. You'll not that i specified a player with a reasonable request. Yet for some reason you choose to assume that the players request was unreasonable, and thus choose to defend the DMs right to say no to something thing unreasonable with out considering it. Why? Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that players may have reasonable requests. Or is that you can't come up with a good reason to not consider a reasonable request, and thus choose to assume that all request must unreasonable to strengthen your argument? This inability of yours to comprend that players can, and do make reasonable requests really throws into question the sorts of poeple that you play with. Are they really that bad, that you have to come down hard and strict on them, or they'll ruin your game? And if that is the case why are even playing with them, in the first place. My players are mature, and reasonable. I know that if I did what you do. That is create an elaborate and flavorful setting, which I do do form time to time, that I would not have make lists of mechanical, and flavor restrictions. I know that they all have character that flavorfully fit into the world. I don't have to worry about shark lords in the desert, or pirates in the kings court. My players, are well better then that. I honestly feel sorry for you if that isn't the case. It's particularly funny because the word "control" is treated as if it's so...dirty. Of course there's a need for control. Control is built into the fabric of the game. The DM is supposed to control the power level of encounters; he's supposed to control the amount of wealth given out; he's supposed to control the actions and reactions of NPCs to ensure that they're logical and reasonable. If there's no control, the campaign, bluntly, sucks. Uhmm what does this have to with anything? Seriously I fail to see how encounter levels, or NPC reactions, or any of that has anything to do with what we're discussing. I'm not saying the players should control the NPCs, anymore then your saying the DM should control their characters. But I do wonder why you choose to answer in that when, when your apparent need for control over the PCs creative process was brought up? Deflecting an issue that is a little close to home? You've explained the position, and the position is a double standard. You're attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable: namely, your assertion that "I don't like it" isn't an acceptable reason for banning things and your own admission that you ban things because you don't like them. No your choosing to take it out of context. There is a difference between putting you dislikes aside as a player, for another DMs game, and playing in soemthing you just don't like. And while we're on that subject, how come a player has to put aside their preferences, but the DM doesn't? What was that about double standards/ You are about to run a new campaign. Of your five players, four come to you and say "We'd like to use Forgotten Realms material." 1. Do you refuse to run a Forgotten Realms campaign, thus placing your wants over those of the majority of your players? 2. If so, when you tell them, "No, I really hate Forgotten Realms," do you expect them to accept and respect that? 1) Sorry guys, I really hate FR, I'll sit this one out. But have fun with it. 2) Accept it or not, I'm not playing in FR game. A good thing here to note is that my answers would the same if invited to play as DM, or player. The DM cannot always provide his or her reasoning, because not every like or dislike is rational. Sometimes a DM will dislike something strongly and not know exactly why. This is simply human nature. I have no rational explanation for why I dislike the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard; that does not in any way reduce the intensity of my dislike. If a player were to say to me, "Hey, I think it would greatly enhance my enjoyment of the campaign if we were to all scrape our fingernails over the chalkboard at the start of each session," I wouldn't be amenable to that suggestion, despite the fact that I can't provide a rational and logical reason for my dislike. Let me spell this out then. You have failed to provide an answer with in the given parameters of the question. You answer states a reason for not allowing something. You don't like it. That is a reason. The question called for you to give a reason why you would not share that reason with the players. Not provide a reason for disallowing something. Thus you have failed to answer the question. This is the crucial, glaring flaw in your argument: you presume that every objection must be predicated on rational reasons in order to be a "valid" objection, and that's not how the human mind works. Everyone has irrational, gut-level dislikes. I do; you do, if you're willing to be honest and admit it. And here you fail again. I'm saying that DMs should have good reasons for denying a player their fun. You say that because 'I don't like it" is a valid reason. I see it as a DMs unwillingness to comprise, and as such put themselves ahead of the everyone else. However Puca is right. You can't force someone to engage in a recreational activity that they do not find fun. So if i would not it fun as a player, why would I find it fun as a DM? And if I would find it so unfun as a player, that I would not play it, then why would I play in it? And if i wouldn't play in it as a player, why would I DM? But, of course, there are four to six players and only one DM. So in your model of the ideal D&D game, the DM is obligated to make four to six times as many compromises as the players, and to spend four to six times as much time haggling over player desires as any given player, when he's already investing considerably more time into the game than the average player to begin with. Is that fair? So tell me why the one person out of 7 is more important then the other 6? Why is their fun more paramount then the rest of the groups? How is that fair?
Kursk 07-25-07, 05:40 PM	So tell me why the one person out of 7 is more important then the other 6? Why is their fun more paramount then the rest of the groups? How is that fair? Because as the DM I've put 20X the time into creating the game? Sounds fair to me. It's seems fair when I'm the player also, as I know the blood, sweat & tears that goes into creating a great campaign...
Comus 07-25-07, 05:41 PM	This is simply not true; mechanics without their context are as worthless as the context divorced of mechanics. In many cases, they are more worthless. I could take my "fluff," apply a new rules system, and still have a campaign. If I take the mechanics and get rid of the fluff, I have...a not-particularly-brilliant set of mechanics, and no campaign. The fluff is the story. You don't even need mechanics to continue the campaign. You can free-form it all the way. But here's the thing - if the mechanics are so unimportant, then why can't one use the mechanics they want? Second: if a player is willing to discard the "fluff" of a class as long as he gets to retain the mechanics, then it's clear that what he wants is not based on a "strong background"; it's a given mechanical effect. He doesn't want to play a Frenzied Berzerker, per se; he wants to play a character who can do 100 points of damage with Power Attack, and he's willing to alter his background in whatever way allows him to do that. But what if he has specific alternate fluff in mind? We aren't just talking about "I want to play this build, do whatever you want with the backstory" but also "I want to play this character, and these abilities really fit him well, but the flavor doesn't - so I'll change the flavor." There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but it's disingenuous to pretend that it's anything other than what it is. Yes, yes, I know--"Wanting a powerful character doesn't mean you're not a good roleplayer." It also doesn't mean that you are, and it doesn't mean that there aren't players out there for whom mechanics are all-important and background is an afterthought. Considering "fluff" to be dispensable and mechanics to be indispensable, I would argue, is fairly strong evidence of such leanings. It isn't that fluff is dispensable. There has to be fluff. It's that the fluff itself can be whatever fits the character and the world. Maybe my Wizard's spells aren't magic at all, but rather alchemical devices or, heck, carefully cultivated plants that he carries around in pots. In such a case--where a player isn't enamored of a character concept, but rather a mechanic--I'm going to evaluate the mechanic. I would disallow, say, Frenzied Berserker, not because the flavor did or did not fit my campaign, but because Frenzied Berzerkers tend to get out of control and I know for a fact that numerous other players at the table dislike having them in the party. And that's a good reason for disallowing something. I can't argue the example, because my group does not use Frenzied Berzerkers for the same reasons. In general, though, I know that I can come up with better mechanics than most of what comes out of WotC nowadays...mechanics that are better-balanced and better-suited to my particular campaign world. If I'm discarding the "fluff" of a given prestige class, why on earth would I bend over backwards to retain the empty numbers left behind? I'm not going to argue your skills with you because I don't know what they're like. And if custom prestige classes work for your group, that's great. My group doesn't run that way.
Caelic 07-25-07, 06:11 PM	You'll not that i specified a player with a reasonable request. Yet for some reason you choose to assume that the players request was unreasonable, and thus choose to defend the DMs right to say no to something thing unreasonable with out considering it. Why? Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that players may have reasonable requests. Or is that you can't come up with a good reason to not consider a reasonable request, and thus choose to assume that all request must unreasonable to strengthen your argument? You know what? It's not worth it. It's just plain not worth it. You are never, EVER going to respond to the actual positions I'm advancing. You're going to toss up strawman arguments...while telling other people not to use strawman arguments. You're going to use ridiculous and over-the-top examples, while complaining about how ridiculous and over-the-top everyone else's examples are. So why should I keep responding to the same tired talking points over and over? You win. Have a cookie.
Caelic 07-25-07, 06:16 PM	The fluff is the story. You don't even need mechanics to continue the campaign. You can free-form it all the way. But here's the thing - if the mechanics are so unimportant, then why can't one use the mechanics they want? Because some mechanics, to put it bluntly, suck dragon fewmets. Some are abysmally poorly defined (the Sarrukh's "Manipulate Form" ability springs to mind.) Some mechanics don't suck individually, but do suck when coupled with other mechanics. This is inevitable when you have multiple authors working on projects in isolation and an accumulated mass of several thousand pages of mechanics--some of which are outright contradictory. The accumulated mass of 3.5 rules were never intended to be used in their entirety. It is, in fact, impossible to use them in their entirety. This is one reason a DM is necessary. Someone has to look at all of these isolated mechanics and figure out which ones are going to produce an unintended and unwanted result when used together. And, heck, sometimes you just want to try something different, for a change. I'm going to use the Generic Characters rules from UA for my upcoming campaign, just for a change of pace--to clear the palette, as it were. It's not going to be much of a palette-cleanser if I wind up with "Okay, we're using the Generic Character rules--except for Bob, who's a Druid again, and Bill, who's an Archivist, and Frank, who's an Erudite." It isn't that fluff is dispensable. There has to be fluff. It's that the fluff itself can be whatever fits the character and the world. Maybe my Wizard's spells aren't magic at all, but rather alchemical devices or, heck, carefully cultivated plants that he carries around in pots. Then why in Heaven's name would I take that concept and graft it onto a set of rules that involve memorization, spellbooks, casting times, and a slew of other mechanics that don't fit the concept of plant-bombs or potions? Why would I not just go ahead and, y'know, come up with mechanics that actually fit the concept? Of course, if I want to do that, there are systems on the market that are infinitely better suited than D&D, systems that are designed to build crunch that fits the concept. I'm not going to argue your skills with you because I don't know what they're like. And if custom prestige classes work for your group, that's great. My group doesn't run that way. But apparently you do; you just consider some aspects to be customizable and some aspects to be non-customizable. From what I'm hearing, you'd have no problem with, say, a Chaotic Evil Radiant Servant of Tezcatlipoca...but you would have a problem with giving that Radiant Servant different abilities that actually suited his deity.
Comus 07-25-07, 06:42 PM	Because some mechanics, to put it bluntly, suck dragon fewmets. Some are abysmally poorly defined (the Sarrukh's "Manipulate Form" ability springs to mind.) Some mechanics don't suck individually, but do suck when coupled with other mechanics. This is inevitable when you have multiple authors working on projects in isolation and an accumulated mass of several thousand pages of mechanics--some of which are outright contradictory. The accumulated mass of 3.5 rules were never intended to be used in their entirety. It is, in fact, impossible to use them in their entirety. This is one reason a DM is necessary. Someone has to look at all of these isolated mechanics and figure out which ones are going to produce an unintended and unwanted result when used together. That's true. It is indeed impossible to use every rule in the books in a single game. And the DM has to be the one to decide what is in and what is out. That's part of his job, as we can both agree. Then why in Heaven's name would I take that concept and graft it onto a set of rules that involve memorization, spellbooks, casting times, and a slew of other mechanics that don't fit the concept of plant-bombs or potions? Why would I not just go ahead and, y'know, come up with mechanics that actually fit the concept? Of course, if I want to do that, there are systems on the market that are infinitely better suited than D&D, systems that are designed to build crunch that fits the concept. Unfortunately, we're not using those systems. We're talking about D&D. Maybe I like the mechanics of the wizard class but not the fluff. Maybe the DM is running a core-only game but is letting us play with the fluff. Maybe I drew Wizard out of a hat and had an idea for a botanist. But apparently you do; you just consider some aspects to be customizable and some aspects to be non-customizable. From what I'm hearing, you'd have no problem with, say, a Chaotic Evil Radiant Servant of Tezcatlipoca...but you would have a problem with giving that Radiant Servant different abilities that actually suited his deity. I have a problem with calling the class 'Radiant Servant' if you change the abilities. The identity of the class, for me, is what it can do, not the fluff attached to it. I enjoy playing a lot of classes against type - the frail and intelligent Barbarian, the Cleric in light armor sneaking around and stealing things, the Rogue who works as a private detective.
Caelic 07-25-07, 06:55 PM	I have a problem with calling the class 'Radiant Servant' if you change the abilities. The identity of the class, for me, is what it can do, not the fluff attached to it. I enjoy playing a lot of classes against type - the frail and intelligent Barbarian, the Cleric in light armor sneaking around and stealing things, the Rogue who works as a private detective. ...whereas to me, the mechanics don't have a whole lot to do with the identity of the class. A Lawful Good Ur-Priest who is devoted to his deity isn't an Ur-Priest, to me; it's Super-Cleric-Who-Gets-His-Spells-Really-Fast.
shadzar 07-25-07, 07:05 PM	That is the fluff. The Barbarian class can represent a lot of things, not just a savage from the wilderness. I cannot think of a setting wherein the Barbarian class can't be used with altered fluff. But let's say the player wanted the mechanics, because he has fun playing Barbarians. He says "But I don't care about being from a savage tribe. Can't I be a minor nobleman who has a bad temper?" Does that not fit the setting even better than the fighter/ranger? Here's the thing - in my group, everyone gets strong builds if they want one. People who are good at it help those who are not. Same thing for backgrounds. In the end, everyone has a character that is realized well for both roleplay and game mechanics. because no one exists to teach the fighting style of the printed barbarian class. the world has no person existing in it now or the past that new how to rage, etc. therefore there is nobody that can teach it to future generations. doesn't mater if the barbarian class is allowed in other games as the snooby rich people living in high class towns. if there are no barbarians in one DMs world then there can not be future barbarians. say there was world that had very little to no metal. would you expect to easily find chain mail, plate mail, ring mail in that world? the problem is the player wants the barbarian for the mechanics therefore he doesn't enjoy playing a barbarian, he enjoys using the skill liek rage and such. this is metagaming. if the class were called buttlicker with the exact same mechanics would this player still like the calss? based on chosing it for the mechanics i would say yes they would. you don't design your character around its mechanics. you play a character...oh my god, there is no reason to even try cause i feel the explanation would be lost on you.
shadzar 07-25-07, 07:19 PM	No. A build is the mechanical representation of a character. If it's a difference, it's only one of used terminology. WHAT? that some kind of ansi or ascii art using only math symbols? there is no such thiing unless you are talking about compiled computer code that contains the AI, wireframe, skin mesh, garments, etc. that i will buy as a mathematical representation of a character. otherwise its just called a character. this isnt a house. you don't build it you create it. thus the term character creation.
Comus 07-25-07, 07:24 PM	because no one exists to teach the fighting style of the printed barbarian class. the world has no person existing in it now or the past that new how to rage, etc. therefore there is nobody that can teach it to future generations. I am currently aghast at the thought that being a Barbarian requires special training. The class, by default, is specifically about not getting training. doesn't mater if the barbarian class is allowed in other games as the snooby rich people living in high class towns. if there are no barbarians in one DMs world then there can not be future barbarians. Exactly. And because there were no airplanes in 1776, there can never be any airplanes - because who would teach people to build them? :rolleyes: say there was world that had very little to no metal. would you expect to easily find chain mail, plate mail, ring mail in that world? No, I don't. In the same way I don't expect to find elves in my campaign setting. That's not the point. In the context of this discussion it would look something like this: Player: "Can my character have a sword?" DM: "No. There isn't any metal on this world." Player: "What if it was made of obsidian? That can hold an edge and is strong enough." the problem is the player wants the barbarian for the mechanics therefore he doesn't enjoy playing a barbarian, he enjoys using the skill liek rage and such. this is metagaming. if the class were called buttlicker with the exact same mechanics would this player still like the calss? based on chosing it for the mechanics i would say yes they would. I don't care what the class is called. Neither should the character, as he doesn't even know what a 'character class' is. you don't design your character around its mechanics. you play a character...oh my god, there is no reason to even try cause i feel the explanation would be lost on you. Look, stop trying to be an elitist. You're frankly not very good at it.
shadzar 07-25-07, 07:26 PM	No. That doesn't answer my question. Tell my why my Barbarian can't be a local thug from the bar, or some noble's dull cousin, or a Master Swordsman who falls into a fighting trance. I mean, it isn't as though the Barbarian can just pay a few skillpoints and read, right? :rolleyes: No, what you are saying is total nonsense. I start with concept, then look for the mechanics to represent it - WRONG!!!!!!!!! your character can be a stupid fighter. just give it a low INT. you start with a concept and the look at the available options given by the DM and try to make something you want to play out of it. i have been bored many times and just made up characters to see how powerful i could make them. i would never play them in a game because they wouldn't fit. there would be no challenge they couldn't overcome physically or mentally. where is the fun in that? you don't roleplay based on game mechanics. you rollplay based on game mechanics. you roleplay base on what your character can do and trying to use those abilites and extend them within the game, not the game mechanics. D&D is NOT a video game.
Caelic 07-25-07, 07:30 PM	Okay, back down a bit, guys. Shadizar: telling other people that: you roleplay base on what your character can do and trying to use those abilites and extend them within the game, not the game mechanics. ...is no different than someone coming along and saying "People who choose their character class based on a concept are doing it wrong. You choose the classes that give you the biggest plus, and then make up a story to justify it." Some people play it that way; some people don't. It's not up to us to define a "right" way to play, just like it's not up to anyone on this thread to start dictating what "good reasons" and "bad reasons" for disallowing things are, or to tell people that they're DMing badly and disrespecting their friends if they don't adhere to those declarations.
shadzar 07-25-07, 07:39 PM	I am currently aghast at the thought that being a Barbarian requires special training. The class, by default, is specifically about not getting training. then by what means if not taught does a barbarian learn how to rage? let me guess by the book right? Exactly. And because there were no airplanes in 1776, there can never be any airplanes - because who would teach people to build them? :rolleyes: birds taught people how to build them. do you expect your character to be the first to be a barbarian in a world that has never had any and get the full benefits of the class? No, I don't. In the same way I don't expect to find elves in my campaign setting. That's not the point. In the context of this discussion it would look something like this: Player: "Can my character have a sword?" DM: "No. There isn't any metal on this world." Player: "What if it was made of obsidian? That can hold an edge and is strong enough." how does one go about shaping the obsidian and giving it an edge? the problem is the player wants the barbarian for the mechanics therefore he doesn't enjoy playing a barbarian, he enjoys using the skill liek rage and such. this is metagaming. if the class were called buttlicker with the exact same mechanics would this player still like the calss? based on chosing it for the mechanics i would say yes they would.I don't care what the class is called. Neither should the character, as he doesn't even know what a 'character class' is.try reading what you quote. i said would this player still like the class? you proved my point there, you don't care what the class is called because you only want the mechanics. you have no idea what roleplaying is. you want to metagame so you can "win". there is no winning in D&D. there isn't a goal to reach to be first place. Look, stop trying to be an elitist. You're frankly not very good at it. i am not trying to be an elist. you just miss the concept of a tabletop RPG. either because of the over abundant "options" presented in 3.x core rules, or form a video game playing background. a player should build a character because they want to play that type of character, not because they want ceratin bonuses present in the race and class conbination. i like playing kenders. why? because i like the concept of the almost halfling that is like a mischevious kid. the taunt, kender pockets, etc are just fun things i get to use along the way of playing the kender. if i want to bash skulls i will be fine with a vanilla fighter human. i don't need the extra mechanics to have fun. my fun comes from playing my character to the best i can and trying to keep him alive through the challenges thrown at me by the DM and my ABILITY to play the character. anybody can roll dice to see who gets a higher number. that is all the mechanics really do. the "fluff" is what the character is all about, not the mechanics. i hear the Lollipop Guild singing for you....they would like to welcome you to Munchkin Land.
shadzar 07-25-07, 07:43 PM	Okay, back down a bit, guys. Shadizar: telling other people that: ...is no different than someone coming along and saying "People who choose their character class based on a concept are doing it wrong. You choose the classes that give you the biggest plus, and then make up a story to justify it." Some people play it that way; some people don't. It's not up to us to define a "right" way to play, just like it's not up to anyone on this thread to start dictating what "good reasons" and "bad reasons" for disallowing things are, or to tell people that they're DMing badly and disrespecting their friends if they don't adhere to those declarations. first, i don't take offense to it, but i am not the city in Red Sonja (Shadizar), i am Shadzar. ;) secondly my mind was going much faster than my fingers could keep up with that description and i think i went way off base with what i was trying to say. just so frazzled that someone thinks in this day and age that the way to create a character is to only use the game mechanics with no regard for the class or race. it seems more like that type of person would rather play yahtzee where they can just roll dice, or have a raceless/classless/nameless "character" that is fed monster after monster to level up until he can beat anything with his character. i just don't see the fun in that.
Archangel62 07-25-07, 07:43 PM	because no one exists to teach the fighting style of the printed barbarian class. the world has no person existing in it now or the past that new how to rage, etc. therefore there is nobody that can teach it to future generations. doesn't mater if the barbarian class is allowed in other games as the snooby rich people living in high class towns. if there are no barbarians in one DMs world then there can not be future barbarians. say there was world that had very little to no metal. would you expect to easily find chain mail, plate mail, ring mail in that world? the problem is the player wants the barbarian for the mechanics therefore he doesn't enjoy playing a barbarian, he enjoys using the skill liek rage and such. this is metagaming. if the class were called buttlicker with the exact same mechanics would this player still like the calss? based on chosing it for the mechanics i would say yes they would. you don't design your character around its mechanics. you play a character...oh my god, there is no reason to even try cause i feel the explanation would be lost on you. :rolleyes: Of course, because after all the mechanical aspects of a class can never be adapted to fit a different concept that someone likes. After all, a person might love the barbarian class conceptually but hate the flavor, they want to be a brawler, a guy who fights and works off of his adrenaline rather than his focus, he strikes and slams rather than actually using precision hits. In other words while he might call himself a brawler or something else mechanically he's a barbarian, and a fine character to boot.
shadzar 07-25-07, 07:47 PM	:rolleyes: Of course, because after all the mechanical aspects of a class can never be adapted to fit a different concept that someone likes. After all, a person might love the barbarian class conceptually but hate the flavor, they want to be a brawler, a guy who fights and works off of his adrenaline rather than his focus, he strikes and slams rather than actually using precision hits. In other words while he might call himself a brawler or something else mechanically he's a barbarian, and a fine character to boot. no reason someone can't have a psychotic fighter with an anger mangement problem. that is roleplaying. but it doesn't mean the player will get to use a character that benefits from the rules written in the book under the section of barbarian. ;)
Comus 07-25-07, 08:06 PM	shadzar, you clearly don't understand me or my method of play at all. My last serious D&D game as a player lasted about a year, in a roleplay-heavy game. Roleplaying is extremely important to me, and I've dumped several characters simply because they weren't fun to play as. Stop trying to call me a munchkin when I say I want my characters to be mechanically strong. You are being very insulting about this. Caelic and I disagree, and we can have a rational discussion about it. If you want to discuss this topic, please be more reasoned about it.
Count_Chumleigh 07-25-07, 08:11 PM	Okay, first things first: this is page 15 of an internet argument, so that means JUICE TIME FOR EVERYONE!!! :whatsthis Second, we have this little sentiment: you proved my point there, you don't care what the class is called because you only want the mechanics. you have no idea what roleplaying is. you want to metagame so you can "win". there is no winning in D&D. there isn't a goal to reach to be first place. i am not trying to be an elist. you just miss the concept of a tabletop RPG. either because of the over abundant "options" presented in 3.x core rules, or form a video game playing background. a player should build a character because they want to play that type of character, not because they want ceratin bonuses present in the race and class conbination. i like playing kenders. why? because i like the concept of the almost halfling that is like a mischevious kid. the taunt, kender pockets, etc are just fun things i get to use along the way of playing the kender. if i want to bash skulls i will be fine with a vanilla fighter human. i don't need the extra mechanics to have fun. my fun comes from playing my character to the best i can and trying to keep him alive through the challenges thrown at me by the DM and my ABILITY to play the character. anybody can roll dice to see who gets a higher number. that is all the mechanics really do. the "fluff" is what the character is all about, not the mechanics. i hear the Lollipop Guild singing for you....they would like to welcome you to Munchkin Land. To which I say, you're right, shadza, inasmuch as I can play a guy who gets mad and hits things just fine as a fighter. You take it too far, however, when you say that someone who cares only for the mechanics of a class is necessarily a munchkin. Suppose, for instance, I want to play a football hooligan or other sort of disgruntled, city-dwelling, lower-income type who gets rip-roarin' mad and effs people up. Thematically, the Barbarian class--specifically, the Rage class feature--fits almost perfectly, especially when tempered with a touch of Rogue. But wait! The hooligan isn't from the wilds, certainly has no ranks in Survival, and may even be literate! Surely, then, I am a munchkin for making my city-dwelling adventurer with a temper problem have Barbarian levels rather than just be a commoner who says "oi" and "wanker" a lot. Or maybe not. Sometimes, you can make a perfectly fine character who just uses the mechanics of a class, and maybe has a little bit of a flavor rewrite. There is no hard-and-fast rule for me when it comes to flavor tweeks, because it depends on what the DM sees as reasonable and/or can personally stomach. A wizard whose "spells" are just very fast applications of alchemical formulae would not fly in my games, for instance, but the aforementioned hooligan would, and I've also allowed a quarter-duergar (i.e., a regular dwarf) Ranger whose player explained his two-weapon fighting schtick as latent manifestations of racial psionic potential even though the player never touched a psionics sourcebook for the whole campaign. Can someone who only wants the mechanical aspects of a character class just be a munchkin? Certainly. Must he be one? Absolutely not. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh P.S. There's no way I'm making exceptions for Tome of Battle or any psionics in any of my D&D campaigns for the foreseeable future, just in case anyone is on tenterhooks. Some things, I just don't like.
High Octane 07-25-07, 09:41 PM	P.S. There's no way I'm making exceptions for Tome of Battle or any psionics in any of my D&D campaigns for the foreseeable future, just in case anyone is on tenterhooks. Some things, I just don't like. I too, did not want to include either for a while, but I'm actually allowing Tome of Battle in my campaign for no other reason than to test it's balance and workability. Not allowing something for flavor reasons is a perfectly valid reason to not include it in your game, but you should consider having a few trial sessions with Tome of Battle to test it's power and play. Flavorwise it is easy to describe warblades as nothing more than specially trained fighters, Crusaders as specially trained paladins or clerics, and swordsages as a sort of duelist/swashbuckler type.
Archangel62 07-25-07, 10:00 PM	The funny thing is that Shadza made a comment about this in another thread, and in that one most reasonable people disagreed with him there as well. They gave logical examples and I find it interesting that he never responded to my question as to why a person couldn't be inspired by the mechanics to try a class or someone who likes the mechanics of a certain class and wants to do it.
Caelic 07-25-07, 10:09 PM	The funny thing is that Shadza made a comment about this in another thread, and in that one most reasonable people disagreed with him there as well. They gave logical examples and I find it interesting that he never responded to my question as to why a person couldn't be inspired by the mechanics to try a class or someone who likes the mechanics of a certain class and wants to do it. No reason they shouldn't, Archangel; then again, by the same token, there's no reason a DM shouldn't be allowed to dislike the mechanics of a certain class. Heaven knows there are enough classes/prestige classes/racial progressions out there that a player really shouldn't have a difficult time finding one he's going to enjoy playing, even if the DM disallows one (or twenty, or a hundred, for that matter.)
Count_Chumleigh 07-25-07, 10:24 PM	I too, did not want to include either for a while, but I'm actually allowing Tome of Battle in my campaign for no other reason than to test it's balance and workability. Not allowing something for flavor reasons is a perfectly valid reason to not include it in your game, but you should consider having a few trial sessions with Tome of Battle to test it's power and play. Flavorwise it is easy to describe warblades as nothing more than specially trained fighters, Crusaders as specially trained paladins or clerics, and swordsages as a sort of duelist/swashbuckler type. So I keep hearing and so my occasional perusings of the book verify--I actually bought Tome of Battle a while ago, if only because I bought and enjoyed Tome of Magic--but it's still going to take a while for me to be ready to accept a whole new system of rules and the accompanying mythos and flavor text rather than simply upping the Fighter's overall power level. (I give fighters a "5:4" rather than "1:1" Base Attack Bonus progression, meaning they can eventually get five attacks, and this tends to make them able to compete with Rangers and Barbarians in terms of, you know, fighting.) What kills me about not wanting Tome of Battle in my games yet is that I really like the Crusader. But I don't think I can just allow one part of the book, since it's a whole new system that needs to be tacked on. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-25-07, 10:46 PM	What kills me about not wanting Tome of Battle in my games yet is that I really like the Crusader. But I don't think I can just allow one part of the book, since it's a whole new system that needs to be tacked on. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh Heres a question for you then. Would play, as a player, in a game that allowed either, or, ToB and psionics?
Count_Chumleigh 07-25-07, 10:58 PM	Heres a question for you then. Would play, as a player, in a game that allowed either, or, ToB and psionics? Would I play? That's hard to say, because I don't know who's DMing it. I certainly can see myself playing in a game that allowed either of those books; I just wouldn't play a character that made use of them. It's different for me as a player because I only have to deal with the mechanics and backstory of my character. As a DM, I would have to deal with the mechanics and backstories of every character, not to mention be familiar enough and comfortable enough with the rules, flavor, and feel of each ruleset that's brought in. But when I'm playing Lezek the Back-Alley Thug, Clodpool the Armorer, or Janya Styles the High-Society Witch, I just need to know the rules and flavor behind my character, and generally what my character thinks of the other party members. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
Caelic 07-26-07, 12:47 AM	Would I play? That's hard to say, because I don't know who's DMing it. I certainly can see myself playing in a game that allowed either of those books; I just wouldn't play a character that made use of them. It's different for me as a player because I only have to deal with the mechanics and backstory of my character. As a DM, I would have to deal with the mechanics and backstories of every character, not to mention be familiar enough and comfortable enough with the rules, flavor, and feel of each ruleset that's brought in. ...which is totally logical and reasonable. There are things I prefer not to have in my campaigns as a DM, because I dislike the administrative details of running them; I'm certainly not about to demand that another DM exclude them from his or her campaign, though. As a player, I can focus on my character and not worry about whether Rules Set X is in play or not, for the most part.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-26-07, 03:09 AM	...which is totally logical and reasonable. There are things I prefer not to have in my campaigns as a DM, because I dislike the administrative details of running them; I'm certainly not about to demand that another DM exclude them from his or her campaign, though. As a player, I can focus on my character and not worry about whether Rules Set X is in play or not, for the most part. Another common reason why DMs disallow material is that they are unfamiliar with it. This is frustrating because when one becomes familiar with new material they generally find it simple and easy to understand. However, this understanding take times. And some DMs simply do not have the time to familiarize themselves all the new material. Players in this case will just have to be patient as there is only one way for the DM to become familiar with new material. A common suggestion is for the player to lend the book to the DM for a period of time so that they may become familiar with it. This really isn’t fair as it assumes 4 things: 1) The DM has the time to read and become familiar with all the material covered in the time allotted. This may be the case, but with more and more DMs having families, jobs, school, and lives outside of the game this is not always the case. 2) That the DM is capable of memorizing everything they need to know about the rules to make fair ruling calls, again within the time allotted. Stopping to look everything up slows down the game, and isn’t fair to the other players. 3) That the DM has a desire to read that particular book when the player presents to them. DMing is still a volunteer job, and the DM not wanting to do even more extra work is understandable. 4) The DM will have access to the book whenever they need. From time to time the DM may want to use the book for NPCs, or just to check something in-between sessions. The best way to accomplish this is to own the book yourself. (I do my best DMing at 3 in the morning, aided by ice cream.) However many DMs do not have the funds available to buy every book a player could request. I'm really beginning to wonder if people even bothered to read the OP before responding. Perhaps if they had they'd note that I in no said a DM could not disallow things. But am merely presenting the idea of explaining their reasoning to players. You know this own communication thing, and how the players should get to have fun, as well as the DMs. Now then the count said that he did not like ToB and psionics. I probed a bit further, and it turns out that his dislike is stemming from being unfamiliar with the rules, and not wanting/having the time to learn them. I never said it was not a valid reason, nor did I say he should insist that no game he plays in should ban the ToB, or psionics.
Daydreamer 07-26-07, 04:01 AM	subjective: Whats a big deal to some may not be to others. The dm should, i think if she is good, consider all viewpoints fairly. However at the end of the day her word is law and the pc can always leave. IN most cases compromise is possible, but sometimes it is not. I know that as a failsafe, non wotc material is banned, as well as material from campaign setting specific books, that are not part of the world we play in.
Count_Chumleigh 07-26-07, 07:13 AM	Now then the count said that he did not like ToB and psionics. I probed a bit further, and it turns out that his dislike is stemming from being unfamiliar with the rules, and not wanting/having the time to learn them. I never said it was not a valid reason, nor did I say he should insist that no game he plays in should ban the ToB, or psionics. Actually, I said I was plenty familiar with Tome of Battle, but just didn't want to tack on another system of rules to the game when tweaking the fighter accomplishes similar enough results for my tastes. I do admit to not owning any of the psionics books--although I do look at the materials on the SRD occasionally--which means my knowledge of those rules isn't exactly up to snuff, but the reason I don't own those books is that I don't want them in my games because the magic system we've got is tricky enough as it is without adding a new one into the mix. In other words, it is the case that I am unfamiliar with the psionics rules because I don't want them in my games, rather than I don't want the psionics rules in my games because I am unfamiliar with them. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
TwistedPuppy 07-26-07, 08:40 AM	Roleplaying is extremely important to me, and I've dumped several characters simply because they weren't fun to play as. Stop trying to call me a munchkin when I say I want my characters to be mechanically strong. Comus, I'm going to assume that sentence I marked in red is supposed to be "fun to play as I thought they would be." This brings us to another part of the problem. Let's say the DM has stated that his campaign is going to be core-only. Players A, B, and C have no problem with the core only stipulation. Player D, however, had his heart set on playing an artificer. After much discussion, the DM agrees to having the artificer in the game. Five sessions later, Player D decides his artificer is not as much fun as he had thought it would be. He would like to try a Crusader. Again he goes to the DM, asking for an exception to the campaign guidelines... wash, rinse, repeat. I might make an exception for a player once. However, when he discards that character, he's going to use the same guidelines as everyone else.
OravennasBrother 07-26-07, 10:12 AM	No. That doesn't answer my question. Tell my why my Barbarian can't be a local thug from the bar, or some noble's dull cousin, or a Master Swordsman who falls into a fighting trance. I mean, it isn't as though the Barbarian can just pay a few skillpoints and read, right? :rolleyes: NO for a thug play a Warrior NPC class. A nobles Dull Cousin - try Aristocrat or a Fighter with Low Int. A Master Swordsman - you're kidding right? Falling into a fighting trance which makes you EASIER to hit? A barbarian is more than JUST Rage - larger HD, DR, More Skill Points, different skill choices, uncanny dodge, fast movement. Changing the fluff is just an excuse by someone to get a mechanical ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO PLAY ON AN EVEN FOOTING WITH EVERYONE ELSE. I gave a reasonable example of a reasonable request - a player wishing to play a barbarian. The DM was a reasonable DM who had a campaign setting with NO barbarians. I even gave an example of a DM "Giving In" and letting the player have their "mechanics" - probably to the detriment of the campaign. I also gave an example of a DM and player reaching a COMPROMISE - where both sides gave a bit to obtain what was most important to them; the DM avoided the Barbarian class mechanic and the player got to play the figure he had just finished painting.
Count_Chumleigh 07-26-07, 11:13 AM	NO for a thug play a Warrior NPC class. A nobles Dull Cousin - try Aristocrat or a Fighter with Low Int. A Master Swordsman - you're kidding right? Falling into a fighting trance which makes you EASIER to hit? A barbarian is more than JUST Rage - larger HD, DR, More Skill Points, different skill choices, uncanny dodge, fast movement. Changing the fluff is just an excuse by someone to get a mechanical ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO PLAY ON AN EVEN FOOTING WITH EVERYONE ELSE. So it is your position that no PC in any D&D campaign should ever be described as a "thug?" I agree that a pure Barbarian is a poor way to represent a thug mechanically, but that's only because every thug worth his poorly-articulated threats, misplaced Cocknet accent, and sock with a halfbrick in it needs levels in Rogue as well. As to the "Bigger HD" argument, I counter with the fact that no PC thug is ever just going to be a thug; he's going to be the thug the other thugs are afraid of, because he gets into it. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh EDIT: Also, the Barbarian does present a lot of mechanics that fit the "master swordsman" archetype rather nicely, such as fast movement, uncanny dodge, and Listen as a class skill. In fact, given how vague Hit Points are as a concept already, there's nothing wrong with just saying a master swordsman with Barbarian levels--who is clearly not one of the "cleaner" swordsmen, but the actual, for-reals, half-crazy swordsman who practices in the wilderness in seclusion--uses his Damage Reduction to simply deflect blows when in a "Rage," and thus is, from an in-character standpoint, harder to hit. Mind you, if the DM has outright banned the Barbarian class, no amount of conceptual kerjiggering is going to save a player's Barbarian character.
Caelic 07-26-07, 11:44 AM	I'm really beginning to wonder if people even bothered to read the OP before responding. Perhaps if they had they'd note that I in no said a DM could not disallow things. But am merely presenting the idea of explaining their reasoning to players. You know this own communication thing, and how the players should get to have fun, as well as the DMs. Most assuredly. It's just that what you said in your original post and what has come out in your later posts doesn't match up. Now then the count said that he did not like ToB and psionics. I probed a bit further, and it turns out that his dislike is stemming from being unfamiliar with the rules, and not wanting/having the time to learn them. I never said it was not a valid reason, nor did I say he should insist that no game he plays in should ban the ToB, or psionics. I won't respond to this, as the Count can clarify his position for himself (and looking down the thread, I see that he has, quite eloquently.)
solbergb 07-26-07, 11:54 AM	Answer: It does not need to ruin the DM's fun to allow winged elves into the game. The DM never needs to run an NPC that's a winged elf. He never needs to make them a part of the campaign aside from noting that they exist somewhere. For him, the game can run exactly the same way. Um....every single one of his NPC's now has to REACT to this winged elf, who clearly is some kind of abombination if nobody has ever seen or heard of one until now. The game revolves around player actions. If a character violently doesn't fit the setting, it skews every interaction.
Caelic 07-26-07, 11:58 AM	Um....every single one of his NPC's now has to REACT to this winged elf, who clearly is some kind of abombination if nobody has ever seen or heard of one until now. The game revolves around player actions. If a character violently doesn't fit the setting, it skews every interaction. This goes back to the whole "verisimilitude and consistency" versus "anything goes" dichotomy. I've noticed that in many games where players are given no restrictions on what they can play, the NPCs tend to treat every PC, no matter how outre, as if he or she were perfectly normal. If that's fun for a given group, no problem; personally, I would find it immensely unsatisfying.
Kursk 07-26-07, 11:59 AM	Um....every single one of his NPC's now has to REACT to this winged elf, who clearly is some kind of abombination if nobody has ever seen or heard of one until now. The game revolves around player actions. If a character violently doesn't fit the setting, it skews every interaction. Now, your talking like someone who knows how to GM an RPG. That isn't allowed here. :D
TwistedPuppy 07-26-07, 12:10 PM	Now, your talking like someone who knows how to GM an RPG. That isn't allowed here. :D Someone break out the box of leeches...;)
solbergb 07-26-07, 12:11 PM	It's allowed. There are interesting ideas buried in this thread, which is why I keep reading it. But you can't assume you'll change anyone's opinion.
Comus 07-26-07, 12:15 PM	NO for a thug play a Warrior NPC class. A nobles Dull Cousin - try Aristocrat or a Fighter with Low Int. A Master Swordsman - you're kidding right? Falling into a fighting trance which makes you EASIER to hit? A barbarian is more than JUST Rage - larger HD, DR, More Skill Points, different skill choices, uncanny dodge, fast movement. Changing the fluff is just an excuse by someone to get a mechanical ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO PLAY ON AN EVEN FOOTING WITH EVERYONE ELSE. The Count already refuted most of this quite well. But that last bit, about the mechanical advantage, is where you're wrong. I change the fluff of the class to better fit the character concept I have in my head, to make it closer to the person I am trying to play. In one game, I'm playing a Fighter. I decided that my character is physically frail, but has tattoos covering his body that deflect harm (HP) make him stronger and tougher (BAB, STR score, CON score) and otherwise turn him into a magically-powered warrior. It has very different fluff than the basic fighter, but not for a mechanical advantage - it's just because I thought it would be neat to have a character who had a backstory like that. I gave a reasonable example of a reasonable request - a player wishing to play a barbarian. The DM was a reasonable DM who had a campaign setting with NO barbarians. I even gave an example of a DM "Giving In" and letting the player have their "mechanics" - probably to the detriment of the campaign. I also gave an example of a DM and player reaching a COMPROMISE - where both sides gave a bit to obtain what was most important to them; the DM avoided the Barbarian class mechanic and the player got to play the figure he had just finished painting. And, see here we have the problem. First, you assume that the player getting to play what he wants needs to be bad for the game. Second, the compromise is a silly one. You still don't seem to understand why it's a bad example. Let me show you why I think it fails: a) Player wants to play a Barbarian because of figure. b) DM says there are no Barbarians because the setting is in a Duke's court. c) Player asks if they could come to a compromise. d) DM will let him play a fighter/ranger who spends a lot of time in the woods, he and the player come up with a decent backstory. e) The person reading the example is left wondering why that decent backstory couldn't be applied to the barbarian class. See, here's the thing - people who are barbarians (savages) are different from people who have levels in the Barbarian class. The Barbarian class can represent a huge number of different things - it is, in fact, one of the most versatile PHB classes (in my opinion). Um....every single one of his NPC's now has to REACT to this winged elf, who clearly is some kind of abombination if nobody has ever seen or heard of one until now. The game revolves around player actions. If a character violently doesn't fit the setting, it skews every interaction. And the NPCs should react like that! It's a natural consequence of the choice the PC made, just like how they should run him out of town if he goes around kicking puppies.
OravennasBrother 07-26-07, 12:20 PM	Mind you, if the DM has outright banned the Barbarian class, no amount of conceptual kerjiggering is going to save a player's Barbarian character. Yet the opposite is PRECISELY the position which many people in this thread have presented as a REASONABLE compromise for a DM who bans Barbarians. "Just change the fluff and keep the crunch" Then they typify a DM who stands by his guns as "Railroading" and "Tyrannical" One poster really summed it up well when they reminded us that an extended discussion would reward the players with talent/experience at debate TO THE DETRIMENT of the rest of the game. A DM who states "No, because I said so," is at least not opening their campaign to some DEALBREAKER from an abusive munchkin player (with superb rhetorical skills) that will ruin the enjoyment of EVERYONE ELSE at the table.
Count_Chumleigh 07-26-07, 12:24 PM	Yet the opposite is PRECISELY the position which many people in this thread have presented as a REASONABLE compromise for a DM who bans Barbarians. "Just change the fluff and keep the crunch" Then they typify a DM who stands by his guns as "Railroading" and "Tyrannical" One poster really summed it up well when they reminded us that an extended discussion would reward the players with talent/experience at debate TO THE DETRIMENT of the rest of the game. A DM who states "No, because I said so," is at least not opening their campaign to some DEALBREAKER from an abusive munchkin player (with superb rhetorical skills) that will ruin the enjoyment of EVERYONE ELSE at the table. There's merit to this, but in my experience the most likely explanation for why a DM bans a class is that he doesn't like something about the feel of it. My thug examples represent an attempt to fit the mechanics of the Barbarian class into something that feels different and, hopefully, acceptable to the DM. If the DM outright bans the Barbarian class, whatever the concept, however, then the player is SOL. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
Alyri 07-26-07, 12:30 PM	e) The person reading the example is left wondering why that decent backstory couldn't be applied to the barbarian class. See, here's the thing - people who are barbarians (savages) are different from people who have levels in the Barbarian class. The Barbarian class can represent a huge number of different things - it is, in fact, one of the most versatile PHB classes (in my opinion). Perhaps from the standpoint that the barbarian and it's mechanics are not there? This is where you fail: Barbarian class can represent a huge number of different things The person reading the example is left wondering why that decent backstory couldn't be applied to the barbarian class. On one side the barbarian has a lot of flexibility You want the stereotypical barbarian Less than civilized people are barbarian(savages) Savages are not Barbarians The player is less cultured(savage) according to the Duke's Court Then he should use the barbarian. So which is it? Is a savage a barbarian or not? You say it both ways.
solbergb 07-26-07, 12:33 PM	And the NPCs should react like that! It's a natural consequence of the choice the PC made, just like how they should run him out of town if he goes around kicking puppies. Maybe I don't especially want to run a game where I have to have every single NPC react to a PC in the party like he's a freak. There are settings where even PHB races might get a similar reaction - half-orcs especially, but there are places in the Greyhawk setting where elves are treated like vermin. The usual reasons for not allowing players to play kobolds or goblins are along similar lines - at some point you cross the line from "it is unusual for such a race to be in normal society but not unheard of" to "people will just assume you're a monster at first glance". Where that line is depends on setting, and how big a problem this reaction is depends on the tone of the campaign and whether the adventurers are outcasts or rebels vs integrated into society/supporters of status quo. It's similar to disallowing somebody with "killed the kings sister and is hunted for it" in his backstory as part of the campaign, in a setting where the PC's are supposed to be working to uphold the kingdom. In the right setting, the right campaign, either character might be reasonable or even an excellent fit. But not in THIS campaign and THIS setting.
Kursk 07-26-07, 12:36 PM	Sorry, quote not working" From Count Chumleigh: "If the DM outright bans the Barbarian class, whatever the concept, however, then the player is SOL." True. I don't have psionics in my game. A player can't have a "wizard" that he "flavors" and use the mechanics of the psionics system.
Caelic 07-26-07, 12:51 PM	Maybe I don't especially want to run a game where I have to have every single NPC react to a PC in the party like he's a freak. Bingo. Let's be clear, here, too, lest this draw accusations of "lazy DMing": very frequently, this sort of thing is a problem, not because it's particularly hard to DM reactions to said freak, but because it results in the spotlight constantly being focused on one PC. The campaign can very easily turn into "The Winged Elf And His Companions." Nor is this always accidental; many players will select something exotic in an attempt to center the spotlight on themselves.
Comus 07-26-07, 01:00 PM	Hm. Quotes don't seem to be working at the moment. So which is it? Is a savage a barbarian or not? You say it both ways The Barbarian class can represent a savage. So can any other class. That's a matter of flavor and backstory, not of mechanics. The Barbarian class, at its simplest, represents a warrior who is tougher than most and has a limited-use self-buff. That's a good framework to base a lot of characters on. Nor is this always accidental; many players will select something exotic in an attempt to center the spotlight on themselves. Certainly true, but that's a player problem that isn't resolved by changing what's allowed and what isn't. Someone who wants to be a Mary-Sue will typically find a way to do so.
Caelic 07-26-07, 01:07 PM	Certainly true, but that's a player problem that isn't resolved by changing what's allowed and what isn't. Someone who wants to be a Mary-Sue will typically find a way to do so. True enough. On the other hand "I have piercing blue eyes that see straight to your soul, I always wear a black cloak, and my parents were killed when I was a child and I blame myself, o angst o ennui" doesn't cause the same sort of logistical headaches for the DM as "I'm nine feet tall, have horns and glowing red eyes, and every time I pass wind, it sounds like the screams of all of the damned souls of the Abyss." The former just gets tiresome; the latter means a major issue every time the PCs try to stop in town to pick up some rations.
Kursk 07-26-07, 01:12 PM	The former just gets tiresome; the latter means a major issue every time the PCs try to stop in town to pick up some rations. Yes, and there is no reason why a DM should enable this type of behavior.
OravennasBrother 07-26-07, 01:26 PM	It has very different fluff than the basic fighter, but not for a mechanical advantage - Actually you have very different fluff from the basic attributes, but since it has no mechanical effect then it's not the issue. The DM could, quite reasonably, have issue with magical tattoos if your "cool" character concept meant that then anyone might be able to get such tattoos. e) The person reading the example is left wondering why that decent backstory couldn't be applied to the barbarian class. Because the BARBARIAN Class, RAW is NOT as flexible as you might believe. From the SRD; "A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. He retains all the other benefits of the class (damage reduction, fast movement, trap sense, and uncanny dodge)." Rage then RAW is inherently linked to non-lawful characters, and a dedicated, focused, LAWFUL Swordmaster would be unable to use Rage. Tinkering with the "Fluff" to gain mechanical abilities denied to other characters is NOT PLAYING FAIR, no matter how persuasive the used car salesman is who pushes for the "concept" - point of fact, once you discard the "fluff" then ANY CLAIM that you are seeking a particular ROLE goes out the window.
shadzar 07-26-07, 01:51 PM	Hm. Quotes don't seem to be working at the moment. So which is it? Is a savage a barbarian or not? You say it both ways The Barbarian class can represent a savage. So can any other class. That's a matter of flavor and backstory, not of mechanics. The Barbarian class, at its simplest, represents a warrior who is tougher than most and has a limited-use self-buff. That's a good framework to base a lot of characters on. so not true. "limited-use self-buff", what the heck is this? did conan polish his pecks in any movie? no because there was nothing to buff. the term "buff" comes from video gaming and needs to be removed from tabletop RPG use PERIOD. you aren't "donating" 15 platinum for KEI, or 10 platinum for SOE. Tunare has its own game system under the d20 license so go buff yourself there in the everquest MMO or RPG. but keep it out of D&D. a barbarian is most simply an undereducated civilization where most disputes are settled with brute force. when you add the feat/skill/etc into the description you are violating conceptual design for mechanical design. maybe that is why people still hate D&D in some places. maybe some kid went into school talking about barbarianistic cultures in a history class and said they get a +4 when raging. http://graphics3.gaiaonline.com/images/template/smiles/icon_stressed.gif
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-26-07, 02:26 PM	This goes back to the whole "verisimilitude and consistency" versus "anything goes" dichotomy. I've noticed that in many games where players are given no restrictions on what they can play, the NPCs tend to treat every PC, no matter how outre, as if he or she were perfectly normal. If that's fun for a given group, no problem; personally, I would find it immensely unsatisfying. This is actually false dictum. Again I run what would be considered an anything goes campaign, and it still has verisimilitude, and consistency. Thus the notion that "anything goes" comes at the expense of verisimilitude and consistency is false. True enough. On the other hand "I have piercing blue eyes that see straight to your soul, I always wear a black cloak, and my parents were killed when I was a child and I blame myself, o angst o ennui" doesn't cause the same sort of logistical headaches for the DM as "I'm nine feet tall, have horns and glowing red eyes, and every time I pass wind, it sounds like the screams of all of the damned souls of the Abyss." The former just gets tiresome; the latter means a major issue every time the PCs try to stop in town to pick up some rations. See this is exactly what I'm taking about, when I say that in order to support your arguments the player is question has to be munchkin horses arse. How come you choose to come up with an example of the player choosing something over the top, and absurd? What if the player wanted to be a half-giant. Looks like a regular person only taller. Really taller. Think NBA basket ball like tall. Also half-gaints fit into any setting were there are regular giants. Think Haggird, if you having trouble with this. And it doesn't even have to be a "half-giant" it could just be an abnormally tall human. Again why would that garner so much attention as to derail the camapign? I'm sorry but if it does, then I would place the fault for that not on the class, or player, but the DM. Because the BARBARIAN Class, RAW is NOT as flexible as you might believe. From the SRD; "A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. He retains all the other benefits of the class (damage reduction, fast movement, trap sense, and uncanny dodge)." Rage then RAW is inherently linked to non-lawful characters, and a dedicated, focused, LAWFUL Swordmaster would be unable to use Rage. So everyone who comes from the woods must be chaotic, and everyone in the cities must be lawful? I don't recall either of those being in the alignment restrictions, or that only lawful characters as a stipulation in your example. And your example still falls apart on two major points. One; the DM said no barbarians because of flavor reasons, but then gave the barbarian flavor to a fighter/archer. Which may or may not have been what the player wanted to play. Two; wanting to use certain mechanics to represent a character is metagaming, but choosing the character because you want to use fig X isn't? So what if the player wanted to base his character off an anemia character, we'll that Cloud guy from final fantasy, is that metagaming? He has plenty of cool picks for it. This is what boggles me about the whole flavor debate. Is that someone who is claiming to a fantasy author is telling us that we have to take the flavor of all classes as set forth by WoTC, and coming up with our own is impossible. Or if we were to recraft our flavor onto something, we should just go ahead and remake the entire class. Why? Why would we want to re-invent the wheel, when something that will work perfectly is right there staring us in the face, and the only thing wrong with it is that its fluff is off? That psion in my camapign that I told you about....it has all the flavour of a regualr wizard. back story and all. I really didn't want to dignify this with a response, it was so absurd, but: "The DM should not give a reason, because they may be proven wrong." Honestly if the DM is wrong, then they are wrong. That isn't a reason to stick to your guns, and act like a spoiled brat about it. Its a reason to admit you were wrong, and move on like a mature adult. I'm sorry but the a good salesmen will be able to sell anyone anything line is false as well. If you know what you want/need then people won't be able to talk you out of it. Sure a salesman may convince me that I want something, or that having it would be nice, but If I don't need it, or can't afford it then I'm not buying it. Further if I'm shopping for it, then it must mean that I already want to buy, the salesmen had nothing to do with that. And finally this argument assumes that the player is a manipulative *******. Again *******s do exist and many of them do play this game. They exists commonly on both sides of the screen. But just because someone can be an ******* doesn't mean you should disregard your friends preferences, or their right to have fun along side of you. The "because one bad apple" argument is really meaningless if you think about. For every ample of, "because one player could abuse this" I can come with a "Because a DM could abuse that" counter. It won't get either of us anywhere. Can we just agree that an ******* of a player, and an ******* of a DM can ruin a games equally? But heres an interesting question: I hear a lot the DM is the boss, and at the end of the day the DM makes the calls. Which to a certain extent that is true. BUT can you guys explain to me why this authority grants the DM the right to put their dislikes ahead of everyone else's?
Count_Chumleigh 07-26-07, 02:29 PM	so not true. "limited-use self-buff", what the heck is this? did conan polish his pecks in any movie? no because there was nothing to buff. the term "buff" comes from video gaming and needs to be removed from tabletop RPG use PERIOD. you aren't "donating" 15 platinum for KEI, or 10 platinum for SOE. Tunare has its own game system under the d20 license so go buff yourself there in the everquest MMO or RPG. but keep it out of D&D. While you certainly have a right to not want MMO's to get into your D&D experience, the thing about language in general is that it changes over time, and new terms are continuously introduced. I don't even think twice about using the word "buff" to describe spells and class features that temporarily enhance a character's combat prowess, because, well, everyone else does it. Which is how language works. I even had one character, a blacksmith cleric of Gond, who referred to his support spells as "buffing" in-character. "Because it helps the rest of us shine," he said. a barbarian is most simply an undereducated civilization where most disputes are settled with brute force. And the Barbarian class is simply a fast, strong, tough warrior who can temporarily increase his offensive potential at the cost of a little defense. Call it "rage," "frenzy," "blood fury," "getting in the zone," "battle trance," or whatever you will, but at the end of the day he still gets +4 to Strength and Constitution, +2 to Will saves, loses two points of AC, and can't use Combat Expertise. when you add the feat/skill/etc into the description you are violating conceptual design for mechanical design. maybe that is why people still hate D&D in some places. maybe some kid went into school talking about barbarianistic cultures in a history class and said they get a +4 when raging. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Feats, skills, and "etc." are part of the D&D system, and thus are part of any D&D character. I do, in fact, think concept is more important than mechanics, however, which is why I'm willing to, within reason, divorce certain class mechanics from the flavor attached to them in order to fit the concept of a particular character. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
Kursk 07-26-07, 02:30 PM	BUT can you guys explain to me why this authority grants the DM the right to put their dislikes ahead of everyone else's? Sure, read the DMG.
Count_Chumleigh 07-26-07, 02:34 PM	But heres an interesting question: I hear a lot the DM is the boss, and at the end of the day the DM makes the calls. Which to a certain extent that is true. BUT can you guys explain to me why this authority grants the DM the right to put their dislikes ahead of everyone else's? Why does the DM's authority to be the final word on any given issue in the game he runs entitle him to dictate what is and isn't allowed in the game he runs? No idea. :rolleyes: Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
shadzar 07-26-07, 02:41 PM	And the Barbarian class is simply a fast, strong, tough warrior who can temporarily increase his offensive potential at the cost of a little defense. Call it "rage," "frenzy," "blood fury," "getting in the zone," "battle trance," or whatever you will, but at the end of the day he still gets +4 to Strength and Constitution, +2 to Will saves, loses two points of AC, and can't use Combat Expertise. and that is what i am saying is the problem. "building" a character based on game mechanics rather than concept. you can build a race care based on downforce, weight, etc all by the numbers needed to make it work. but this car has no personality. likewise creating a character based on the numbers or game mechanics, or choosing to play one because of them means you are not wanting a particular personality for the character, you just want the game mechanics you want. that is a problem with the presentation of EVERYTHING in 3.x, like remove the "fluff" on the monsters. now monsters are just things that get in the way. they have no society and such. the game is designed for hack'n'slash. i have seen games of 2nd edition last shorter amounts of time in combat with 16 players, than a 6 player game of 3.x. because all the modifiers and the fact that players tailor their characters around those modifiers. so now their really isn't any "classes", its all just statistics. :(
Kursk 07-26-07, 02:51 PM	so now their really isn't any "classes", its all just statistics. :( It's getting closer to being a "table top" "computer game" everyday...
Count_Chumleigh 07-26-07, 02:52 PM	and that is what i am saying is the problem. "building" a character based on game mechanics rather than concept. you can build a race care based on downforce, weight, etc all by the numbers needed to make it work. but this car has no personality. likewise creating a character based on the numbers or game mechanics, or choosing to play one because of them means you are not wanting a particular personality for the character, you just want the game mechanics you want. that is a problem with the presentation of EVERYTHING in 3.x, like remove the "fluff" on the monsters. now monsters are just things that get in the way. they have no society and such. the game is designed for hack'n'slash. i have seen games of 2nd edition last shorter amounts of time in combat with 16 players, than a 6 player game of 3.x. because all the modifiers and the fact that players tailor their characters around those modifiers. so now their really isn't any "classes", its all just statistics. :( I'm pretty sure I just said something to the effect of I do, in fact, think concept is more important than mechanics, however, which is why I'm willing to, within reason, divorce certain class mechanics from the flavor attached to them in order to fit the concept of a particular character. In other words, rather than invent new mechanics to fit a character concept I want to play, I will look for existing mechanics that could be adapted to fit the concept, within reason. If I want to play the D&D equivalent of a football* hooligan, you bet your twelve-sided dice I'm going to give him some levels in Barbarian. Likewise, if I want to play a flagellant, he's going to be a Barbarian, too, albeit a literate one with lots of ranks in Knowledge (Religion) and very little, if any, in Survival or Handle Animal. I don't need a new feat or Prestige Class to realize either of these characters, because the existing rules are adaptable enough to cover what they can do. Whew. At this rate, we're both going to need a refill of juice. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh *Naturally, I am using the English definition of "football" rather than the American one.
Caelic 07-26-07, 03:17 PM	This is actually false dictum. Again I run what would be considered an anything goes campaign, and it still has verisimilitude, and consistency. Thus the notion that "anything goes" comes at the expense of verisimilitude and consistency is false. In over twenty years, I have yet to see an "Anything goes" campaign which had what I would consider verisimilitude. Sorry, hearing someone say "Mine does!" isn't going to convince me; I'm sure that many of the DMs whose campaigns I've seen would've claimed the same. See this is exactly what I'm taking about, when I say that in order to support your arguments the player is question has to be munchkin horses arse. How come you choose to come up with an example of the player choosing something over the top, and absurd? *Sigh* Because...in case you missed it, which you obviously did...Comus and I are discussing Mary Sues. It's possible you don't know what that term means; allow me to define it. A "Mary Sue" is a character designed to always be the focus of attention...usually stunningly beautiful (or else wildly exotic-looking) and hyper-competent, able to do everything better than anyone else. Comus was observing that a Mary Sue will be a Mary Sue whether he's allowed to play something wildly exotic or not. I was agreeing with that notion, but pointing out that "wildly exotic" gives the Mary Sue the opportunity to create a character with some significant logistical problems attached to it. A "Mary Sue" player is, by definition, a munchkin. He or she may or may not be a horse's arse, though in my experience, "may" is more common than "may not." You're complaining because I'm using an example that has a player acting like an attention-hogging munchkin in a discussion about attention-hogging munchkins. So what if the player wanted to base his character off an anemia character, we'll that Cloud guy from final fantasy, is that metagaming? (Cloud was anemic?) This is what boggles me about the whole flavor debate. Is that someone who is claiming to a fantasy author is telling us that we have to take the flavor of all classes as set forth by WoTC, and coming up with our own is impossible. And here's why my responses to you have become rather less respectful over the course of this thread; you complain bitterly about others misrepresenting your positions, and then you make blatantly false claims about theirs. Show me where I ever...ever...said that. Show me where I implied it. I try very hard to refrain from calling people liars, but I have to be honest: blatant fabrications like this make it extremely difficult to stick to that. Or if we were to recraft our flavor onto something, we should just go ahead and remake the entire class. Why? Why would we want to re-invent the wheel, when something that will work perfectly is right there staring us in the face, and the only thing wrong with it is that its fluff is off? For any number of reasons. 1. It's not usually just the fluff that's off. 2. The wheel generally isn't the right size. If you want to make that potion-brewing alchemist wizard, obviously you're going to need to tweak some things--like the rules for spellbooks and spell memorization. You're going to need to figure out why the alchemist/wizard can't just stock up on his mixtures, and decide how you're going to reconcile, say, a swift-action potion/spell with the general rule that it takes more than a swift action to whip out and use a potion. Once you're doing all that, why wouldn't you just go ahead and produce a set of rules that actually fit the concept? Chances are, it's going to be less work than trying to fit that square peg into a round hole. 3. The "fluff" is quite often integral to the balance of the class. An Ur-Priest's main drawbacks lie in his fluff. Take those away, and you make him drastically more powerful. 4. I can see the objection to this coming: "Oh, but just do everything the way a wizard would and SAY it's potions!" That is precisely the lack of verisimilitude I try to avoid. If I'm going to have a campaign featuring potion-lobbing alchemists, I want the mechanics to reflect that, and reflect it well. I do not want to hear "Pulling out this potion is a swift action just 'cause it is." I do not want to hear "This potion only has a verbal component!" But heres an interesting question: I hear a lot the DM is the boss, and at the end of the day the DM makes the calls. Which to a certain extent that is true. BUT can you guys explain to me why this authority grants the DM the right to put their dislikes ahead of everyone else's? No, it's really not a very interesting question. The fact that you've asked it a dozen times or so doesn't make it more interesting. Neither does the fact that you've brushed off every response given and refused to accept them as valid. You have also answered that question yourself, though you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that. The DM gets to put his dislikes first, as you yourself have admitted to doing, because there are some things he just will not include in a game he's running...and, barring outright sociopathic behavior, the players can't force him to include something he doesn't want. ...but enough. I don't expect you to acknowledge that. As I said before, I see no reason to continue playing this game, so I will simply shoot it back at you. You don't believe the DM has the right to put their dislikes ahead of everyone else's. Fine. Whose likes and dislikes SHOULD win out, TPK? Don't try to weasel out of that by saying "Everybody's," because that's not always possible. Sometimes, you're going to have one person who wants X, and one person who wants Y, and those two things are going to be incompatible. Nor (I can see you reaching for this response already) is "Majority rules" always going to work. As you yourself have observed, some things are deal-breakers. In addition, sometimes you don't just have two positions. One player wants to play a Drow-hunter; another wants a campaign where the PCs are Drow; the DM doesn't want Drow at all; the other two players couldn't care less. When it comes down to a situation where everyone's wants can't be accomodated, and where there's no clear group consensus, whose wants do you think should prevail?
shadzar 07-26-07, 03:24 PM	i usually strat with the base 4 classes, which now seems to be more like a base of 44 classes wirh 44^12 prestige classes. from there i decide what role i want to play and which "subclass" if any wil facilitate that. need another meatseild then i play a fighter, want to be a walking medkit then i play a cleric, want to rob people then i play Bilbo Baggins, erm i mean a hobbit, i mean a rogue!!! otherwise i play the wizard. i don't need anything else really to play many different types of characters within those 4 classes. paladin/cavalier/etc. just s nobby well off lawful good fighter. any type of heathen from barbarian to mongul just a filthy arogant etc fighter. the other stats don't matter to me when designing my character. and tell my players the same. i actually ask them why do they want to play a wizard. then discuss it with them. the often find that being a specialist isn't as good as it sounds or wont be as fun when it gets down to it because the limits. those limits not just for the class, but the players ability to roleplay in certain times. i dont need a charater that can kill everything himself because i have other players to help with that. i want my character to be able to have his personality show trough after he is cleaned up from battle.
shadzar 07-26-07, 03:31 PM	So what if the player wanted to base his character off an anemia ANIME character, we'll that Cloud guy from final fantasy, is that metagaming? i corrected your whatever kind of mistake with the word you meant to use, but Cloud wasn't even an anime character he is a video game character, and neither belong in a D&D. see the anime D&D thread floating around here somewhere. no player should be allowed to try to create a character based off of Naruto, InuYasha, Cloud Strife, Goku, or any other video game or anime character. they jsut don't translate into D&D because the game mechanics in ALL editions are completely different from the mechanics used in those other specific universes. physics, magic, etc is all specific to the individual worlds of Naruto, InuYasha, Harry Potter, Final Fantasy series, DBZ, etc. D&D is not a tabletop cartoon, nor is it a tabletop video game.
OravennasBrother 07-26-07, 03:34 PM	So everyone who comes from the woods must be chaotic, and everyone in the cities must be lawful? I don't recall either of those being in the alignment restrictions, or that only lawful characters as a stipulation in your example. Read the SRD on the BARBARIAN Class, again a Quote Alignment: Any nonlawful. A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. He retains all the other benefits of the class (damage reduction, fast movement, trap sense, and uncanny dodge). So yes BARBARIANS CANNOT BE LAWFUL. Two; wanting to use certain mechanics to represent a character is metagaming, but choosing the character because you want to use fig X isn't? So what if the player wanted to base his character off an anemia character, we'll that Cloud guy from final fantasy, is that metagaming? He has plenty of cool picks for it. Mechanics are not related to the CONCEPT, merely to the mechanical representation of said concept. but a miniature figure represents what the character LOOKS LIKE - would Sherlock Holmes be the same if he were a short plump fellow with a mustache? What if Columbo were a snappy dresser? The visual image is central to MANY characters from fiction. "The DM should not give a reason, because they may be proven wrong." Woa, talk about a MISQUOTE. This from "A DM who states "No, because I said so," is at least not opening their campaign to some DEALBREAKER from an abusive munchkin player (with superb rhetorical skills) that will ruin the enjoyment of EVERYONE ELSE at the table." If you interpret - loses a debate = Wrong then you have a VERY different view of debate than I. It is a REGULAR OCCURRENCE in debate for someone who DOES NOT Support a particular position to WIN the debate supporting that position simply because they are GOOD AT DEBATE. To allow DEBATE SKILLS TO DICTATE THE STYLE OF THE GAME SEEMS EXCEPTIONALLY RETARDED TO ME.
Caelic 07-26-07, 03:40 PM	If you interpret - loses a debate = Wrong then you have a VERY different view of debate than I. It is a REGULAR OCCURRENCE in debate for someone who DOES NOT Support a particular position to WIN the debate supporting that position simply because they are GOOD AT DEBATE. To allow DEBATE SKILLS TO DICTATE THE STYLE OF THE GAME SEEMS EXCEPTIONALLY RETARDED TO ME. While I might wish for a bit less emphasis-by-capitalization, OravennasBrother raises a very good point, here. Let's assume for a moment that you have a group where what is and is not permitted in the campaign is decided by group consensus. The DM, being an enlightened soul, realizes that he has no right to assert his wants over those of the group, and thus, has no more say in the campaign setting than any other player. Fine. Except that, as we know, not all players are created equal. Some are very withdrawn and not good at asserting themselves; some are extremely outspoken, confident, and persuasive. Whose wants do you think the game setting is going to reflect? The quiet player who doesn't assert himself, or the expert demagogue? Sometimes, their wants might be in harmony, but what happens when they want mutually incompatible things?
Kursk 07-26-07, 03:41 PM	nor is it a tabletop video game. I have to respectfully disagree here. The designers are running hard in this direction to capture those DBZ type of customers. That's why we end up debating in this type of thread. This mind set didn't exist before 3.x, in any measurable amount.
shadzar 07-26-07, 03:56 PM	I have to respectfully disagree here. The designers are running hard in this direction to capture those DBZ type of customers. That's why we end up debating in this type of thread. This mind set didn't exist before 3.x, in any measurable amount. we already established that is the direction it seems to be going in, and if it kills me i will fight that from happening with my last breath. they should make a tabletop video game and not bastardize D&D into one. :weep:
Kursk 07-26-07, 03:59 PM	we already established that is the direction it seems to be going in, and if it kills me i will fight that from happening with my last breath. they should make a tabletop video game and not bastardize D&D into one. :weep: I know the point was made, my "disagreement" was tongue in cheek. But, I too will fight it, can't stand having a good RPG platform ruined.
solbergb 07-26-07, 04:37 PM	If you interpret - loses a debate = Wrong then you have a VERY different view of debate than I. It is a REGULAR OCCURRENCE in debate for someone who DOES NOT Support a particular position to WIN the debate supporting that position simply because they are GOOD AT DEBATE. To allow DEBATE SKILLS TO DICTATE THE STYLE OF THE GAME SEEMS EXCEPTIONALLY RETARDED TO ME. Yeah. I didn't really believe this until I did a bit of debate in highschool and won a debate after we found out 10 minutes before that one of our core assumptions was wrong. We bluffed. Our opponents didn't do their homework. Even then, because I was on the winning side of that the lesson didn't really sink in until I roomed with somebody who could ALWAYS win an argument, with any of the other roommates. It was freaking weird. We were all educated, smart, articulate people. But for him, he studied how to do this the way I studied engineering and he in addition had a natural talent for it. I once saw him switch halfway through an argument to the other side once everyone was agreeing with him, and 5 minutes later he had them agreeing with the opposite view. He was also pretty good at getting one-night-stands too (lousy in long term though. The skills for convincing people you aren't a jerk over the long haul are different). And he was only a punk in his 20s. If you wonder why our politicians can be openly corrupt and still play morality cards and get re-elected, it's because persuasion has very little to do with the facts a lot of the time. Most people are defenseless against somebody like him if they aren't armored by convictions of some kind that make them immune to persuasion. This is often religious or philosophical. Sometimes it can be something like the scientific method, which takes the discussion out of rhetoric and into things that can be objectively demonstrated. (hypothesis, repeatable experiment that tests hypothesis, change hypothesis if experiment fails or doesn't give same result when repeated by others) Without any training though, or any philosophy or methodology, you can resist any telemarketer just by hanging up and refusing to talk to them. Making yourself immune by refusing to debate is something anyone can learn. Now there is pretty much no reason to ever want to talk to a telemarketer, so that's a bit extreme. A DM should listen to his players. But if he doesn't want something in his game, he is not obligated to win a debate with the player over why. A better tactic (often used in business discussions) is to suggest alternatives that are acceptable, bouncing ideas back and forth with the player until both parties have something they can live with. Quite often the thing that is a dealbreaker for one party is not especially important to the other, but when everything is in a package (as character classes are, for example), you won't expose what element is problematic without exploring it. Going back to the barbarian example, the GM perhaps just doesn't want the rage mechanic in his civilized, courtier-oriented game. He thinks +4 to strength and con in this particular campaign is in the realm of magic, not an EX ability. Most of the other crunch barbarian has (uncanny dodge, trap sense) can be simulated with other classes - rogue coming to mind as the most obvious and likely having class abilities and skill list also more suited to his campaign. If what the player wants out of barbarian is fast movement and nature skills, scout might work better, or ranger(longstrider) or something. If the player is really stuck on getting a short duration strength buff as part of his concept, perhaps he should play a spellcaster that can cast bull's strength and bear's endurance. Take some cleric/druid or wiz/sor levels. If he just wants the d12 hit die - take a fighter level and take improved toughness. A GM may exclude monk, not wanting unarmed combat to be able to compete meaningfully with armed combat. It isn't a matter of monk being especially strong mechanically, it's a matter of not wanting fists that hit as hard as a greatclub at level 8, period, and especially not on a light armored acrobatic fighter with terrific saves. If someone wants to run a superb unarmed fighter in his campaign, he wants him to be a hulking bruiser - a strength based fighter with improved unarmed strike, weapon spec, power attack who with all that is still likely better off picking up a real weapon for most fights in spite of his feat emphasis. (this describes a lot of western european fantasy. People good at brawling were not Jackie Chan. They were more like Andre the Giant (Fezzik))
Kursk 07-26-07, 04:53 PM	Most of the other crunch barbarian has (uncanny dodge, trap sense) can be simulated with other classes - rogue coming to mind as the most obvious and likely having class abilities and skill list also more suited to his campaign. If what the player wants out of barbarian is fast movement and nature skills, scout might work better, or ranger(longstrider) or something. If the player is really stuck on getting a short duration strength buff as part of his concept, perhaps he should play a spellcaster that can cast bull's strength and bear's endurance. Take some cleric/druid or wiz/sor levels. ... This is how I do it. Players can multi-class, carefully pick feats & skills to make the character. Some things just won't happen in the campaign though, like easy arcane spell casting in Full Plate. Most ideas can be at least partially realized this way.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-26-07, 05:19 PM	In over twenty years, I have yet to see an "Anything goes" campaign which had what I would consider verisimilitude. Sorry, hearing someone say "Mine does!" isn't going to convince me; I'm sure that many of the DMs whose campaigns I've seen would've claimed the same. The fact that i can come up with one, mine in this case, shows that there is at least one case in which your dictum is false, proves that your argument is a false dictum. *Sigh* Because...in case you missed it, which you obviously did...Comus and I are discussing Mary Sues. It's possible you don't know what that term means; allow me to define it. I know what a marry sue.. were you and comos talking about marry sue all those other times you portrayed the player as being an arse to further you end argument? You have yet to show an example of the player being mature and rational, and the DM being so as well. Yes I read your: Player can i have X, DM No. Example but it is really kind of silly becuase A the player never asks the DM why, and B the DM doesn't explain why. Further the player in that example the DM very clearly gets their way. Why is a DMs fun more important then everyone else's? Show me where I ever...ever...said that. Show me where I implied it. If you insist.... People keep saying this, and it's just not true. "Reflavor" a Mage of the Arcane Order all you want; it's still a Mage of the Arcane Order, and it still doesn't fit in a campaign world where magic is a totally individualistic art. I still shake my head at the notion that the mechanics of prestige classes are somehow so sacrosanct that they're worth preserving independent of their context. If I'm going to go to the trouble of rewriting a prestige class, I'm going to rewrite the prestige class--not graft my flavor text onto mechanics that don't work all that well, simply because they're "Real Official D&D Mechanics (tm)" Ah, but that's not what your example represents, is it? Invariably, someone defines "compromise" as "Allowing the mechanics the player wants and discarding the fluff." Now, this has several things wrong with it. First is that all-pervasive assumption that flavor text is "fluff," and therefore unimportant, but mechanics are "crunch," and therefore important. This is simply not true; mechanics without their context are as worthless as the context divorced of mechanics. In many cases, they are more worthless. I could take my "fluff," apply a new rules system, and still have a campaign. If I take the mechanics and get rid of the fluff, I have...a not-particularly-brilliant set of mechanics, and no campaign. ...whereas to me, the mechanics don't have a whole lot to do with the identity of the class. A Lawful Good Ur-Priest who is devoted to his deity isn't an Ur-Priest, to me; it's Super-Cleric-Who-Gets-His-Spells-Really-Fast. and finally here: 3. The "fluff" is quite often integral to the balance of the class. An Ur-Priest's main drawbacks lie in his fluff. Take those away, and you make him drastically more powerful. Of course now you'll probably being throwing up your hands screaming strawman, or what not....but wait wouldn't calling someone a liar be considered an ad homonym attack? I'm so confused. No, it's really not a very interesting question. The fact that you've asked it a dozen times or so doesn't make it more interesting. Neither does the fact that you've brushed off every response given and refused to accept them as valid. Then why all the difficulty with answering it? So far I've gotten (And not necessarily all from you) Because thats the way it is. (Appeal to tradition.) Because a DMs fun is more important then the players. But nothing to explain why it is, or in support of that other then DMs marter themselves to the groups, and players are lucky, and privileged that someone is willing to do. Yet no response, other than more personal attacks, when its pointed out that DMs should doing the work because they want, not because they want their egos stroked, or to have the authority of being a DM. And lastly because players are too stupid and selfish, therefor they have to controlled, or the game has no verisimilitude, or consistency. As I said before, I see no reason to continue playing that game. Then why do you continue to? You already conceded the argument to me, and you keep implying that I'm too obtuse to understand you or something, yet you continue to let it get to you. Why? You don't believe the DM has the right to put their dislikes ahead of everyone else's. Fine. Whose likes and dislikes SHOULD win out, TPK? Don't try to weasel out of that by saying "Everybody's," because that's not always possible. Sometimes, you're going to have one person who wants X, and one person who wants Y, and those two things are going to be incompatible. Nor (I can see you reaching for this response already) is "Majority rules" always going to work. As you yourself have observed, some things are deal-breakers. In addition, sometimes you don't just have two positions. One player wants to play a Drow-hunter; another wants a campaign where the PCs are Drow; the DM doesn't want Drow at all; the other two players couldn't care less. When it comes down to a situation where everyone's wants can't be accomodated, and where there's no clear group consensus, whose wants do you think should prevail? Almost missed this... tricksy editing... Ok lets look at your example then shall we. DM wants no Drow, we'll assume because he dislikes them. First question we have to ask is does the DM hate them enough that any campaign with them in it is going to be unfun for him. Say if the DM were a player in another game, and there was a drow PC would he not fun because of it? To keep this from the really short answer, we assume that the DM doesn't like drow because he finds them angsty, and doesn't like the goth thing. Also he's seen far too many Drizzit clones. Now player one wants to play a drow hunter. Someone who specializes in hunting drow. Ranger with the favored enemy drow, and maybe levels in the Foe hunter PrC. Lets make it even more difficult, in his back story he wants to have his parents killed by drow, and now hunts them out of revenge. The other player just bought the underdark, and thinks that drow are really *****en. Hey an all drow party would the shizznit. We'll say that players 3 and 4 don't care, but dislike evil games. They seem pretty far off, but lets extend the negotiations a bit. Everyone was given their chance to explain, what they wanted, and what their preferences were. Well PC 2 (the drow fanboy) kinda has a bit of a camapign in mind for an all drow party. They could be rebel drow, working against the evil forces of Lloth, trying to free their kind, and recoil their differences with the surface elves. In short a party of Elistraee drow. That works for everyone except player one, and the DM. Again the DM hates drow, and player one wants his character to kill. So firstly with the DM. Player two does have a specific campaign in mind, and for the most part wants to fiddle with the underdark. So the DM agrees t DM another time, or maybe another game on a different night. And player 2 agrees to DM this one. The former DM, henceforth known as player 5, decides he would like to play a paladin. But paladins are lawful and Elistraee is chaotic. So formerly player two, hence forth referred to as the new DM, waives the UA under his nose and shows him the paladin of freedom. Works for him. The idea of a paladin drow in the party has inspired player 1. Maybe he still hates drow, but because of a life debt, or maybe just player 5's strength of character, his character is being reformed by player 5's. Maybe not all drow are evil, this one is good....And again fanatical racist wasn't central to his character. Lets make even more difficult. Players 3 and 4 aren't comfortable with a +2 level adjustment. The new DM suggests lesser drow from the PGtF, and then level buy offs from the UA. And thus everyone is happy. Its not a question of whos like are more important at all. Thus no one is put before anyone else. So to answer you question: "Whose likes and dislikes SHOULD win out, TPK? Don't try to weasel out of that by saying "Everybody's," because that's not always possible. Sometimes, you're going to have one person who wants X, and one person who wants Y, and those two things are going to be incompatible." No-ones should necessarily win out. Like wise no one should lose out either. If everybody is mature, and reasonable about it, there is no reason why they can't sit down and compromise. That way everyone gets at least something they want. Not the answer you were hoping for i know, but its hard to answer a question when you bar the answer. suppose I asked you what 12 was. But told you could not say 2 * 6, or 10 +2, or anything else that would equal 12. And truth be told, I wasn't going to say majority rules. I will however that an aggregated democracy is probably the best model to work with here. It is superior to a show of hands majority, because it encourages people to take others needs into account, before voting. Same you and 4 friends are trying to decide what to order of dinner. You want chinnesse food, and someone else wants pizza. You put it to a vote, and chinnesse food wins 4-1. Now with an aggregated from of democracy your friend would have been able to explain to you that the reason he doesn't want chinnesse food is becuase he is deathly allergic to nuts commonly used in cooking chinnesse food. Would still insist on getting your way, and order chinnesse food anyways? Furthermore, suppose you are the DM, and you have you carefully crafted setting, that took you hours. And the majority of your players decide they want to play something else. Do you as DM have a right to force your setting on them, even though they don't want to play it? Read the SRD on the BARBARIAN Class, again a Quote So yes BARBARIANS CANNOT BE LAWFUL. Thats nice. Good job with the SRD to. Now if I said barbarians could be lawful then you may have a point. However I said was not everyone in the dukes court has to be lawful, and not everyone from the backwater woods has to be chaotic. So uhmm yaa the barbarian class has to chaotic, but hat really isn't the point, nor relevant to anything I said. Oh and theres no need for shouting. Your in polite company, and well we can hear you just fine. Also the louder you yell it, doesn't make it anymore right. Or this case anymore relevant to what we're discussing. Mechanics are not related to the CONCEPT, merely to the mechanical representation of said concept. I could not have siad it better myself. So tell me then why can't I use the barbarian mechanics to present the thug concept? but a miniature figure represents what the character LOOKS LIKE - would Sherlock Holmes be the same if he were a short plump fellow with a mustache? What if Columbo were a snappy dresser? The visual image is central to MANY characters from fiction. So I'm not role playing properly when I use a gum-drop to represent the orc? OH wait I know I have to spend hundreds of dollars making sure my mini's collection is complete enough so that I have an accurate fig for every monster I choose to use? I really shouldn't have to point out the lunacy in that do I? And really whats stopping the player from discribing what his character looks like, should no such fig be available? Woa, talk about a MISQUOTE. This from "A DM who states "No, because I said so," is at least not opening their campaign to some DEALBREAKER from an abusive munchkin player (with superb rhetorical skills) that will ruin the enjoyment of EVERYONE ELSE at the table." And here we see the player is always a bastard munchkin line, again....Can you try coming up with an argument that doesn't rely on this? If you interpret - loses a debate = Wrong then you have a VERY different view of debate than I. It is a REGULAR OCCURRENCE in debate for someone who DOES NOT Support a particular position to WIN the debate supporting that position simply because they are GOOD AT DEBATE. To allow DEBATE SKILLS TO DICTATE THE STYLE OF THE GAME SEEMS EXCEPTIONALLY RETARDED TO ME. If the DMs reasoning is not sound....they should hide behind rule zero? Right thats what is therefor, how I be so mistaken in the past....seriously buddy, you mentioned something about retarded....
Caelic 07-26-07, 05:53 PM	The fact that i can come up with one, mine in this case, shows that there is at least one case in which your dictum is false, proves that your argument is a false dictum. No moreso than if I say "It's my experience that there are no little purple elves" and you say "Yes, there are: one lives in my sugarbowl." The fact that you assert that it exists isn't proof. It's neither proof that your campaign objectively demonstrates verisimilitude, nor that it demonstrates what I would subjectively consider to be verisimilitude; moreover, you have no idea of my standards, and thus, cannot knowledgeably state that your campaign meets them. Your claim therefore fails on numerous levels. I know what a marry sue.. were you and comos talking about marry sue all those other times you portrayed the player as being an arse to further you end argument? Well, first, it's "Mary Sue," not "marry sue." Second, if you know what it is, shame on you for ignoring the context of the conversation and complaining about the example, when no other example would have been appropriate or reasonable in that context. Example but it is really kind of silly becuase A the player never asks the DM why, and B the DM doesn't explain why. Further the player in that example the DM very clearly gets their way. My gosh, you're good at arguing in circles! You repeatedly demand an example where the DM doesn't provide an explanation...and when it's provided, you complain because the DM didn't provide an explanation! Of course it's silly. Asking for an example where the DM doesn't provide any explanation at all is inherently silly. If you insist... Yes, actually, I do. Let's see if you delivered. Well, no. No, you didn't. That's really not surprising. The first quote you list is an example of one specific prestige class where reflavoring it will not make it fit in one specific campaign world. It was a disproof by example, in order to refute the claim that any prestige class can be reflavored to fit anything. In the second example, I dismiss the notion that mechanics, all by themselves, are so valuable that people should bend over backwards to maintain them; if you're going to change the fluff, you might as well change the mechanics, too. In the third and fourth, I discuss the consequences of changing the fluff--which logically presupposes that the fluff can be changed. So, have you proven this claim? ...someone who is claiming to a fantasy author is telling us that we have to take the flavor of all classes as set forth by WoTC, and coming up with our own is impossible. No. You have not. I never said anything of the kind. The quotes you chose to list as "proof" aren't even in the ballpark. Of course now you'll probably being throwing up your hands screaming strawman, or what not....but wait wouldn't calling someone a liar be considered an ad homonym attack? I'm so confused. Not when the person is, in fact, lying. Then it's a statement of fact. You claimed that I said "...we have to take the flavor of all classes as set forth by WoTC, and coming up with our own is impossible." This was clearly false. I never said that, and I never implied it. I will, however, give you the last bit of benefit of the doubt I can manage: I will assume that you were merely wrong, and not deliberately lying. (Oh, and it's "ad hominem." "Hominem" means "person"; "homonym" means "a word that is spelled and pronounced the same as another.") Then why all the difficulty with answering it? So far I've gotten (And not necessarily all from you) There is no difficulty in answering it. You just don't like the answers. I truly don't believe anyone could possibly provide you with an answer to this that would satisfy you. Then why do you continue to? You already conceded the argument to me, and you keep implying that I'm too obtuse to understand you or something, yet you continue to let it get to you. Why? Sloppy debate, logical fallacies, and a priori reasoning aggravate me; I freely acknowledge it. The moreso when the person doing the sloppy arguing is fabricating positions I never took. I'm certainly not going to sit back and let you make up what you like and claim that I said it. Ok lets look at your example then shall we. DM wants no Drow, we'll assume because he dislikes them. First question we have to ask is does the DM hate them enough that any campaign with them in it is going to be unfun for him. Say if the DM were a player in another game, and there was a drow PC would he not fun because of it? How often is a DM honestly going to say, "I dislike it, but it's not going to make the game less fun for me?" Let's be real, here. If a DM dislikes something enough to ban it from a game, that's a pretty good indicator that he thinks it's going to make the game unfun for him. To keep this from the really short answer, we assume that the DM doesn't like drow because he finds them angsty, and doesn't like the goth thing. Also he's seen far too many Drizzit clones. You assume a whole lot. I sense an evasion of the question coming up, probably "Everyone's happiness should be put first." Let's see if I'm right. (Seven freaking paragraphs of "Suppose this happens, and then this happens, and then this player says this and the other player does this" later...) ...And thus everyone is happy. Dingdingding! We have evasion of the question! Its not a question of whos like are more important at all. Thus no one is put before anyone else. So to answer you question: "Whose likes and dislikes SHOULD win out, TPK? Don't try to weasel out of that by saying "Everybody's," because that's not always possible. Sometimes, you're going to have one person who wants X, and one person who wants Y, and those two things are going to be incompatible." No-ones should necessarily win out. Like wise no one should lose out either. If everybody is mature, and reasonable about it, there is no reason why they can't sit down and compromise. That way everyone gets at least something they want. Not the answer you were hoping for i know, but its hard to answer a question when you bar the answer. suppose I asked you what 12 was. But told you could not say 2 * 6, or 10 +2, or anything else that would equal 12. So in response to the question, "In a situation where everybody can't get what they want, what should happen?" you answer "Everybody should get what they want." Thank you very much. And truth be told, I wasn't going to say majority rules. I will however that an aggregated democracy is probably the best model to work with here. It is superior to a show of hands majority, because it encourages people to take others needs into account, before voting. Same you and 4 friends are trying to decide what to order of dinner. You want chinnesse food, and someone else wants pizza. You put it to a vote, and chinnesse food wins 4-1. Now with an aggregated from of democracy your friend would have been able to explain to you that the reason he doesn't want chinnesse food is becuase he is deathly allergic to nuts commonly used in cooking chinnesse food. Would still insist on getting your way, and order chinnesse food anyways? Ah. So when you say "I wasn't going to say "Majority rules," what you MEAN is "I was going to say "Majority rules, but the votes shouldn't be conducted in silence." Who takes a vote on dinner with no discussion at all? What's the counterexample to your "aggregated version of democracy?" Do you seriously envision a set-up where the guy with allergies is somehow silenced before he can say "Hey, guys, I'm allergic to Chinese food?" Or where the group, once informed of the allergy, says "Tough, we're getting Chinese anyway and you have to eat it?" At most, there might be a situation where they say "We'll get Chinese, and you get pizza." Even that's unlikely if the guy's that deathly allergic to nuts. And, of course, NONE of this is in any way useful as an analogy for a gaming campaign. I sincerely hope you won't try to use it as one, because trotting out a life-or-death situation and attempting to compare it to a discussion of what gets included in the campaign is, frankly, both wildly overwrought and a bit insulting to people who actually have to deal with such allergies. Whether or not a group of friends would give in to minority wishes in a situation where NOT giving in would result in death or hospitalization has very, very little to do with whether they would give in to the minority wishes in a situation where not giving in would result in the minority having to choose another character class. Furthermore, suppose you are the DM, and you have you carefully crafted setting, that took you hours. Uhm. Try "weeks." If you can craft a game setting in hours, then I know it doesn't have what I would consider verisimilitude. And the majority of your players decide they want to play something else. Do you as DM have a right to force your setting on them, even though they don't want to play it? How, exactly, would I "force" a setting on them? If they don't want to play it, they don't want to play it, and there's nothing I can do to force them. I have neither the right nor the ability to "force my setting on them," but they also do not have the right to expect me to go back and produce a new setting. Do you believe that, if the DM offers up such a setting and the players say "No, thanks," he should be free to say "Okay, I guess I'm not DMing, then?" Do you feel that he is a jerk or a bad DM if he does?
Caelic 07-26-07, 06:40 PM	I'll be honest with you, TPK. It's not so much what you're arguing. I don't think there are more than two or three points of factual disagreement between us. It's the way you're arguing that's got my hackles up. If you could lay off the following: 1. Misrepresenting the positions of others 2. Denigration by implication 3. Using the same questionable tactics and fallacies you complain about in others ...I think I could do the same. I'd certainly try. As it is, I've let my own responses get considerably more snide and personal than I'm really comfortable with, and I think it's time to put a stop to that.
Alyri 07-26-07, 07:37 PM	Caelic, that was a hero's feast of reading goodness
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-26-07, 07:54 PM	I'll be honest with you, TPK. It's not so much what you're arguing. I don't think there are more than two or three points of factual disagreement between us. It's the way you're arguing that's got my hackles up. If you could lay off the following: 1. Misrepresenting the positions of others 2. Denigration by implication 3. Using the same questionable tactics and fallacies you complain about in others ...I think I could do the same. I'd certainly try. As it is, I've let my own responses get considerably more snide and personal than I'm really comfortable with, and I think it's time to put a stop to that. Ok. I think I should restate my position, as I fear it has become mired in sloppy arguing. 1) DMs and players have an equal right to have fun. 2) Players should consider the DMs fun when making their characters,requesting things. 3) The DM should consider the players fun when dis/allowing things. 4) No one person at the table is more important than any other person, thus whenever possible discussion and comprise should prevail. What I'm trying to get away from is the DMs stance of, "It's my game, walk if you don't like it." And the players stance of, "If you don't run what I like, I'm walking." I think there is room for comprise on both sides, and if everyone gives a little, then everyone can get at least some of what they like. Granted some people have things they absolutely hate. And some people have things they just can't live with out. If a situation should happen to arise were one person absolutely hates something someone else can't life with out, then maybe they need to find to different groups. But I think those situations are rare. I started this thread in response to those, "Your DM is a moron, for not letting play X. Druids are soooo much better." answers you see on those my DM won't let me play X threads.
Kursk 07-26-07, 08:00 PM	Granted some people have things they absolutely hate. And some people have things they just can't live with out. If a situation should happen to arise were one person absolutely hates something someone else can't life with out, then maybe they need to find to different groups. But I think those situations are rare. I agree with this part. But, DMs because of the amount of work (usually, not always the case) have more importance than the "average" player. All other things being equal that is.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-26-07, 08:51 PM	I agree with this part. But, DMs because of the amount of work (usually, not always the case) have more importance than the "average" player. All other things being equal that is. But what about a DM who uses premade mods, and a published campaign world?
Caelic 07-26-07, 08:54 PM	But what about a DM who uses premade mods, and a published campaign world? There's still prep time, modification to take the specific DM's party into account, and so forth. There's a term for a DM whose entire campaign consists of prepackaged modules which he runs cold without prep and without consideration: "Bad."
Caelic 07-26-07, 09:07 PM	Ok. I think I should restate my position, as I fear it has become mired in sloppy arguing. 1) DMs and players have an equal right to have fun. Agreed. But an equal right to have fun does not equal or necessitate equal decision-making power or equal say in all aspects of the campaign. Players and DMs have fun in different ways. The player typically has fun by killing opponents, gaining wealth and power, and developing his character through roleplaying. The DM also develops characters through roleplaying, but can't afford to get as attached to any one NPC as the players do to their PCs; that route leads to "DMPCs." Gaining power is a moot point to him, as he can create an NPC at any power level he chooses. Heaven help the campaign if the DM sees the players as opponents and has his fun by killing them. The DM's fun, therefore, primarily comes from the satisfaction of a well-crafted world. Here, finally, is your answer. The DM has more power in creating the world because he needs more power in this area in order to do the things that are fun for him. A player doesn't need to be able to decide which races occupy the Snagglespine Mountains in order to kill opponents, gain wealth, and roleplay his character. A DM does need to be able to make these decisions in order to do his job as DM...which should be fun for him, and, if he does it well, make it possible for the players to have fun. 2) Players should consider the DMs fun when making their characters,requesting things. How far should this go? Shouldn't a player at least be willing to try to make a character within the specified parameters of the campaign? 3) The DM should consider the players fun when dis/allowing things. How far should this go? Obviously, the DM isn't going to build a campaign that he thinks the players will hate; that's totally counterproductive. He also can't anticipate everything they're going to want and not want, though. There's also the question of new campaigns versus established campaigns. Most of the discussion thus far has assumed a brand-new campaign with a new group. How does the dynamic change when a new player comes into an existing, long-term campaign? Should his input on what he wants to see in the campaign immediately hold equal weight with the DM? With the other, long-term players? 4) No one person at the table is more important than any other person, thus whenever possible discussion and comprise should prevail. How does the above scenario impact this? If a group has been playing an established campaign for three years, and a new player comes in with ideas and wants that would significantly change it, how much is the existing group obliged to compromise? To what extent should they be willing to alter the gameworld to accomodate a new arrival? What I'm trying to get away from is the DMs stance of, "It's my game, walk if you don't like it." ...which is about the worst way, I think, it can possibly be worded. The truth, though, is that there are players who aren't going to like my style of DMing. Why is it a bad thing if they wind up at another table, and not mine? They're happier; I'm happier. Isn't that what this is all about?
shadzar 07-26-07, 09:15 PM	The DM also develops characters through roleplaying, but can't afford to get as attached to any one NPC as the players do to their PCs; that route leads to "DMPCs." Gaining power is a moot point to him, as he can create an NPC at any power level he chooses. Heaven help the campaign if the DM sees the players as opponents and has his fun by killing them. yeah cause then he would always be on_the_verge_of_TPK. :rofl:
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-26-07, 09:45 PM	Agreed. But an equal right to have fun does not equal or necessitate equal decision-making power or equal say in all aspects of the campaign. Agreed the DM still needs the authority to make discions. But this should not be used irresponsibly.It should be done so that the game is better over all, and not just better for the DM. The DM's fun, therefore, primarily comes from the satisfaction of a well-crafted world. Here, finally, is your answer. The DM has more power in creating the world because he needs more power in this area in order to do the things that are fun for him. A player doesn't need to be able to decide which races occupy the Snagglespine Mountains in order to kill opponents, gain wealth, and roleplay his character. A DM does need to be able to make these decisions in order to do his job as DM...which should be fun for him, and, if he does it well, make it possible for the players to have fun. Thats true to an extent, and probally for a lot of DMs out there. I certainly derive a lot of enjoyment out this, however I get more from actually playing the game, interacting with the PCs. Watching them work out my puzzles, and the surprised look on their faces when a plot twist nails them. Seeing them having a lot fun, and knowing that it was because of my efforts, to me anyways, is where I get most of my fun from. How far should this go? Shouldn't a player at least be willing to try to make a character within the specified parameters of the campaign? I think when combined with this: The DM's fun, therefore, primarily comes from the satisfaction of a well-crafted world. Here, finally, is your answer. The DM has more power in creating the world because he needs more power in this area in order to do the things that are fun for him. A player doesn't need to be able to decide which races occupy the Snagglespine Mountains in order to kill opponents, gain wealth, and roleplay his character. A DM does need to be able to make these decisions in order to do his job as DM...which should be fun for him, and, if he does it well, make it possible for the players to have fun. Taking the DMs fun into consideration, and making a character that fits within the campaign are very similar. But it really depends on the DM and the player in question, and much either is willing to comprise. How far should this go? Obviously, the DM isn't going to build a campaign that he thinks the players will hate; that's totally counterproductive. He also can't anticipate everything they're going to want and not want, though. All too true. And that is were discussion, consideration, and negotiation come into play. Maybe what the player could be slipped in. Maybe it could be reflavored, or tweaked to fit. Again this is coming to largerly depend on the DM and players. Most of the time things can be worked out so that everybody is happy enough to play. Sometimes not. When it comes to setting, I feel the first thing is for the player to try and make something that fits within the setting. But if what they really want to play doesn't fit it smoothly then they have work with the DM to make it fit. And hey sometimes somethings just don't fit. Life goes on. There's also the question of new campaigns versus established campaigns. Most of the discussion thus far has assumed a brand-new campaign with a new group. How does the dynamic change when a new player comes into an existing, long-term campaign? Should his input on what he wants to see in the campaign immediately hold equal weight with the DM? With the other, long-term players? Like everything else it depends on the campaign in question. Maybe what the players could added to an area that is undefined, or a new area added. Maybe what they want just isn't feasible. Although I do believe that a new player should be given adequate consideration when expressing their likes. And those likes should be dismissed out of hand (assuming their reasonable). However they can not expect a long time existing group to change everything just to suit them. Lets look at that winged elf example: Maybe the winged elves all live in a secluded valley somewere, and it is very rare of them to travel. The PC has to except that he is unique, and may be distrusted thus having to hide his wings. Or maybe hes not, but he will be very unlikely to meet anymore of his kind. Or maybe he is a mutant and thus the only one of his kind. Or maybe there are no winged elves in the setting, and he has to get over it. It really does depend on the group, and the campaign in question. Other then saying, everyone should consider everyone else's fun, there are no hard and fast rules, since each game is different. How does the above scenario impact this? If a group has been playing an established campaign for three years, and a new player comes in with ideas and wants that would significantly change it, how much is the existing group obliged to compromise? To what extent should they be willing to alter the gameworld to accomodate a new arrival? Really depends on what he is asking for, how they feel about it, and how flexible the campaign world is. Take my group for example, we've playing in Ebberon for while now. We wouldn't be willing to change to FR. But, I might consider allowing an incanatrix depending on how they asked for it. "I think their really cool, and have this cool back story involving magic experiments, accidental planar travel, and even a car chase! can I please play it?" Comes across a lot better then, "I wanna play it now, *****!" ...which is about the worst way, I think, it can possibly be worded. The truth, though, is that there are players who aren't going to like my style of DMing. Why is it a bad thing if they wind up at another table, and not mine? They're happier; I'm happier. Isn't that what this is all about? Thats certainly true, some players just shouldn't play in some games. And there isn't anything wrong with that. I just think that we should try and recoil our differences before deciding we're incompatable. I mean I may be willing to give on what you feel is the deal breaker, perhaps I only wanted one thing from the class, or maybe the flavor it brought with it. "Its my game, take it or leave it." Is the worst way of wording it, but I also feel that voting with your feet so to speak is the worst way to let a DM knowing you have a problem with their game.
Caelic 07-26-07, 11:43 PM	Other then saying, everyone should consider everyone else's fun, there are no hard and fast rules, since each game is different. I guess maybe this is why my perspective differs; I'm used to running campaigns where players come and go over the course of several years. When I consider everyone else's fun, that doesn't just cover the players sitting at the table right now; it also covers the players who may be playing a year from now, three years from now, five years from now. Consequently, I put a very high value on the long-term integrity of the campaign. I would be extremely reluctant to use the ever-popular "Oh, and a new continent was just discovered where there are ninjas, and look, here comes one now."
Kursk 07-27-07, 01:03 AM	But what about a DM who uses premade mods, and a published campaign world? If you read my post it covers that. I'm talking a typical home brew DMing scenario.
Comus 07-27-07, 01:10 AM	You know, since Caelic doesn't want to claim to be a fantasy author, I think I should step in and do so. So, everyone - I am a fantasy author. Not someone who fantasizes about being an author, mind you, though the two are similar when the market is down. Anyway, I have to agree that the GM puts more work into the game than the players. On the other hand, it can be argued that being the GM means playing a totally different game than everyone else. But I guess that's neither here nor there.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-27-07, 01:25 AM	I guess maybe this is why my perspective differs; I'm used to running campaigns where players come and go over the course of several years. When I consider everyone else's fun, that doesn't just cover the players sitting at the table right now; it also covers the players who may be playing a year from now, three years from now, five years from now. Consequently, I put a very high value on the long-term integrity of the campaign. I would be extremely reluctant to use the ever-popular "Oh, and a new continent was just discovered where there are ninjas, and look, here comes one now." Maybe not a hole continent, but what about a secluded monestary on a mountain somewhere? Kinda were Batman learned his ninja skills in Batman begins. Or perhaps the new player could use the rogue's/assassin's flavor, with a ninjas skills?
Caelic 07-27-07, 02:04 AM	You know, since Caelic doesn't want to claim to be a fantasy author, I think I should step in and do so. So, everyone - I am a fantasy author. Not someone who fantasizes about being an author, mind you, though the two are similar when the market is down. Well, I don't think I'd call myself a "fantasy author" in any case. I'm an author; my publications include some work for various fantasy roleplaying games. I actually shy away from writing fantasy fiction, simply because bad fantasy is so easy to write and good fantasy is so hard. But, hey, remember how you tell the amateurs from the pros at a con party. The amateurs are italking about story ideas. The pros are talking about contracts. ;)
Caelic 07-27-07, 02:09 AM	Maybe not a hole continent, but what about a secluded monestary on a mountain somewhere? Kinda were Batman learned his ninja skills in Batman begins. Or perhaps the new player could use the rogue's/assassin's flavor, with a ninjas skills? Before I'd consider that, I'd want to know why. Why is it that none of what's available in the campaign world currently...including, mind you, quite a number of races and prestige classes that are entirely unique to the setting...is satisfactory? Why does the player feel he simply must play a ninja? What is there about the ninja that's so uniquely gratifying that it merits the effort? You've talked at length about the DM's obligation to explain why something should be disallowed, TPK; I see it differently. In my eyes, it falls to the player to explain why it should be allowed--particularly when he's requesting changes to a well-established campaign. There, the default answer to "Why should it be disallowed?" is "Because we know for a fact that the campaign works well without it; we don't know for a fact that the campaign will work well once it's added."
loaba 07-27-07, 02:14 AM	the default answer to "Why should it be disallowed?" is "Because we know for a fact that the campaign works well without it; we don't know for a fact that the campaign will work well once it's added." :rolleyes: Christ, you make it sound so serious, like the fate of the free world rides on the decision to allow X.
Alyri 07-27-07, 02:47 AM	:rolleyes: Christ, you make it sound so serious, like the fate of the free world rides on the decision to allow X. Maybe the fate of the campaign world does? Ever write up a full campaign world? You realize how much extra work the Dm has to do to add something new?
High Octane 07-27-07, 04:48 AM	Reading the last page........I have no idea what exactly everyone is debating. Except the other person and that their points are invalid (not even mentioning what they are)
KismetRose 07-27-07, 05:03 AM	This thread has got me thinking and since it's nice and quiet, I think I'll ride this train where it's headed. It is very important to me to be fair to my players; they are some of my very best friends and I love watching them have fun. It is also very important to me to be fair to myself. I have to take my own desires, abilities, and limitations into account when I run. My players have looked to me to provide them with various things, not just an interpretation of the rules. For example: they have looked to me to provide them with a setting they can believe in, a world that they can experience as much as possible and affect by their actions. At the same time, I have discovered that my settings have boundaries and consequences, as well as flaws and grit; I cannot buy into shiny happy worlds. So we compromise - I give them as much as I can and work as hard as I can to make the world come alive, make the people breathe, and make their adventures matter, but I do it in my own way. They know this and accept it, and come back for more. My players look to me to make a lot of decisions and I do based on many things, including my own desires. Generally speaking, I am the most reliable and organized DM of us and if I don't run, we don't tend to play. At the same time, I know full well that if I am inflexible, disrespectful of them, or if they cannot respect my judgment calls, then I will have no one to play with. They bring stuff to the table, to be sure, but I also bring a great deal. I work on the game far more than they ever have or will. I put my free time into it, though my free time has become more difficult to come by, and I'm not getting paid to do it. In a way, it's like giving everyone a gift, including myself, because I love it but also because it's what I have to give. I don't have the money to take them out or buy them presents, but I have NPCs and stories and all the rest to build fun times for them. They don't have to like my gift, though I very much hope they will. And I'm not obligated to give anyone anything or to accept abuse in return for a kindly gift. So we are equals engaged in exchange and since it is up to me to make so many choices, I will do so to the best of my ability. I have various reasons for limiting book selection, and I don't mind explaining them to players. The first is that I have limitations and though I try to overcome them, I do not apologize for having them. My time and energy are usually split between work, school, home, and gaming; I am only human and can only do so much. There is only so much that I can give to gaming; I cannot spend lots of time reading various books, and I cannot spend my cash on buying many. I need to be able to understand various elements well enough to run them. I need to be able to read about them and think about their implications before inducting them into the game. While I do try to look at things that are brought to my attention, if I cannot deal with them enough, I will probably not add them to the game. It is difficult to take something back once it's been given. There is also a definite feel to a given campaign, a flavor that we all enjoy. Our main D&D game does not have guns, for example; they definitely do not fit with our conception of the setting. If someone didn't agree, I wouldn't simply allow guns because they had an objection. It would warrant further thought. If I felt - and the others felt - that the element could be integrated well, then I'd be inclined to allow it or compromise about it. But I do run worlds with limits and boundaries. I do cultivate a particular flavor for each campaign. If someone wants to play something else, we can certainly talk about switching to another system or genre. I keep the balance of power in mind as much as possible. That's why, before I allow a class, I want to get to know it as much as I can. I want to compare it to other classes and get an idea of how it might fit in the group at hand. If it stands out as being overpowered, I'll disallow it most likely, but I might try to alter it if I think I can do a good job of it. I want to be able to really look at something before allowing it and I don't feel that's too much to ask. There's no one true way to decide what is or isn't too powerful; this is my way, and I try to be as fair as possible. I also base my decisions on my experiences. Most of my players have worked with me to add things, and their requests have been relatively simple and reasonable. A former player asked me to look at elements from all over the place and though he asked nicely, he wasn't interested in telling me how the campaign could be improved. He was far less concerned about flavor and plot hooks, and far more interested in gaining as many advantages as he could get away with. This actually hurt him in the long run since he tended to overbalance characters in one or two areas - if they couldn't use their usual tactics, he was lost as to what to do. I allowed him a few things he asked for because I was trying to be fair and inviting, but what he really needed was to be told no. It would have been more helpful for the entire group, in fact. So I won't be making that mistake again. And at the end of the day, we all have to enjoy the game to keep it fun and running. Everyone's fun is important, but as I see it, everyone's fun is going to be necessarily limited by the very nature of things. One of my players, for example, can enjoy very dark games; the others don't like to go as dark as he does. So I compromise between them. Many things are like that; someone, at some time, is not going to like something that's done or not done. Their fun is going to be temporarily impeded, at least to some extent. How does the song go? "You can't always get what you want." But as long as there's a balance and fun wins out, games tend to go well. So as I see it, it's really a game of give, take, and compromise, as well as moments of fun, less fun, and sometimes not so fun. I accept all parts of that because the fun moments are so very fun. My players do too. If someone doesn't accept that, or can't, or won't, there are other folks they can find to play with. I strive to do the best I can when I game (as well as in other arenas of my life). Gaming is important to me. Helps me recover Sanity points. So if I sit down with a player reasonably and respectfully and outline my reasons for a decision, I put all my cards on the table. They can continue to play or fold, but by that point, they're seeing all I've got.
shadzar 07-27-07, 06:45 AM	Or perhaps the new player could use the rogue's/assassin's flavor, with a ninjas skills? flavor doesn't matter when a class is disallowed. the class is disallowed because the "skill set" is what doesn't fit most times. again i wil use the barbarian example. if there were no clans of barbarians for the known history of the world, then there would be no one to "teach" a new barbarian. this also applies to ninjas, monks, psionicists, etc. that is not to say there aren't dirty and very upset fighters out there. this doesn't just go for a ceratin class. in a recent campaign i played a kender outside of dragonlance. the explanation for this and another kender being their was never given no matter how many times i asked the DM. the only answer was a nod in the direction of: i wanted a kender. the other kender had not been playing one as a kender would be expected to be played. (annoying/childish) but was just playing a halfling thief. and finally he is a bit of a sadistic DM. he tries for TPKs at times, but has such poor dice rolls most often he rearely damages the party. :( no what if i was running a dark sun campaign and someone wanted to run around in full plate. i wouldn't let them because of how the world works. metal is rare, it would be like wearing an oven and the number of checks needed to allow this character to atuo-buy the items like the PHB alludes to would be time consuming and wasteful to other players. how about seeing a spelljammer in any game? not is space travel isn't going to be a part of the campaign. why? because if for some reason the players trvel to another world, there are ways to get the directly there without the use of outer space. it also isn't just the DMs do more work, they do the same amount of work as the entire group of players, but the player divide them work they do betwen them, while the DM is only one person. this may sound like an odd way to say it, but one i have used in the past and people understood quickly because the DM is allways "playing" unless the party need to converse amongst themselves, while the playes must takes turns. and the DM also has to do work outside the sessions. maybe i didn't explain that last bit completely correctly, but i just woke up so pardon any confusion, i will explain it later is its confusing, or just ignore my DM-work bit. after reading KismetRose's post i thought a bit and it made me think of another question. Why would the player want to play X class, as the running example of something to disallow? has this player talked to the rest of the party to see what the party may be lacking if it is a new player to the gorup? if they are starting out together and creating their characters, does this class complete the party or offer something lacking the other payers don't have? how do the other players fel about this class being in their party? the purpose ofplayer is for a gourp of player as inndividuals to work as one. (it hink this is where i was going with the DM-work thing above and with coofee has helping me flesh it out a bit.) this single entity that has independant parts must overcome the challenges presented by the DM. and the saying goes you are only as strong as your weakest link, so if the player playing for himself or for the group? no matter how i disliked the concept of heal-sit-med-stand-heal-wash rinse repeat, it was the purpose of a cleric in Everquest. this didn't mean i wasn't able to also cast my damaging spells even though sometimes people didn't ike it, but it was needed at tiems to keep me from being bored and to keep the party alive based on the amount of "mana" required to cast the spells. a finishing blow that required less mana to the one creature that was dong the most damage, or heal a character that was taking damage from said monster quicker than i could kill it while their focus was on something else. so do players no longer make characters as a group or the group itself ever asked if this character will benefit the party? not saying htat just because a certain class will benefit the party does it mean the DM will all of a sudden allow it where it has previously been disallowed. i just haven't seen any mention of it. of course this goes for item, feats, etc found in random splat books that not every player has access to.
OravennasBrother 07-27-07, 09:23 AM	You know, since Caelic doesn't want to claim to be a fantasy author, I think I should step in and do so. So, everyone - I am a fantasy author. To avoid dissent (people believing you are really a teenager claiming to be a fantasy author) perhaps you could provide a link to your home webpage. The one where you list your novels shorts and upcoming projects. That request has relevance because I have met some fantasy authors (conventions, book-signings etc.) and have a pretty fair idea of how they would respond to the following question. After finishing a solid novel you send it to the editor. Your novel has no dragon, but the editor calls/writes back with 'we need to put a dragon on the cover can you add a dragon to your story?' Would you put in the dragon? Please understand that, in this case inserting a Dragon would be highly detrimental to the story. Why should a DM have a different answer just because someone wants to play X?
Roog 07-27-07, 09:51 AM	After finishing a solid novel you send it to the editor. Your novel has no dragon, but the editor calls/writes back with 'we need to put a dragon on the cover can you add a dragon to your story?' Would you put in the dragon? Please understand that, in this case inserting a Dragon would be highly detrimental to the story. Why should a DM have a different answer just because someone wants to play X? If the GM's story is good enough to be published, but not flexible enough for some small changes, then I would be happy to read it, and role play something else. Role playing requires some flexibility in order to play well. It does not require enough flexibility to allow every possible PC concept (so some requests will be denied). For an arbitrary X, the answer to "Why should a DM have a different answer just because someone wants to play X?" is "Its a roleplaying game". For a more specific answer X needs to be categorized or more specific.
Count_Chumleigh 07-27-07, 12:14 PM	To avoid dissent (people believing you are really a teenager claiming to be a fantasy author) perhaps you could provide a link to your home webpage. The one where you list your novels shorts and upcoming projects. That request has relevance because I have met some fantasy authors (conventions, book-signings etc.) and have a pretty fair idea of how they would respond to the following question. After finishing a solid novel you send it to the editor. Your novel has no dragon, but the editor calls/writes back with 'we need to put a dragon on the cover can you add a dragon to your story?' Would you put in the dragon? Please understand that, in this case inserting a Dragon would be highly detrimental to the story. Why should a DM have a different answer just because someone wants to play X? The obvious answer to the first question--the author question--is to put the damn dragon in. Put five dragons in if you have to, and make them all do a dance. Hell, just go ahead and make every character a dragon, and then introduce a regular human from Oklahoma City as something "exotic" if that's what the publisher wants. To publishers, writers are a necessary evil. If they can make money selling books without any author being involved at all, they will; just look at coffee table books. So you, as a writer, need to do whatever you can to keep the publishers happy, because you are like unto a roach to them: for every writer a publisher sees, there are ten more in the walls, and they all carry diseases. The reason it's different for DMs is that, well, DMs don't get paid. D&D is a hobby, something you necessarily aren't required to do, unlike writing for a professional writer. The moment the players start making the same demands of a DM as a publisher makes of one of its writers is the moment that DM, if he has any sand to him at all, finds or makes a new group. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh P.S. Is it obvious that I tried writing for a bit before law school?
Comus 07-27-07, 12:18 PM	To avoid dissent (people believing you are really a teenager claiming to be a fantasy author) perhaps you could provide a link to your home webpage. The one where you list your novels shorts and upcoming projects. I don't have one. That was supposed to be sarcasm, for the lulz, etc. School newspapers aside, I've only gotten one book published, and as it's under my real name I really have no way of proving I (Comus) wrote it. If you'd like a link to the publisher, though, I'll happily provide it. :) That request has relevance because I have met some fantasy authors (conventions, book-signings etc.) and have a pretty fair idea of how they would respond to the following question. Why should a DM have a different answer just because someone wants to play X? Honestly, there's a big difference between a book and a D&D campaign. A book is (usually) one person creating every aspect of the story, with no chance of deviation or change - you don't get a different ending every time you read Hamlet. A D&D campaign, though, is collaborative fiction with at least some of the story determined by random chance - every time you run Red Hand of Doom, it's going to be different. I've never suggested that people should be allowed to play something where the fluff violates the campaign. A viking doesn't fit in an oriental game, for instance. But the mechanics of classes are different - a character with the Barbarian class can fit just fine in the oriental game in a variety of concepts, from the wild boy raised by animals to the ronin who doesn't care much for self-defense.
Caelic 07-27-07, 12:23 PM	:rolleyes: Christ, you make it sound so serious, like the fate of the free world rides on the decision to allow X. The fate of the free world? No. On the other hand, I've kept this particular campaign running for a good many years, and I'm rather attached to it. One bad decision might not bring the whole thing tumbling down, true, but a series of bad decisions could...or at least, could result in altering the flavor to the point where it's no longer the same campaign. The only way to ensure that that series of bad decisions doesn't happen is to try to avoid making bad decisions. Put another way: I know my way works. Why should I change it?
UltimateReality 07-27-07, 01:09 PM	Crap. Wife forgot to log herself off...again...
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-27-07, 01:11 PM	Maybe the fate of the campaign world does? Ever write up a full campaign world? You realize how much extra work the Dm has to do to add something new? Yes, I do. And yes I do. So does most of my group for that matter. When we do play in a setting of my design, and crafting, and a player wants something that isn't in there. I first get them to explain why everything that is in there doesn't work. Probably the same way that Cealic does. And assuming they make a good enough case for it, not hard, but not easy. I get them to find a way to insert it. So going back to the ninja example. Assuming there wasn't anything close to the mechanics of turning invisible with all the rogue skills. (Note an Arcane trickster could do the job just as well, but i don't know if those are in the campaign or not.) Firstly we'll say the player really wants the assassin's flavor of a character who can disappear in a cloud of smoke. The smoke pellets are easy enough, but the hiding in plain sight, that takes some doing. So the player makes a case for the ninja's mechanics. And we'll pretend for the sake of argument that it blows our socks off, and we decide to let him have. I would then have the player draw up the secluded Monastery, in its entirety. How members are accepted, and what they do, etc. That should as good as his back story, and his original argument to get it in. Then I'll work with him to find a mountain somewhere where it will fit. The fate of the free world? No. On the other hand, I've kept this particular campaign running for a good many years, and I'm rather attached to it. One bad decision might not bring the whole thing tumbling down, true, but a series of bad decisions could...or at least, could result in altering the flavor to the point where it's no longer the same campaign. pencils have erasers for this vary reason. If you put something into the world, and it doesn't work out, then by all means take it out. The only way to ensure that that series of bad decisions doesn't happen is to try to avoid making bad decisions. Put another way: I know my way works. Why should I change it? If things do not grow, and adapt to change, they become stagnant, and die. You said yourself your group changes over the years. What was fun for the group you had 5 years ago, may not be as fun for the group you have now. Different players, different tastes. Another reason could be that after having played in a campaign for years, and years, it may seem routine, and begin to dull. Lose it's initial shine, and luster. Perhaps adding something new, or minor changes here or there could revive that out shine, bring new life to it. And of course you may just not have thought of the new player when making the world. Understandable he wasn't in your group then, but he is now. His request isn't all that unreasonable, and it wouldn't require too much change. Just something small over in a corner. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but it sure would mean a lot to him.
shadzar 07-27-07, 01:22 PM	~exact copy of UltimateReality's previous post on page 17~ so why copy and paste another users post? are you implying something by it or what?
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-27-07, 02:19 PM	so why copy and paste another users post? are you implying something by it or what? Firstly I'm not copying and pasting another users post. I copying and pasting my post, that posted, in error, under another users name. I would have thought the message: "Crap wife didn't log out...again." should have clarified that. But I guess some posters aren't quiet quick enough on the up take to undertsand it, so I'll spell it out for them. Ultimatereality is my wife. As such, being a married couple, we live together. And because we live together we share a computer. Now normally we're pretty good about logging each other off before we post. Occasionally we miss something, we post under the others user name. Mistakes happen, and I won't dwell on it. However when they occur we correct it. In this case editing her post, by deleting it. And then reposting it under my login. Not that difficult of a concept to grasp, really. Am I implying anything by it? Sure I'm implying that I am not ultimate reality. Maybe we, being different people, have different views? Or perhaps I feel it would confusing if I were to post under her login, and not my own? But seriously, why is this big deal. I didn't look to see who was logged on when I posted. **** happens.
OravennasBrother 07-27-07, 02:20 PM	School newspapers aside, I've only gotten one book published, and as it's under my real name I really have no way of proving I (Comus) wrote it. Too bad, it would be nice to have a real live PROVABLE fantasy author on the boards. After seeing people with very limited understanding of momentum claiming to be PhD particle Physicists, others with no clue about 12th century England claiming to have a PhD in Medieval European History, and yet another claiming to be a game designer with decades of experience (but nothing recent unless covered by NDA) many readers might be leery of taking a claim like that (fantasy author) at face value. Then such a doubter might decide that nothing claimed could be trusted, unless independently verifiable. I've never suggested that people should be allowed to play something where the fluff violates the campaign. But I tend to equate someone not caring about fluff, solely being concerned with mechanics, as a sign that said person could just as easily play with other mechanics. A huge problem lies in FAIRNESS to all the other PLAYERS. Allowing someone to "get the mechanics they want by adapting the fluff" (even when it is debatable whether the mechanics fit the 'new fluff') is the same as allowing one player to CHEAT. They get an option denied other players. Making it dependent on debate skills is even more specious, as was discussed earlier. Finally, at the end of the day, there are still a lot more players than DM's. SO if ONE player is being troublesome, unable to make a concept which fits the EXISTING world parameters, then that player can (perhaps vainly try to) find a different DM. Maybe even one of the mythical "everything goes and it's still a great campaign" DM's.
Count_Chumleigh 07-27-07, 02:30 PM	Firstly I'm not copying and pasting another users post. I copying and pasting my post, that posted, in error, under another users name. I would have thought the message: "Crap wife didn't log out...again." should have clarified that. But I guess some posters aren't quiet quick enough on the up take to undertsand it, so I'll spell it out for them. Ultimatereality is my wife. As such, being a married couple, we live together. And because we live together we share a computer. Now normally we're pretty good about logging each other off before we post. Occasionally we miss something, we post under the others user name. Mistakes happen, and I won't dwell on it. However when they occur we correct it. In this case editing her post, by deleting it. And then reposting it under my login. Not that difficult of a concept to grasp, really. Am I implying anything by it? Sure I'm implying that I am not ultimate reality. Maybe we, being different people, have different views? Or perhaps I feel it would confusing if I were to post under her login, and not my own? But seriously, why is this big deal. I didn't look to see who was logged on when I posted. **** happens. Feeling defensive much?
Alyri 07-27-07, 02:31 PM	SO if ONE player is being troublesome, unable to make a concept which fits the EXISTING world parameters, then that player can (perhaps vainly try to) find a different DM. Maybe even one of the mythical "everything goes and it's still a great campaign" DM's. Maybe you could use italics for emphasis instead of the 'net version of shouting?
shadzar 07-27-07, 02:43 PM	I would have thought the message: "Crap wife didn't log out...again." should have clarified that. oddly i don't see that prior to the message in response to me asking why you copy pasted. i was just curious what the point of copying someones else message meant. oddly also it is not uncommon for people on the internet to NOT know your entire personal business so would not know you were married or used a shared computer.
Caelic 07-27-07, 04:29 PM	Too bad, it would be nice to have a real live PROVABLE fantasy author on the boards. After seeing people with very limited understanding of momentum claiming to be PhD particle Physicists, others with no clue about 12th century England claiming to have a PhD in Medieval European History, and yet another claiming to be a game designer with decades of experience (but nothing recent unless covered by NDA) many readers might be leery of taking a claim like that (fantasy author) at face value. Then such a doubter might decide that nothing claimed could be trusted, unless independently verifiable. Unfortunately, I don't see any reasonable way to prove something like that. I could give my real name and list my publications, and all that would prove is that I'm smart enough to pick an author with relatively modest accomplishments, rather than claiming to be Gary Gygax. ;) Take everything said on these boards with a grain of salt, at the very least.
Comus 07-27-07, 04:43 PM	Too bad, it would be nice to have a real live PROVABLE fantasy author on the boards. After seeing people with very limited understanding of momentum claiming to be PhD particle Physicists, others with no clue about 12th century England claiming to have a PhD in Medieval European History, and yet another claiming to be a game designer with decades of experience (but nothing recent unless covered by NDA) many readers might be leery of taking a claim like that (fantasy author) at face value. Then such a doubter might decide that nothing claimed could be trusted, unless independently verifiable. Yeah, I know. That's the trouble with the internet - I can claim to be George W. Bush, and it's very hard to disprove that. However, I can tell you that I have absolutely no PHDs, just recently graduated from college (degree in Journalism, nothing exciting there) and am not rich, famous, or respected widely in any field at all. I do, however, participate in NaNoWriMo every year, and managed to get one of those works published. :) But I tend to equate someone not caring about fluff, solely being concerned with mechanics, as a sign that said person could just as easily play with other mechanics. A huge problem lies in FAIRNESS to all the other PLAYERS. Allowing someone to "get the mechanics they want by adapting the fluff" (even when it is debatable whether the mechanics fit the 'new fluff') is the same as allowing one player to CHEAT. They get an option denied other players. Making it dependent on debate skills is even more specious, as was discussed earlier. Finally, at the end of the day, there are still a lot more players than DM's. SO if ONE player is being troublesome, unable to make a concept which fits the EXISTING world parameters, then that player can (perhaps vainly try to) find a different DM. Maybe even one of the mythical "everything goes and it's still a great campaign" DM's. Anyway, I still don't see how allowing someone to attach different fluff to mechanics is cheating. Let's look at a few example cases: 1) Player takes a class you've already okayed for the game and attempts to attach different fluff to its mechanics. (Wizard using mystical alchemy, rogue whose hide and move silently are based on manipulating shadows, bard with psionic fluff, etc) Is this okay? If no, why not, assuming the fluff works for the world? 2) You've disallowed a class due to the fluff (Barbarian in the Duke's court example), but the player asks to use it with different fluff (see examples everywhere else in thread) - for the sake of argument, pretend the fluff makes perfect sense for the campaign and the class you've disallowed is the best, most logical way to represent it. Is this okay? If no, why not, now that the class would seem to work in this case? 3) You've disallowed several classes but are willing to use homebrew material. One player submits a homebrew class, and you allow him to use it, as it seems flavorful and balanced. Months later, you take a second look at the class and realize it's one of the disallowed classes with renamed abilities - and yet fits perfectly into the game. Is this okay? If no, why not, given that you did okay the 'homebrew' class? 4) You disallow a class - say, Ninja - even though a player really wants to use them. You point out rogue to him and he decides to play one. He then dresses up in black pajamas and runs around with throwing stars and masterwork bastard swords. Is this okay? If no, why not, given that you've only disallowed the class, not the concept? I'm not trying to be hostile. I just want to see where the lines are drawn for you. :)
OravennasBrother 07-27-07, 05:09 PM	Anyway, I still don't see how allowing someone to attach different fluff to mechanics is cheating. Let's look at a few example cases: I'm not trying to be hostile. I just want to see where the lines are drawn for you. :) The problem with "re-naming/changing Fluff" to avoid a "ban" is two-fold. The first is that as soon as you drop the "fluff" any claim to wanting to play a character of a given archetype is rendered invalid. Reason - The Fluff, not the Mechanics, is the concept. A player can be a hard-bitten mercenary in Cyberpunk or D&D, but he won't (barring a truly bizarre campaign) have an assault rifle in D&D or a magic Wand in cyberpunk. The Second is that all the other players have agreed to a set of rules. Those rules form a limiting groundwork and going outside that groundwork allows a player access to powers the other players cannot access. In any other game, going outside the rules is called cheating, so I see no reason for a semantic distinction for PC's who wheedle their way around a DM's ground rules. Do not get too hung up on the particular Barbarian example - it was chosen for clarity and simplicity as a element of core with which all players should ideally be conversant. My experience is that the players who insist on a particular class/splatbook/combo are the troublesome players who do not play well with others. The players I want in my campaigns are, in the uncommon situation where they have a concept not easily realized within core, willing to compromise and take a class (or multiclass) which was allowed from the beginning.
Comus 07-27-07, 05:32 PM	The problem with "re-naming/changing Fluff" to avoid a "ban" is two-fold. The first is that as soon as you drop the "fluff" any claim to wanting to play a character of a given archetype is rendered invalid. Reason - The Fluff, not the Mechanics, is the concept. A player can be a hard-bitten mercenary in Cyberpunk or D&D, but he won't (barring a truly bizarre campaign) have an assault rifle in D&D or a magic Wand in cyberpunk. I agree with you, mostly. The fluff is what makes a character who he is. I just think that changing the fluff allows for a much broader range of characters. Samurai doesn't work in most games, given the oriental feel. Change it slightly, though, and they're shock troops, screaming battlecries as they run towards the enemy. The Second is that all the other players have agreed to a set of rules. Those rules form a limiting groundwork and going outside that groundwork allows a player access to powers the other players cannot access. In any other game, going outside the rules is called cheating, so I see no reason for a semantic distinction for PC's who wheedle their way around a DM's ground rules. So who says the other players can't have it? Once you allow it for one player, you've established how X exists in your world, and then can allow others to use it too, because now the framework has been established. Do not get too hung up on the particular Barbarian example - it was chosen for clarity and simplicity as a element of core with which all players should ideally be conversant. I'm not hung up on it, just reusing it so I don't have to come up with another example here. My experience is that the players who insist on a particular class/splatbook/combo are the troublesome players who do not play well with others. The players I want in my campaigns are, in the uncommon situation where they have a concept not easily realized within core, willing to compromise and take a class (or multiclass) which was allowed from the beginning. But will you let them alter the fluff of that allowed class to fit their concept, as noted in examples 1 and 4 that I gave?
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-27-07, 05:44 PM	The problem with "re-naming/changing Fluff" to avoid a "ban" is two-fold. The first is that as soon as you drop the "fluff" any claim to wanting to play a character of a given archetype is rendered invalid. Reason - The Fluff, not the Mechanics, is the concept. A player can be a hard-bitten mercenary in Cyberpunk or D&D, but he won't (barring a truly bizarre campaign) have an assault rifle in D&D or a magic Wand in cyberpunk. If the fluff is the concept, then why can't different mechanics be used to present the fluff? Again I can use any number of mechanics to represent fluff. Rogues being ninjas, and ninjas being assassins, and all being interchangeable with scouts, and then back to rogues, for example. Why are you so hung up on the mechanics then. Especially seeing as how we agree that they aren't an inherent part of the concept? And then if your disallowing mechanics based on fluff, why can't the fluff be changed, so to fit the setting? The Second is that all the other players have agreed to a set of rules. Those rules form a limiting groundwork and going outside that groundwork allows a player access to powers the other players cannot access. In any other game, going outside the rules is called cheating, so I see no reason for a semantic distinction for PC's who wheedle their way around a DM's ground rules. Do not get too hung up on the particular Barbarian example - it was chosen for clarity and simplicity as a element of core with which all players should ideally be conversant. "Everyone else does it, why can't you?" Firstly that is the fallacy appeal to majority. Secondly if you play with mature players, and not dougebags, this won't be an issue. If the players are adults, and not whiny brat, then they won't care if Johny got something out side of the rules, and they didn't. They'll be happy playing their concepts. I strongly recomedn that you discontinue playing whiny brats. My experience is that the players who insist on a particular class/splatbook/combo are the troublesome players who do not play well with others. The players I want in my campaigns are, in the uncommon situation where they have a concept not easily realized within core, willing to compromise and take a class (or multiclass) which was allowed from the beginning. Again that is is a false dictum. Not every player who wants to use class/splatbook/combo is a troublesome player. There are plenty who aren't. I would really appreciate it if you stopping calling every player who likes something other core only troublesome. Thank you.
shadzar 07-27-07, 06:58 PM	If the fluff is the concept, then why can't different mechanics be used to present the fluff? Again I can use any number of mechanics to represent fluff. Rogues being ninjas, and ninjas being assassins, and all being interchangeable with scouts, and then back to rogues, for example. Why are you so hung up on the mechanics then. Especially seeing as how we agree that they aren't an inherent part of the concept? And then if your disallowing mechanics based on fluff, why can't the fluff be changed, so to fit the setting? ~~~ I would really appreciate it if you stopping calling every player who likes something other core only troublesome. Thank you. last first, it isn't that the player wants something other than core only, but that a plyer doesn't want to play within the bound of the world created that can be troublesome. as has been said the players must compromise certain things to be in certain DMs games. Dms each run the game differently and want or dont want certain thing in their world for whatever reason. that is a given no matter who the DM is. this is jsut something mature players understand and accept. now the first later... ok i want a hard-nosed, but kicking person swinging a sword and using his brute force to achieve his goals. i will use the wizard mechanics to get this result. :thinks: it just doesn't work that way. at every step in your arguements for the inclusion of material you feel that the mechanics are the driving force for creating a character, and the fluff has little to no meaning in it. well the mechanics are specifically what the DM doesnt want in his game. psionics for example: no player has psionics therefore a whole set of rules don't have to be dealt with. psionic NPCs monsters are not present or just converted to having innocuous abilites that don't directly use psionics as modes of attack defense. more often they just aren't their to make it simpler. now a new player comes in and insists on playing a psionicist. the DM has two choices. disallow the player the class because the rules changes that would need to be taken into affect for his world and the other players would have to change how they play. effectively this would alter the entire world. the DM now has to take time to include those psionics into every aspect of the game, as well as some monsters that would have been left out otherwise. it jsut makes more work for the DM. so either the DM and possibly his other players are less happy because the psionics rules are now included, or the player wanting the psionicist character is unhappy. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. or if you don't like star trek... you can make some of the people happy all of the time, all of the people happy some of the time, but you can't make all the people happy all of the time. it is just a matter that the DM doesnt approve of the mechanics or specifics of a class/item/race/whatever for his game and it is his choice what it or is not in his world. mature players understand and accept this. it has been a while since i read the initial post of this thread which i am about to go back and do to find out if the following is present there, but.... how did this topic come about for you TPK? was there specificaly a game in which you wanted to play something and the DM didn't allow it and now you feel slighted because you didn't get to play what you wanted and had to choose something else, or just didn't play because you didn't get to play what you wanted?
Count_Chumleigh 07-27-07, 07:23 PM	ok i want a hard-nosed, but kicking person swinging a sword and using his brute force to achieve his goals. i will use the wizard mechanics to get this result. :thinks: it just doesn't work that way. Actually, a butt-kicking melee wizard is quite easy to do. Hell, I've seen a wizard build that focused on grappling and it was lethal from level one. Mind, it involved a lot of cherrypicking from rulebooks; Aberrant Blood from Lords of Madness was involved, as was the admittedly ridiculous octopus familiar :coolcthul from some long-forgotten Dragon magazine article, and a fistful of spells from the Spell Compendium (although polymorph, enlarge person, and Tenser's Transformation are all quite core). The point is, though, a butt-kicking melee wizard who thinks with his fists is in fact doable, and quite effective at what it does. Unless you were talking about a wizard who doesn't use magic, yet still fights in melee, in which case that's just metagaming. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh P.S. Also, unless I've read the monk/sorcerer multiclass-enabling feat from Complete Adventurer entirely wrong, a sorcerer is a better "wrasslin' wizzard" than a wizard (Cha bonus to spells and AC anyone?). What's more, the "wrasslin' wizzard" is a fun concept to me, because he could just be a drunken oaf of a Transmuter who's on the run from his debts that he incurred in wizarding school and picks fights at every tavern he comes across. I think that's fun, at least.
Comus 07-27-07, 07:40 PM	Actually, a butt-kicking melee wizard is quite easy to do. Agreed. Especially if you go for mounted combat! I once played a sorc who used mount to get a horse, took a feat for proficiency in the Lance, and nabbed a few mounted combat feats. He was actually pretty fun - and the lance's ability to do double or triple damage on a charge is incredibly lethal at low levels. Sure, he was a glass cannon, but so what? He was fun! EDIT: Also, Tenser's Transformation. Polymorph. Shapechange. Even Alter Self can nab some decent combat forms. Forgot to mention those as options.
Count_Chumleigh 07-27-07, 07:45 PM	Agreed. Especially if you go for mounted combat! I once played a sorc who used mount to get a horse, took a feat for proficiency in the Lance, and nabbed a few mounted combat feats. He was actually pretty fun - and the lance's ability to do double or triple damage on a charge is incredibly lethal at low levels. Sure, he was a glass cannon, but so what? He was fun! Ooh, equestrian sorcery. Hrm, that actually might work for a Harry Potter-inspired character, especially if I make him a self-absorbed moron who waits for the BBEG to destroy himself through sheer chance. :hides: Cheers, --Count Chumleigh P.S. For the record, I have in fact read all the Harry Potter books, and while I don't regret it I'm glad the series is over.
Caelic 07-27-07, 07:52 PM	pencils have erasers for this vary reason. If you put something into the world, and it doesn't work out, then by all means take it out. Retcons can sometimes do more damage to the fabric of a campaign than simply leaving in whatever's causing the problem. If things do not grow, and adapt to change, they become stagnant, and die. You said yourself your group changes over the years. What was fun for the group you had 5 years ago, may not be as fun for the group you have now. Different players, different tastes. Another reason could be that after having played in a campaign for years, and years, it may seem routine, and begin to dull. Lose it's initial shine, and luster. Perhaps adding something new, or minor changes here or there could revive that out shine, bring new life to it. Change happens all the time. I simply don't agree that that change has to take the form of new classes, new feats, new races, and what-have-you. Consider the amount of change that's gone on in our own world in the last fifteen years without a single new player character race being introduced! If a DM can't keep his campaign fresh without resorting to the regular introduction of new rules, then I think he likely has some serious underlying problems that need to be addressed, and am not sanguine about the long-term prospects of his campaign.
Caelic 07-27-07, 07:59 PM	Ironically, I think that part of the reason I'm having such a problem grasping the other side's position in this discussion is not because of my philosophy as a DM, but because of my philosophy as a player. Personally, when going into another DM's campaign, I just take it as a given that I'm going to build my character based on a couple of factors: 1. What's available in the campaign. 2. What will fit well with the party. Even in the most restrictive campaign milieus, I have never felt like my creativity was being stifled, and I have never felt like I was lacking for fun character ideas. The idea of being so enamored with a particular character concept/mechanic/build that I must play it, regardless of circumstances, and will not have fun if it's denied to me...I just don't get that. I've never been there. My problem's usually the opposite; thirty or forty cool ideas for characters, and not enough time to play all of them.
shadzar 07-27-07, 08:07 PM	Ooh, equestrian sorcery. Hrm, that actually might work for a Harry Potter-inspired character, especially if I make him a self-absorbed moron who waits for the BBEG to destroy himself through sheer chance. :hides: :clap: :evillaugh :bow: :rofl: :heehee
shadzar 07-27-07, 08:11 PM	If a DM can't keep his campaign fresh without resorting to the regular introduction of new rules, then I think he likely has some serious underlying problems that need to be addressed, and am not sanguine about the long-term prospects of his campaign. don't that say most TV show are on their way out when they start to introduce a new character. this new character is probably to make the show more "fresh" and less comfortable and expectable. it would be something like Sherman Hemsley appearing on All in the Family....oh wait.... oops! :eek: just to add controversy to it basically.
Roog 07-27-07, 08:16 PM	don't that say most TV show are on their way out when they start to introduce a new character. this new character is probably to make the show more "fresh" and less comfortable and expectable. it would be something like Sherman Hemsley appearing on All in the Family....oh wait.... oops! :eek: just to add controversy to it basically. Would you like to extend that metaphor to PCs (as a more obvious comparison)?
shadzar 07-27-07, 08:21 PM	Would you like to extend that metaphor to PCs (as a more obvious comparison)? just to add controversy to it basically. meaing adding new rules will do exactly that the same as why TV shows add things sometiems like new characters. obviously Archie Bunker having no great love for "negros Edith", would cause tension when a black man opens up a dry cleaning business and moves next door to him. likewise new classes could have the same feeling with the players in a game. bah im tired. maybe it doesn't sound quite what i meant it to but i am sure you people are smart enough to figure out the correlation i was getting at.
Count_Chumleigh 07-27-07, 08:46 PM	just to add controversy to it basically. meaing adding new rules will do exactly that the same as why TV shows add things sometiems like new characters. obviously Archie Bunker having no great love for "negros Edith", would cause tension when a black man opens up a dry cleaning business and moves next door to him. likewise new classes could have the same feeling with the players in a game. This is an intriguing idea, and certainly has potential for short-term and episodic campaigns (mine tend to be the latter), but might not work for a long-running campaign or a firmly established campaign setting. Food for thought, though.
solbergb 07-27-07, 10:17 PM	The idea of being so enamored with a particular character concept/mechanic/build that I must play it, regardless of circumstances, and will not have fun if it's denied to me...I just don't get that. I've never been there. My problem's usually the opposite; thirty or forty cool ideas for characters, and not enough time to play all of them. While generally I agree with you, I did actually do this once. Which resulted in playing a character which had major class abilities stifled by the campaign restrictions. (no downtime, very few NPC wizards to share spells with, never a victory vs a npc enemy wizard, very little spell ink on the continent) But that was ok. Because the concept wasn't the most optimal use of the wizard class, but to make a gnome "cook" who really didn't distinguish between spellcasting (preparing wizard spells in the morning was a matter of cooking just the right breakfast to get her mind straight), making dinner, making potions or crafting weapons and wonderous items (forging swords is just like baking after all). Her diety was Vulcan and had Arcane Disciple existed, she likely would have taken it. A number of fun things came out of it. But the GM warned me that there were a number of problems with the idea... wrong race for the starting location low population, low "tech" society isn't good for wizarding clueless kid adventurers who are likely to be reactive with little downtime limited scope for most of the things I wanted to spend skill points on (crafting, profession) For some reason though, I really wanted to play her. So we worked it out. There were gnomes, and my mom was a weird gnome who lived with humans and was likely an outcast. Most of my magic theory - stuff like kn arcane and spellcraft and alchemy - was taught by my familiar, an immortal toad. She eventually learned spells like fabricate and greater magic weapon to make fast and dirty "magic items" in low downtime situations. Still and all though. If I'd had an equal attraction to either the elf race or the druid class, he would have just said no. In that campaign, there was no possible rationale for an elf or druid to be found in a small, isolated thorpe where we started. On the other hand, I didn't even consider those to be options. My gnome cook came out of the fact that his original list of allowed stuff included gnomes, included wizards and featured a world where mainstream magic was either from the Elf Legions or dragons, but there were lots of "hedge wizard" variants too. Gnomish magic was weird. I took that and ran with it. My gnome ended up very poorly socialized for a gnome and she had many bizzare ideas about magic, such as free sharing of her spellbooks to her NPC friends. But she was an eccentric person who belonged in the world. Nobody thought it was weird that an obsessive magical gnome crafter might exist. They only thought it was weird that her friends were mostly human. Mostly though, I'm like the poster I quoted. I have lots of ideas and pick the one that fits better into the campaign/party. Actually the restrictions of a campaign are more likely to spawn a character idea than having it all wide open and generic. Builds are just builds until they gain a personality and bonk you on the head and demand to be played....
Caelic 07-27-07, 10:38 PM	My gnome cook came out of the fact that his original list of allowed stuff included gnomes, included wizards and featured a world where mainstream magic was either from the Elf Legions or dragons, but there were lots of "hedge wizard" variants too. Gnomish magic was weird. I took that and ran with it. My gnome ended up very poorly socialized for a gnome and she had many bizzare ideas about magic, such as free sharing of her spellbooks to her NPC friends. But she was an eccentric person who belonged in the world. Nobody thought it was weird that an obsessive magical gnome crafter might exist. They only thought it was weird that her friends were mostly human. Now, see, to me this is an excellent example both of working within the campaign restrictions, and of how a restricted campaign can actually help generate ideas. You took things that were available in the campaign and ran with them to come up with a unique and flavorful character. Mostly though, I'm like the poster I quoted. I have lots of ideas and pick the one that fits better into the campaign/party. Actually the restrictions of a campaign are more likely to spawn a character idea than having it all wide open and generic. Builds are just builds until they gain a personality and bonk you on the head and demand to be played.... I couldn't agree more.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-28-07, 01:04 AM	The idea of being so enamored with a particular character concept/mechanic/build that I must play it, regardless of circumstances, and will not have fun if it's denied to me...I just don't get that. I've never been there. My problem's usually the opposite; thirty or forty cool ideas for characters, and not enough time to play all of them. Which is ok for you. But not everyone shares your style, what about specialist players? Poeple who only really have fun when their playing their preferred thing. I've had 5 at my table. In no particular order: Ninja fan girl, firemage./rogue, fullplate wearing big sword knight in shining armour, barbarian, and arcane caster. 2 of them were excellent players, 1 average, and two were poor. Well thats not fair the one would have been better if he were more of a team player. And the barbarian guy was probably the worst player I've ever met. But the point is that they have the most fun, and in some cases only have fun, when playing some variant of their specialist. Suppose your game did not include ninjas. My ninja specialist would not have had very much fun, regardless of setting. And you could reflavor the ninja all you wanted, she was in love with the mechanics. Although she was happiest wearing the white PJs. My long rambling point is that in order to consider her fun, you'd have to consider the ninja class. And its not that she metagamed, or was bad player. One my best actually, she just really loved the ninja.
Alyri 07-28-07, 01:58 AM	Which is ok for you. But not everyone shares your style, what about specialist players? Correct me if I'm wrong here Caelic. We haven't been demanding that people play as we do or that our way is the 'true' way. What got our rankles up is when you implied that the way you play is the only 'sensible' option. There is no correct way to play D&D. People play for a variety of reasons and people play a variety of styles. None are more correct than the others. If a group enjoys their games using just core, that's fine. If a group enjoys their games using every WOtC release, that's fine. If a group plays the 'kick in the door style', that's fine. If a group plays with props and costumes, that's fine. What no one ought to do is say that their way is the 'true' way to play and all else is just wrong.
Caelic 07-28-07, 11:19 AM	Suppose your game did not include ninjas. My ninja specialist would not have had very much fun, regardless of setting. And you could reflavor the ninja all you wanted, she was in love with the mechanics. Although she was happiest wearing the white PJs. My long rambling point is that in order to consider her fun, you'd have to consider the ninja class. And its not that she metagamed, or was bad player. One my best actually, she just really loved the ninja. I would suggest that your ninja player, quite clearly, would have more fun with another group; the philosophies are simply too different. We have a group that emphasizes group cohesion and building characters who fill needed roles; she's willing to fill any needed role, as long as it's ninja. We have an unspoken rule-of-thumb that nobody plays the same class twice in a row. This isn't something we'd enforce if anyone wanted to play the same class twice in a row; it's just that, as a group, we find variety more fun. Add in the difference of philosophy concerning how much respect is owed to the campaign limitations imposed by the DM, and we have a square peg and a round hole. With lots of pounding, we could probably make the square peg go through the hole, but it wouldn't be much fun for anybody. I will further suggest that if a player is so specialized that they only have fun playing variants of one character concept, that player simply needs to accept that sometimes, they're going to be excluded. If the player only has fun playing fire mages, and I'm running a modern-day espionage game with no magic whatsoever, then the player is just going to be out of luck when it comes to his preferred concept. If the player only has fun playing a full-plate wearing knight in shining armor, and the campaign is a pirate campaign where ninety percent of the action is aboard a ship...again, the player's likely out of luck. (In that case, I suppose he might try to go ahead and play the character; it's just that the character would likely have a very short career. Splash, glub, glub.)
Caelic 07-28-07, 11:22 AM	Correct me if I'm wrong here Caelic. We haven't been demanding that people play as we do or that our way is the 'true' way. What got our rankles up is when you implied that the way you play is the only 'sensible' option. Correct. I will simply add that I also reject the idea that keeping players at the table by any means necessary is a virtue. Some players simply prefer a different type of game than the one my friends and I play; the best solution there is for those players to find a game that suits them, while we continue to play the game that suits us.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-28-07, 12:31 PM	Correct. I will simply add that I also reject the idea that keeping players at the table by any means necessary is a virtue. Some players simply prefer a different type of game than the one my friends and I play; the best solution there is for those players to find a game that suits them, while we continue to play the game that suits us. I can hit both yours, and Alyri's. Firstly I'm not saying my way is the one true way. In fact I've been saying that if you have different style then perhaps you should ignore me. And I do see a philosophical difference. Where you reject keeping players, by making some comprises, I value them as people, more then players. Where you would game with strangers, I prefer to game with friends. Even if it means I don't what I want all the time. I'm ok with this, you...not so much. I take the other members of group into higher consideration then the campaign/setting. Again it is the opposite with you, were you take the campaign into a higher consideration then the group. Its not that either way is better or worse. Just different. But it is clearly a philosophical style difference, and as such I doubt we'll be able to come to consensus on it. Not thats bad thing, it just means we have different styles of playing the game. Somehow I don't think either can claim to be surprised by that, that we have different styles.
Count_Chumleigh 07-28-07, 12:42 PM	And I do see a philosophical difference. Where you reject keeping players, by making some comprises, I value them as people, more then players. What the HELL, man? Where have you seen anything to indicate that Caelic "reject[s] keeping players?" Maybe we've been looking at different posts, because all I've seen is that he's got a long-running campaign and would like it to be consistent. Seems to me that a campaign could scarce be long-running if he "reject[ed] keeping players." In fact, it seems to me that a DM who "reject[s] keeping players," all because they don't fit with his preconceived notions of what his campaign is all about. Man, that would be a terrible DM, wouldn't it? Good thing to Caelic that he doesn't sound like that sort of DM at all, isn't it? Scarecrows could learn a lot from you, TPK, with all these straw men you keep putting up. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh P.S. Time for another hit of juice for me, since I've just defended another poster in an internet argument. :whatsthis
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-28-07, 12:53 PM	What the HELL, man? Where have you seen anything to indicate that Caelic "reject[s] keeping players?" Maybe we've been looking at different posts, because all I've seen is that he's got a long-running campaign and would like it to be consistent. Seems to me that a campaign could scarce be long-running if he "reject[ed] keeping players." In fact, it seems to me that a DM who "reject[s] keeping players," all because they don't fit with his preconceived notions of what his campaign is all about. Man, that would be a terrible DM, wouldn't it? Good thing to Caelic that he doesn't sound like that sort of DM at all, isn't it? Scarecrows could learn a lot from you, TPK, with all these straw men you keep putting up. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh P.S. Time for another hit of juice for me, since I've just defended another poster in an internet argument. :whatsthis Correct. I will simply add that I also reject the idea that keeping players at the table by any means necessary is a virtue. Some players simply prefer a different type of game than the one my friends and I play; the best solution there is for those players to find a game that suits them, while we continue to play the game that suits us Combine that with his apparent refusal to accommodate differing styles of play found here: I would suggest that your ninja player, quite clearly, would have more fun with another group; the philosophies are simply too different. We have a group that emphasizes group cohesion and building characters who fill needed roles; she's willing to fill any needed role, as long as it's ninja. We have an unspoken rule-of-thumb that nobody plays the same class twice in a row. This isn't something we'd enforce if anyone wanted to play the same class twice in a row; it's just that, as a group, we find variety more fun. Add in the difference of philosophy concerning how much respect is owed to the campaign limitations imposed by the DM, and we have a square peg and a round hole. With lots of pounding, we could probably make the square peg go through the hole, but it wouldn't be much fun for anybody. Given those two statements, and combine them with everything else he's been arguing, it becomes quiet clear that he values the campaign over its players. Which is fine, I personally disagree with that philosophy for numerous reasons. But thats just me. I'm attacking him personally, just trying to understand were he's coming form on this. And its not a strawman, as it was not meant to be an attack. Simply stating what how I interpreted his wording, he values the campaign over anyone player.
Caelic 07-28-07, 01:14 PM	And I do see a philosophical difference. Where you reject keeping players, by making some comprises In the situation you described, where's the compromise? You offered up a player who will only play one class. Where's the compromise on the player's part? I value them as people, more then players. Unfair. The fact that they're not sitting at my table doesn't mean I value them as people any less. My parents don't game with me, either; I certainly value them as people. Where you would game with strangers, I prefer to game with friends. Again, unfair, I think. I prefer to make friends through gaming, not just create an insular community with the friends I already have. It's just that, when we as a group invite in a potential new friend, we like to make sure that we're going to get along well. I pose you this question: which approach is more likely to keep the campaign fresh and interesting, and avoid the stagnation you mentioned in an earlier post? Gaming with the same group of people all the time--particularly if a number of them insist on always playing the same class--or allowing in new people despite the fact that they're not already part of my little clan? I'm ok with this, you...not so much. I take the other members of group into higher consideration then the campaign/setting. Again it is the opposite with you, were you take the campaign into a higher consideration then the group. Nope; again, you're not accurately stating my position. I take the campaign into a higher consideration than the wants of any one player, because the group finds the campaign as it currently exists to be fun. Its not that either way is better or worse. Just different. But it is clearly a philosophical style difference, and as such I doubt we'll be able to come to consensus on it. Not thats bad thing, it just means we have different styles of playing the game. Somehow I don't think either can claim to be surprised by that, that we have different styles.[/QUOTE]
Count_Chumleigh 07-28-07, 01:19 PM	Two people can play the emphasis game. For the lulz, I'll stick to the quotes you provided. Correct. I will simply add that I also reject the idea that keeping players at the table by any means necessary is a virtue. Some players simply prefer a different type of game than the one my friends and I play; the best solution there is for those players to find a game that suits them, while we continue to play the game that suits us. Seems to me that quote indicates that he's talking about going to great lengths to keep players who want to play something other than what the DM wants. Keep in mind, too, that in Caelic's case he usually informs players he invites to play of what the game is going to be about and what rules are and aren't allowed. I would suggest that your ninja player, quite clearly, would have more fun with another group; the philosophies are simply too different. We have a group that emphasizes group cohesion and building characters who fill needed roles; she's willing to fill any needed role, as long as it's ninja. We have an unspoken rule-of-thumb that nobody plays the same class twice in a row. This isn't something we'd enforce if anyone wanted to play the same class twice in a row; it's just that, as a group, WE find variety more fun. Add in the difference of philosophy concerning how much respect is owed to the campaign limitations imposed by the DM, and we have a square peg and a round hole. With lots of pounding, we could probably make the square peg go through the hole, but it wouldn't be much fun for anybody. Here, we see that Caelic appears to be talking about a new player or new campaign, and one player wanting to play something that does not fit within the setting--specifically, a ninja. He also references "we as a group," which suggests that the wants of the players do in fact matter, especially once the particulars of the campaign, which all players have agreed to implicitly by accepting his offer to join, are set down. In other words, the quotes you provided do not appear to support the notion that Caelic "reject[s] keeping players," In the second quote, the players he references haven't started playing yet, which means that he can't exactly "keep" them, even if he did reject doing so. Meanwhile, the first quote explains his rejection of the idea of keeping players "by any means necessary," by which he means making excessive accommodations at the expense of the integrity of the campaign they agreed to join as-is by accepting his offer. And now, juice. :whatsthis Cheers, --Count Chumleigh EDIT: If you want me to stop speaking for you at any time, Caelic, just let me know; I'm pretty deep in internet-argument territory and starting to lose my perspective.
Caelic 07-28-07, 01:22 PM	Given those two statements, and combine them with everything else he's been arguing, it becomes quiet clear that he values the campaign over its players. Which is fine, I personally disagree with that philosophy for numerous reasons. But thats just me. I'm attacking him personally, just trying to understand were he's coming form on this. And its not a strawman, as it was not meant to be an attack. Simply stating what how I interpreted his wording, he values the campaign over anyone player. TPK, I'm going to ask you politely: please don't attempt to restate my positions. You get them wrong, and frankly, I think your negative bias towards them comes through. This is why I became short-tempered with you in the first place. It's, frankly, insulting when you suggest that I don't value my players as people, or value them less than you do...and, yes, that's what the statement "Where you reject keeping players, by making some comprises, I value them as people, more then players." implies, whether it's what you meant to imply or not. The quotes you chose to bold in your last response do not in any way indicate that I "value the campaign over its players." The fact that the group, as a whole, has an unspoken agreement to play different things has nothing at all to do with how much I value my players or the campaign; I have no idea why you chose to boldface it. The fact that I believe players should try to respect the limitations of the campaign certainly doesn't mean that I "value the campaign more than the players." I could speculate on what it means that you conflate those two statements...but I won't. It would be rude, it would be presumptuous, and it would be, frankly, exactly what you're doing with these posts. The third item you highlighted? The fact that I acknowledge that some players aren't going to be happy at my table means I value the campaign over the players? Again, I ask nicely: please stop doing this. Whether from bias or simply honest lack of understanding, you misrepresent my position every time you attempt to restate it, and I'd like that to stop.
Caelic 07-28-07, 01:29 PM	EDIT: If you want me to stop speaking for you at any time, Caelic, just let me know; I'm pretty deep in internet-argument territory and starting to lose my perspective. Actually, you hit it pretty well, Count. My concern with the hypothetical "I will only play ninjas" player is that, quite frankly, the group would reject her. I know my players well enough to know that a new player coming in...one who decided what she was going to play based purely on her personal preferences and totally independent of what the party needed or the campaign setting...would be viewed as highly selfish. That would be the case regardless of whether I or another member of the group was DMing at the time. None of the players in the group, I think it's safe to say, would be particularly sympathetic to the position of "But I only have fun if I'm playing this one character!" That said, the decision to suggest another gaming group to such a player does not in any way mean I don't value players as people. Quite the contrary; it demonstrates that I value them more as people than as players. I recognize that the person would likely find herself an outsider at my table, and I would rather help the person avoid that than add another player to the group.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-28-07, 01:37 PM	I pose you this question: which approach is more likely to keep the campaign fresh and interesting, and avoid the stagnation you mentioned in an earlier post? Gaming with the same group of people all the time--particularly if a number of them insist on always playing the same class--or allowing in new people despite the fact that they're not already part of my little clan? Its not that I'm not willing to game with new people. Its just that i want to get them better first. I'd rather risk allowing a bad class, than a bad player. So which which keeps a game fresh better, new rules material, or a constant supply of fresh players? I think both have there advantages, and their draw backs, so I'm not going to say one way is better then the other. And I didn't state that you don't consider the players. You just value consideration of the campaign more. For the reason of it's longevity. But your still placing more importance on the campaign then that of the individual players. And as such less players over all will have fun in the game. Granted the ones that naturally prefer that style of campaign, whatever it is, will have loads of fun. But by doing that you are excluding more potential players then you are including. Simply by virtue that the campaign can only appeal to those that like whats in it, but has little room for expansion for those who like most of it, but want something more, different, or something just not found there. Like specialist players, who's specialty is absent. Which given its nature, excluding more material then it includes, means that more players will prefer something excluded, then what is included. Now this isn't bad, or inferior. Just different. And if it works for you then great. I also have no doubt at all that you be willing to find players who will play in it. The difference though is that I am more willing to make comprises to play with specific people, my friends, then I am willing to seek out new people, who may become friends later.
Caelic 07-28-07, 01:51 PM	Its not that I'm not willing to game with new people. Its just that i want to get them better first. I'd rather risk allowing a bad class, than a bad player. Interesting. In that sense, you are far more exclusionary than I am; I'm willing to give a player a try to see if he'll fit well. So which which keeps a game fresh better, new rules material, or a constant supply of fresh players? As I have said before, I think that any campaign that needs regular infusions of new rules material to stay fresh is relying on the wrong things. And I didn't state that you don't consider the players. You just value consideration of the campaign more. For the reason of it's longevity. But your still placing more importance on the campaign then that of the individual players. I asked before, I will ask again: PLEASE stop trying to restate my positions, because you're getting them wrong. I'm trying very hard to be patient and polite here, but you keep telling me what my positions are, and you're consistently wrong. And as such less players over all will have fun in the game. Horsefeathers. This is just ridiculous. I can only accomodate so many players at once; ensuring that they all share a similar gaming philosophy in no way megatively impacts the number of players who will have fun in the game. If I threw the door wide open and said "Anything goes," it would not lead to "more players having fun in the game." If anything, it would lead to fewer players having fun. The same number of players would be playing, but the variety of different play-styles at the table would lead to clashes and disagreements, and therefore less fun for all involved. Diversity is not always a good thing. When it comes to play styles and gaming philosophy, it's better if everyone at the table is on the same page. But by doing that you are excluding more potential players then you are including. That's presumptuous, TPK. How do you know that the majority of potential players don't share my philosophy, at least enough to fit well at my table? It's also a bit ironic; you started the post with the assertion that you wouldn't consider allowing anyone who isn't already a friend of yours into the game, in the name of keeping out "bad players." I am willing to allow a new player I don't know very well to participate, at least until we see whether he's a good fit for the group. Which of us is excluding more potential players? Simply by virtue that the campaign can only appeal to those that like whats in it, but has little room for expansion for those who like most of it, but want something more, different, or something just not found there. Like specialist players, who's specialty is absent. Which given its nature, excluding more material then it includes, means that more players will prefer something excluded, then what is included. Again, highly presumptuous--and unwarrantedly so. How do you know how much material is and is not included in my campaign? And, to be honest, yes, I'd prefer to seek players whose approach is to look at a campaign and say "What's there that I want to play?" rather than look at it and say "What's I want to play isn't there." You've also avoided one of my questions again. If a player is a "specialist player," and will not consider playing anything other than their "specialty," where's the compromise? Numerous people on this thread have observed that, to you, "compromise" seems to entail the DM making concessions, and the players making none. It's things like this that give that impression.
Count_Chumleigh 07-28-07, 02:00 PM	Its [sic] not that I'm not willing to game with new people. Its [sic] just that i [sic] want to get them better first. How do you know if someone's good enough to join, then? Do you make them take a test? I'd rather risk allowing a bad class, than a bad player. There are those who would say that a player who can't find anything he'd like to play that fits within the guidelines of a campaign he agreed to play after having explained to him and so requests to play something that doesn't fit is a bad player, however. It's not necessarily true, but it is food for thought. And I didn't state that you don't consider the players. You just value consideration of the campaign more. For the reason of it's [sic] longevity. But your still placing more importance on the campaign then that of the individual players. And as such less players over all will have fun in the game. What, exactly, do you mean when you say "campaign?" From the sound of it, your definition of "campaign" includes each player in the campaign. And from what you've said time and time again about the importance of the players' enjoyments as a whole, I'd think that you'd prefer a DM to give the groups' overall enjoyment a higher priority than any one player's. I also take issue, inter alia, with your assertion that, because Caelic apparently feels that "individual players" are less important than the group as a whole, "less players over all will have fun in the game." Perhaps the degree of enjoyment, assuming such a thing can ever be quantified, held by each "individual player" will be slightly less than if he got his way to the exclusion of all others, but the group's aggregate level of enjoyment ought to be higher if it's not just one player who's getting all the fun. Granted the ones that naturally prefer that style of campaign, whatever it is, will have loads of fun. But by doing that you are excluding more potential players then you are including. Simply by virtue that the campaign can only appeal to those that like whats in it, but has little room for expansion for those who like most of it, but want something more, different, or something just not found there. Like specialist players, who's [sic] specialty is absent. Which given its nature, excluding more material then it includes, means that more players will prefer something excluded, then what is included. Personally, as a DM, I take pride when my games exclude more material than they include. That means I've got a more solid idea of what the game's about and the player's don't have to suspend their disbelief any more than they have to. "Oh, look, Lezek: another practitioner of a long-forgotten school of magic and/or martial maneuvers, or possibly a master of the mind's innermost reservoirs of strength. I guess we should be on the lookout for more small towns with temples to mad elder gods buried beneath them; these things have always gone together for us the last eight times we found one." Now this isn't bad, or inferior. Just different. And if it works for you then great. I also have no doubt at all that you be willing to find players who will play in it. The difference though is that I am more willing to make comprises to play with specific people, my friends, then I am willing to seek out new people, who may become friends later. For all your talk of "this isn't bad, or inferior," you tend to come across as being overwhelmingly negative towards others and their opinions. Suppose I were to say to someone, "Now, Tom, I don't mean to suggest that you are a liar and a thief and possibly abuse barnyard animals on the weekends, but you did agree to return my lawnmower by three o'clock today." Do you see what I'm getting at? Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
shadzar 07-28-07, 02:54 PM	i am curious TPK, if any of your players come to these forums and would care to add their input on your stance of always allowing players to get what they want and the DM should not try to keep cohesion in their world by limiting some things to players. also in the case of a player bringing a character to any game, it is subject to alteration by the DM to remove anyhting fromthe character that doesn't suit the campaign, be it levels, items, or even a class. most people, DMs are people you know; design a world sith a concept in mind. it is as simple as that. and most often the DM doesn't allow things that don't follow that concept. any player entering the game late as well as the ones starting it must adhere to the rules of the DMs world. one shots can be sometimes fun with anything goes still choices, but they will not make for lasting campaigns that have any real cohesion. sooner or later the game will break down due to inability of the PCs to lose a battle. at the point the PCs have become stagnant. remember XP for killing creatures only comes when those creatures pose a threat to the PC. a level 20th fighter wont get XP for killing a lone kobold he sees by the riverside. that is a major factor in choosing what fits into a world, and why somethings aren't allowed. when a game is not meant to last over long periods of time where this breakdown will occur then another method should work fine. ninjas and barbarians in the same game great for one shots. but long term needs a reaosn why these exist in the same regions, as well as most people design worlds based on things they can find in the real world. an Era of real time can provide much depth for fleshing out a world be it the Byzantine empire, medieval europe, Mongul overrun asia, etc. and most players are more easily ready to accept something that fits what they know rather than something completely off the wall. it is after all a story being told when you play D&D no matter for how short or long a period of time, and this story cannot have giant plot holes in it that make things so inconsistant it doesn't make any sense. if it does then it becomes harder to see the world as aything congruent, but the game become more likely to displace the characters from actually being connected to a single world. like players have backgrounds, things they did before their adventuring career started; also the world has a history that existed before the players came into it. that is what bases what fits into it. not just that a new players want to add something to it. you can add water to a cars gas tank, but it doesnt mean its gonna work any better, or at all for that matter. likewise you can add any race or class to any existing campaign, but at what cost. a plaer must consider the others in the game. it isnt only the DM considering the player that wants this new class in the game, but the rest of the players that came along before him. sometimes even the players decide what kind of classes they want the party to have or not have also. it all varies by gaming groups. not everybody fits into every gaming group jsut because they play D&D.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-28-07, 05:59 PM	Interesting. In that sense, you are far more exclusionary than I am; I'm willing to give a player a try to see if he'll fit well. Again I choose to game with friends, you choose to make friends by gaming. It's a difference in styles. As I have said before, I think that any campaign that needs regular infusions of new rules material to stay fresh is relying on the wrong things. Now whose being presumptuous, and telling us the right way to DM a game? Horsefeathers. This is just ridiculous. I can only accommodate so many players at once; ensuring that they all share a similar gaming philosophy in no way negatively impacts the number of players who will have fun in the game. If I threw the door wide open and said "Anything goes," it would not lead to "more players having fun in the game." If anything, it would lead to fewer players having fun. The same number of players would be playing, but the variety of different play-styles at the table would lead to clashes and disagreements, and therefore less fun for all involved. The bottom line is still the same. The campaign , and what is already in it, take priority over making changes to accommodate individual players. This means that in order for a new player to enjoy your game they have to liked minded enough with you in such a way as they will like the current campaign, as is, or they are better with a different group. For whatever the reason, it is still a "take it or leave it" stance. And by definition it excludes those who are not like minded enough with, and thus have to leave it. I don't know for sure weather or that covers a majority, or a minority of players out there. I somehow doubt that the majority of gamers are like minded with you, in enough aspects that they would fit right in with your group. On that note though I would find it hard to believe that you would have any trouble finding players who are like minded enough fit in your games. Thats just a factor of gamers being a very large, and very diverse group of people. Further you implication that these so called, "anything goes" campaigns are fraught with clashes, and what not is nothing more then a false dictum. Again these problems are player problems, and not game problems. And thus have nothing to do with the type of game run, and everything to do with the quality of the players involved. One of the reasons why I'm very choosy about whom I game with. Bad players (And DMs for that matter) are far more destructive, and have a larger negative impact on the game then bad rules. Diversity is not always a good thing. When it comes to play styles and gaming philosophy, it's better if everyone at the table is on the same page. Depends on the game and DM. I tend to find that the better the DM, the better suited they are at handling differing play styles, and philosophies. However you are right some styles are mutually exclusive, others aren't. It's also a bit ironic; you started the post with the assertion that you wouldn't consider allowing anyone who isn't already a friend of yours into the game, in the name of keeping out "bad players." I am willing to allow a new player I don't know very well to participate, at least until we see whether he's a good fit for the group. Which of us is excluding more potential players? I am, but that really isn't the point. I know my group really well. I also have a very high quality of players. You have to restrict things in the name of verisimilitude, I can trust my players to restrict themselves, and further to make their concepts fit the campaign as written. Now before you call me presumptuous on that one, lets try this. When you write up your campaign you have a specific list of the mechanics that are included in it right? You do do this so that everything fits in it, right? Say you were running a desert campaign, you'd have to exclude storm wreck, for example. I don't. I don't have to list allowed sources, or mechanics. I only have to hand them the fluff, and every single character with out exception will fit within flavor. I know its a rare thing, and I am lucky. I know my player are very good, and I also know that I'd be hard pressed to replace any of them, with someone else as good. Kind of like you losing a long regular player. Except to me, I'm more flexible to accommodate their idea of fun, as they are to mine. Again, highly presumptuous--and unwarrantedly so. How do you know how much material is and is not included in my campaign? I don't, and I'm not pretending to. I do however know that you do exclude stuff, whatever it is. And as you've stated multiple times, you'd rather the player comprise their concept to fit the campaign. Now I'm going to ask you to do me a favor. I'd like you to give me an example of a class that is excluded from your game, and an example of a similar class that is included. Say for example: the ninja class may be excluded, but rogues included. And, to be honest, yes, I'd prefer to seek players whose approach is to look at a campaign and say "What's there that I want to play?" rather than look at it and say "What's I want to play isn't there." And I'd rather have players who know what their sense of fun, and are willing to let me know what it is. That way I can make a better game for them. And yes I do tailor adventure, encounters, etc so as to maximize their enjoyment. That's easier if I know what they enjoy. You've also avoided one of my questions again. If a player is a "specialist player," and will not consider playing anything other than their "specialty," where's the compromise? Depends on the situation, game, group, and DM. But lets look at the ninja example again. And we'll pretend the setting is ancient Greece. The DM can comprise by allowing the ninjas mechanics, and the player can comprise by accepting the flavor of being fey touched, or her abilities being granted by fey. (Comso already came up with the reflavor) The DM is happy because the character fits the setting. the player is happy because she's using her favorite mechanics. Numerous people on this thread have observed that, to you, "compromise" seems to entail the DM making concessions, and the players making none. It's things like this that give that impression. What I've noticed, and choose not to respond to, was people only saw it as comprise if the player gave up everything. Again it has been repeated, in the setting sense, that if the player gives up the fluff, for more fitting fluff then they are comprising. What I see as not making sense is a player accepting different mechanics, but with the same flavor as before. To put it another way, whats better, the player using the ninja mechanics, but with Greek flavor in a Greek game, or the player using the rogue mechanics (allowed in the campagn), but with a ninja's flavor in the Greek setting? How do you know if someone's good enough to join, then? Do you make them take a test? Yes count, I give them a test. Its 5 pages long and they have 35 minutes to write it. I'll know they'll be good for the group or not, if I get to know them well. We can do other things decides D&D while we get to know each other. And its not like I'm spending time with them on the premise that someday I'll invite them to my game. we'd be hanging out regardless, and if, when I feel I know them well enough, I 'll drop an invite to the group. There are those who would say that a player who can't find anything he'd like to play that fits within the guidelines of a campaign he agreed to play after having explained to him and so requests to play something that doesn't fit is a bad player, however. It's not necessarily true, but it is food for thought. And there are those who would say that a DM who can't be flexible, and willing to work with their players is a control freak. I think we both know we are both skilled with tossing around false dictum. Can we just agree that there are bad players, and bad DMs, and be done with the whole, "If they aren't doing it my way than they are a bad player." arguments please? What, exactly, do you mean when you say "campaign?" From the sound of it, your definition of "campaign" includes each player in the campaign. And from what you've said time and time again about the importance of the players' enjoyments as a whole, I'd think that you'd prefer a DM to give the groups' overall enjoyment a higher priority than any one player's. Setting, game, adventure. That 25 page hand out of cealic's. Group = players and DM Camapign = game they are currently playing, within the context of D&D. Personally, as a DM, I take pride when my games exclude more material than they include. That means I've got a more solid idea of what the game's about and the player's don't have to suspend their disbelief any more than they have to. "Oh, look, Lezek: another practitioner of a long-forgotten school of magic and/or martial maneuvers, or possibly a master of the mind's innermost reservoirs of strength. I guess we should be on the lookout for more small towns with temples to mad elder gods buried beneath them; these things have always gone together for us the last eight times we found one." I'll just going point that this is another false dictum, as it implies a campaign has to be restrictive to the point were it disallows more then it allows, or it will lack so much verisimilitudes that it falls into absurdity. Then offer you some more juice. For all your talk of "this isn't bad, or inferior," you tend to come across as being overwhelmingly negative towards others and their opinions. Suppose I were to say to someone, "Now, Tom, I don't mean to suggest that you are a liar and a thief and possibly abuse barnyard animals on the weekends, but you did agree to return my lawnmower by three o'clock today." Do you see what I'm getting at? Cheers, --Count Chumleigh Theres just no pleasing you guys is there. When I don't explicitly state that I am talking about my style, and don't explicit state that I recognize your right to game however you please, and their nothing wrong with it. Alry, and Cealic accuse me of tromping out the one true way BS. When I do explicitly state that I am stating my opinion, and recognize your right to play however you want, you accuse me of backhanded insults. Pick one! Do you want to state explicitly that I don't feel anyones style is inherently better or worse, or would rather I left it unspoken? Either way I agreed to not to through around personal attacks, you think you could do the same?
shadzar 07-28-07, 06:21 PM	Again I choose to game with friends, you choose to make friends by gaming. It's a difference in styles. if you play with friends then their should be no questions of DM disallowing things. friends should know each other well enough to know that there is probably a reason some things aren't allow, and there is no need to interrogate your friend for why it isnt allowed, or harrass/badger them for something after it has been stated that it isnt allowed. just accept it and choose something else.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-28-07, 06:33 PM	i am curious TPK, if any of your players come to these forums and would care to add their input on your stance of always allowing players to get what they want and the DM should not try to keep cohesion in their world by limiting some things to players. [QUOTE=shadzar;13222280] most people, DMs are people you know; design a world sith a concept in mind. it is as simple as that. and most often the DM doesn't allow things that don't follow that concept. any player entering the game late as well as the ones starting it must adhere to the rules of the DMs world. Ok sure, know can you tell me why the DM's sense of fun is inherently more important the the rest of the players? Or do you think that when the DM is designing said world they should consider their friends fun as well. But then if the players are asking for something, would it because they feel that what their asking for would be fun? And if that is the case, would not its absence from the campaign not indicate that that idea of fun was missed by the DM when designing the campaign. So then we're back to original question, should the DM not consider the other players fun? one shots can be sometimes fun with anything goes still choices, but they will not make for lasting campaigns that have any real cohesion. sooner or later the game will break down due to inability of the PCs to lose a battle. at the point the PCs have become stagnant. You aren't implying that only restrictive games can last a longer then a one shot are? Because we both know that assertion is completely baseless right? remember XP for killing creatures only comes when those creatures pose a threat to the PC. a level 20th fighter wont get XP for killing a lone kobold he sees by the riverside. I'm completely baffled as to what this has to do with anything we've been discussing. that is a major factor in choosing what fits into a world, and why somethings aren't allowed. What is? Kobolds by the river? 20th level fighters? XP? What are you talking about man? when a game is not meant to last over long periods of time where this breakdown will occur then another method should work fine. Again i really hope that your not trying to imply that flexible games break down, or can't last a long time, because that would just be wrong. ninjas and barbarians in the same game great for one shots. but long term needs a reaosn why these exist in the same regions, Uhm? Why can't they? Would you not agree that a game set in anient china would have both barbarians (mongul hoards) as well as ninjas.(orient) as well as most people design worlds based on things they can find in the real world. an Era of real time can provide much depth for fleshing out a world be it the Byzantine empire, medieval europe, Mongul overrun asia, etc. and most players are more easily ready to accept something that fits what they know rather than something completely off the wall. So uhmm were in the world is Middle Earth? Or fariun, what real worl time peroid is fariun? And what of Eberron I know its steam punk, I don't recall flying towers in the Rennisuance? Or for that matter just where, and when is Dragonlance based off of? it is after all a story being told when you play D&D no matter for how short or long a period of time, and this story cannot have giant plot holes in it that make things so inconsistant it doesn't make any sense. if it does then it becomes harder to see the world as aything congruent, but the game become more likely to displace the characters from actually being connected to a single world. So your saying a story about a Grey elf, warbalde, and ninja exploring a massive dungeon complex has holes in it? Againthe assertion that less restrictions = more, and larger plot wholes is false I think we both know this. like players have backgrounds, things they did before their adventuring career started; also the world has a history that existed before the players came into it. that is what bases what fits into it. not just that a new players want to add something to it. Anything goes campaigns don't have histories? Could you provide some evidence of this broad sweeping generalization please? you can add water to a cars gas tank, but it doesnt mean its gonna work any better, or at all for that matter. likewise you can add any race or class to any existing campaign, but at what cost. a plaer must consider the others in the game. it isnt only the DM considering the player that wants this new class in the game, but the rest of the players that came along before him. sometimes even the players decide what kind of classes they want the party to have or not have also. it all varies by gaming groups. Ok so water doesn't work in cars, and supplemental material will ruin every game it touches. I understand the water and cars things, I'm just having trouble with the considering my players right to have fun will ruin their, and my enjoyment part. It seems to me that if i were to take their enjoyment into consideration, then they would have more fun, as opposed to me just running everything I wanted all the time, telling them if they don't like to go home. not everybody fits into every gaming group just because they play D&D. Not saying they do. I've never asserted that. What i am saying is that as group we can consider everyone else's fun, and maybe come up with a comprise, ass opposed to one person getting everything, and anyones gets what they want through coincidence only.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-28-07, 06:35 PM	if you play with friends then their should be no questions of DM disallowing things. friends should know each other well enough to know that there is probably a reason some things aren't allow, and there is no need to interrogate your friend for why it isnt allowed, or harrass/badger them for something after it has been stated that it isnt allowed. just accept it and choose something else. Their my friends, and as such will take whatever i dictate to them with out question? I think your confused. I said friend not servant.
UltimateReality 07-28-07, 07:02 PM	i am curious TPK, if any of your players come to these forums and would care to add their input on your stance of always allowing players to get what they want and the DM should not try to keep cohesion in their world by limiting some things to players.You ask, we deliver. :) I'll preface this with the statement that I've read your post, but have not been keeping up with the rest of the thread since about page 2. First of all I think you might be oversimplifying TPK's position by saying he "always allows players to get what they want". Firstly, our discussion here is solely about (dis)allowed source material, so I just want to make it clear we're not talking about fudging dice in favour of whiny players who throw tantrums anytime something bad might happen to their character. And as a smaller second note, said characters must still be rules legal. It seems obvious, but I just thought I'd toss it out there. As we are all friends, we tend to discuss the idea of the campaign beforehand. The potential DM generally says "hey, I was thinking of running an Eberron mystery-type campaign" or "hey, I was thinking of running a historical medieval Spanish campaign in the style of Zorro" and the players provide input as to how cool or uncool that would be, the level of hack 'n slash vs. roleplay, seriousness vs. humour, comfort level for graphic violence, types of encounters/monsters/NPCs we want to see or are sick of, and so forth. If response is positive enough, the potential DM puts together a campaign and the players make characters. The DM doesn't have to worry about cohesion, because they've discussed the idea with the players, who know the campaign's setting and genre. This makes it easy to create appropriate characters that mesh well with the setting. Our group also creates characters together, so there is party cohesion on a smaller level too. We all want to play said campaign, so we naturally want to make characters that fit well within it. Now, you may be wondering what happens if the campaign idea doesn't garner an enthusiastic response. The answer is simple: it gets shelved until a later date and filed away in the cabinet with notes. Much as a player shouldn't be tied to the idea of one character concept only, our group's DMs aren't tied to the idea of one campaign style or setting only. Our group is pretty diverse, so we have a wide variety of ideas and preferences. We also like to try new things occasionally, so if someone is all about a new rules system, setting, or style, we're generally willing to give it a shot at least once. After it's over, we chat about what we liked or disliked and decide if we'll keep using the new thing or not. Sometimes existing mechanics in the books do not adequately support a given character concept. In these cases we aren't afraid to homebrew something to make it work. For example, I once wanted to play a fey-type character but didn't find anything sufficient in the books we owned. We were too low level to use creatures out of the MM appropriately. So I sat down with the DM and worked out a half-nymph race that had a decent level adjustment and appropriate abilities.
shadzar 07-28-07, 07:17 PM	You ask, we deliver. ok so where does the problem come from when the DM decides that something shold be disallowed? it seem form your post you figure it out in advance, so the DM knows what the players want to be, and incorporates that into his campaign be it long term or short. i see no reason other than to see how everyone else does it for the questions to come about why DMs disallow certain things. ANY answer given would strictly be that of personal experience playing, and personal preference. in those opinions it isn't that hard to understand that some DMs do things their way rather than pandering to the lowest common denomenator, or more specifically to a single player. if that doesn't work for you then give whatever player what they want if you can make it work in your game. but many other people have found that it causes problems when people play things that "don't belong" and have learned what things work better for them when they DM and play with their friends or newly acquired acquaintances. for whatever reason DMs allow and disallow things. it doesn't require any reaosn on the DMs part to the player. it might be he simply doesn't want to deal with that particular "thing". and further asking the DM about something they don't want to deal with is already making them deal with it which is a sure fire way to gaurantee they will probably never look at that "thing" in a positive light or give it a chance. some times there is a good reason or plot reason or history for why something doesn't fit into the game and at those times they are probably learned through the game or set forth bevorehand or in casual discussion about the game. but to insist that a DM is required to give each and every reason, every time he decides not to include something in his game is showing little to no trust to the DM for his judgements, and frankly also little to no respect in his decisions. which either makes a disgruntled DM or you have no DM and must find a new one and potentially offend a friend flat out. those are the only things i can offer if the case is TPK was looking for some reasons and ways DMs disallow things and don't feel like "answering" to their players about it.
shadzar 07-28-07, 07:23 PM	i am curious TPK, if any of your players come to these forums and would care to add their input on your stance of always allowing players to get what they want and the DM should not try to keep cohesion in their world by limiting some things to players. Ok sure, know can you tell me why the DM's sense of fun is inherently more important the the rest of the players? i will just key into this since my TV shows about about to come on and reading and responding to this entire post will put me well into my satudary anime.... it isn't compeltely about the DMs "fun" a greater workload after the amount of time spent by some DMs to flesh out an entire world, its geology, geography, history, inhabitants, etc is fun for no one. the DM must have time to deal with what already is ahead and do so around other schedules such as work, school, kids, etc and may not just have the time to devote to adding something new to a game right away. when you start working FOR the game rather than ON it then it might as well be your job and you should be paid by the hour of salary for it. since the DM is a volunteer he can't be expected to drop other real life concerns and such just to accomodate a single player who wants to try something that doesn't fit or will require research and integration. if i have time later tonight i will try finishing reading this post and reply to the other things you have asked or wanted clearification on. Uhm? Why can't they? Would you not agree that a game set in anient china would have both barbarians (mongul hoards) as well as ninjas.(orient) history says mongol empire were around 13th century and the first written history of ninjas were 15th centruy. 200 years apart. so for me... NO, they would not fit together. technoligical advances seperates them by a good bit also. again this is where the era of a setting is based on real world history. that way i can actualy use information my players may know to give more color to them without having to describe every virtual rock and tree in my campaign. how would you explain the technological differens of the two in your game world, and explain while the lesser technologically advanced group had not been overthrown by the more advanced one?
Comus 07-28-07, 07:41 PM	history says mongol empire were around 13th century and the first written history of ninjas were 15th centruy. 200 years apart. so for me... NO, they would not fit together. technoligical advances seperates them by a good bit also. again this is where the era of a setting is based on real world history. that way i can actualy use information my players may know to give more color to them without having to describe every virtual rock and tree in my campaign. how would you explain the technological differens of the two in your game world, and explain while the lesser technologically advanced group had not been overthrown by the more advanced one? Are you seriously arguing this? *sigh* Arguing something from a real-world historical basis doesn't work when we are not only discussing a different world, but one of fantasy. Maybe the 'primitives' have a greater command of magic, or the more advanced peoples aren't expansionist at the moment, or any of a hundred other reasons. That said, the DM just has to say "there are no huge barbarian hordes on this world" and, well, he can't be wrong. He can also say that the world is perpetually divided into four regions, each locked into one of the seasons, because of the gods. It's his world. But that doesn't mean the Barbarian class is out. Maybe in the setting, the Barbarian class represents a fighting style that teaches pure offense, or simply represents a type of person that grew up away from schooling, or whatever. The Barbarian Class and the Ninja Class can be used along side each other just fine. I can say the same for any combination of classes. Concept-wise, though, is where problems are. If the player wants to play a Norse raider, then that concept won't work in an oriental game, no matter what class he was going to use.
shadzar 07-28-07, 07:49 PM	Are you seriously arguing this? *sigh* i never said it was the best example, but it is an example. likewise if there never was or that a certain RACE (yes oddly i still see barbarian as a race rather than class) had died off centuries ago, then how does it just pop up again. so who would be their to teach the barbarian abilities, the culture, the reason they are how they are, what if all records of previous barbarians had been destroyed at the command of the ruling parties? in a ficticious universe yes anything is possible dependant upon its author. in most cases of D&D worlds, the author is the DM.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-28-07, 07:55 PM	but to insist that a DM is required to give each and every reason, every time he decides not to include something in his game is showing little to no trust to the DM for his judgements, and frankly also little to no respect in his decisions. which either makes a disgruntled DM or you have no DM and must find a new one and potentially offend a friend flat out. I'm not saying that a DM has to give reasons every time. Although they should have them. I am saying they should give reasons when asked. And sometimes the DM can be wrong, or the player could change their concept to work better. What I'm advocating here is that DMs and players work together to make the best setting possible. And that can't happen when if either have the stance of, "My way or the highway."
Comus 07-28-07, 08:20 PM	i never said it was the best example, but it is an example. likewise if there never was or that a certain RACE (yes oddly i still see barbarian as a race rather than class) had died off centuries ago, then how does it just pop up again. so who would be their to teach the barbarian abilities, the culture, the reason they are how they are, what if all records of previous barbarians had been destroyed at the command of the ruling parties? in a ficticious universe yes anything is possible dependant upon its author. in most cases of D&D worlds, the author is the DM. See, this is the problem - in your mind, the Barbarian fluff and the Barbarian mechanics can't be separated or altered. For you, Barbarian means wild men of the woods. To me, the Barbarian Class is a set of abilities, and the wild men of the woods can be anything from Barbarians to Bards. We can't agree on this point because we are using two separate definitions of 'Barbarian'. So let's talk about something else. *thinks* Something that isn't so obviously tied to a culture, which you feel is important to leave as part of the class. That leaves out Ninja (which I've used to represent an illusionist who did a bit of purse-filching), Paladin, and Monk, for starters. How about Bard?
Sundragon 07-28-07, 09:31 PM	Hello all, I haven't posted here in a Loooonngg time, but recently have been lurking a little just to check on the state of affairs in the lands of D&D. I have been a dungeon master for 22yrs and am honestly surprised at some of the assumptions here regarding what a DM can and cannot or should and should not do. I run a homebrew now (one that I am going to eventually publish for either True20 or 4E if it's OGL) and have run campaigns in published settings. In all instances I have either created the setting or bought the setting with the intention to run it. My players are role players, D&Ders because they are most familiar with that ruleset and it works for us no matter what kind of game I am running even if I have to house rule to get the feel I want. I am the DM, I put in countless hours preparing the campaign and maintaining internal consistancy and it is I who decide, based on the setting and its versimilitude, what is or is not going to be part of it. There may be discussion but there is no debate. I don't have to out argue anyone and I don't have to justify my decisions except by stating clearly why somethins is disallowed. I always know why I disallow something. My current setting is what I call a gritty, high fantasy setting with horror elements. It is Conan meets Lord of the Rings. It has a history, peoples, races, gods, allowed classes, allowed and disallowed feats. I don't even use alignment because it doesn't work for the flavor of the setting. For example, there are "dark elves" but they aren't drow, they are elves whose hearts are "dark", their skin is alabaster and their eyes are feral and cruel. They live either under the earth or in deep fey woodlands and have absolutely no connection to spiders and there is no spider queen. If a player wants to play a drow elf, they will play one of these dark elves. If they really wanted to play an ebony skinned elf of evil nature they would be out of luck. There are no such elves in my setting. Not on the main continent, not on the world and not on the planes...they do not exist. Also, in my campaign prestige classes are usually a part of express orders, socities, knighthoods, guilds, etc. You don't get one unless you are part of a group. No one just picks up a prestige class because they have the right prerequesites. This is a table top role-playing game, not a video game. Multi-classing takes in game roleplaying and training. There are traditional raging barbarians from norse type cultures and there are other types of barbarians who do not rage but possess other culturally appropriate class abilities. I took the time to create the setting with an eye for a great campaign experience for all involved and I decide what is appropriate and what is not. If I find I can compromise with a player and help them to fit a character into a setting relevant class I will do everything in my power to meet their needs. If I find however that they want a drow psionicist no matter what I recommend they can pick something else or play in another campaign. I am the DM/GM, I decide, I create, I allow, I disallow...I am the final arbiter and the final authority on the setting and campaign I am running. I have been able to run several multi-year campaigns successfully for the last 22yrs with fun for all in the role of benign dictator. I am not about to change a thing. I don't change what works on the whims of my players, new game design philosophies, game designers newest or "kewlest" concepts or for any reason other than what is best for the setting and the campaign. Utimately what is best for the setting and the campaign is best for the players and for everyone's fun. :) Starlion
Optimized_Commoner 07-28-07, 10:45 PM	See, this is the problem - in your mind, the Barbarian fluff and the Barbarian mechanics can't be separated or altered. Honestly I think D&D works a lot better when you consider these two things seperately.
Count_Chumleigh 07-28-07, 11:18 PM	I think we both know we are both skilled with tossing around false dictum. Wait, so you admit to throwing around false dicta on this thread, and you still expect me to take you seriously at all? That's it, I'm going to bed. Enjoy your internets.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-28-07, 11:53 PM	I am the DM/GM, I decide, I create, I allow, I disallow...I am the final arbiter and the final authority on the setting and campaign I am running. I have been able to run several multi-year campaigns successfully for the last 22yrs with fun for all in the role of benign dictator. I am not about to change a thing. I don't change what works on the whims of my players, new game design philosophies, game designers newest or "kewlest" concepts or for any reason other than what is best for the setting and the campaign. Utimately what is best for the setting and the campaign is best for the players and for everyone's fun. :) Starlion So uhmm do what your player's wants factor in at all? We've heard a lot about how you are the DM, and you do this and that. And you'll "comprise" with the players, so long as you get what you want 100%. But really what about what they like, or dislike? And suppose a player found something in a splat book that they really wanted to use, and could easily be fit into your campaign, but wasn't already in there, would you allow it? Why, or why not? Would your answer change if it was new book, or an older one? Why? Also suppose I decide to pick up your setting once you publish it, and I decide to add in drow psoinists. How would you feel about that? And lastly, which of these would work best, verisimilitude wise, in your game: A) A human who "casts spells" by using the power of his mind, which he readies by a special mediation he does every morning for one hour. (Human wizard) or B) A book learned wizard, who studies and learns his "spells" through scholarly research. But the player chooses to represent this through power point based magic I E psionic mechanics. They use power points because while they love the wizards flavor, they absolutely hate the Vancin spell casting system. I really take issue with you presuming to know what is "best for all players." But thats a debate for another time, or probably later on this thread, judging by the way things are going. Honestly I think D&D works a lot better when you consider these two things seperately. I agree as well. Mechanics are just that, mechanics. Wait, so you admit to throwing around false dicta on this thread, and you still expect me to take you seriously at all? That's it, I'm going to bed. Enjoy your internets. Good night.
Caelic 07-29-07, 12:34 AM	Now whose being presumptuous, and telling us the right way to DM a game? Weren't you the one groaning about how you weren't being allowed to voice an opinion? "I think" usually pretty clearly indicates an opinion. In this case, it's a pretty defensible opinion, based on indisputable fact. Given that it is entirely possible to keep a campaign fresh and interesting without changing the rules, then a DM who has to frequently change the rules to keep his campaign fresh and interesting is obviously missing something somewhere. The bottom line is still the same. The campaign , and what is already in it, take priority over making changes to accommodate individual players. If by "what is already in it" you mean "The overall group of players," then this is true. However, you have made it very clear that you don't consider the players to be part of the campaign; the players are distinct from the campaign in your lexicon. Consequently, I can only conclude that this statement is, once again, a failed attempt to restate one of my positions. This means that in order for a new player to enjoy your game they have to liked minded enough with you in such a way as they will like the current campaign, as is, or they are better with a different group. Uhm...yes. If a player comes in and says "This campaign sucks, I don't like it, I'm not going to have any fun in it," then chances are he's not going to have much fun in it. For whatever the reason, it is still a "take it or leave it" stance. The reason, of course, is that I already have six to eight players who DO like the game as it is. I somehow doubt that the majority of gamers are like minded with you, in enough aspects that they would fit right in with your group. In fact, I agree with that. It's my experience that a majority of younger gamers tend to prefer "anything goes," and that typically, as a player gets older, he tends towards a "less is more" style of play. I have seen few players go from a restrictive style of play to an "anything goes" style; I have seen many go in the other direction. Further you implication that these so called, "anything goes" campaigns are fraught with clashes, and what not is nothing more then a false dictum. You're very fond of that phrase. I'd suggest that you overuse it somewhat. That being said, there's no false dictum here at all. Simple logic tells us that: 1. A table where anything goes will have more disparate viewpoints concerning what is and is not "fun." 2. More disparate viewpoints concerning what is and is not "fun" results in more incompatible viewpoints concerning what is and is not "fun." 3. More incompatible viewpoints leads to more disagreements. I don't recall saying anything about "fraught with clashes." I observed that a table where anything goes is, by definition, more open to such clashes. Again these problems are player problems, and not game problems. And thus have nothing to do with the type of game run, and everything to do with the quality of the players involved. Really? So if I have one player who wants to play a high-powered, anime-style game, and another who wants to play a low-powered, gritty fantasy campaign, and they disagree on that point, that reflects on their quality as players? I tend to find that the better the DM, the better suited they are at handling differing play styles, and philosophies. I, on the other hand, tend to find that the better the DM, the more in-touch they are with their own play philosophy, and the more secure they are in the knowledge that a good campaign does not depend on reams of rules. A good DM can run a great campaign using nothing but the core 3 handbooks. Heck, a good DM can run a great campaign using TWERPS or Dinky Dungeons. I am, but that really isn't the point. I know my group really well. I also have a very high quality of players. You have to restrict things in the name of verisimilitude, I can trust my players to restrict themselves, and further to make their concepts fit the campaign as written. More backhanded insults, I see. Suffice to say that I'm quite confident that the caliber of my players is at least as high as any group out there, including yours. Now before you call me presumptuous on that one, lets try this. Okay. I'll call it a bit rude, but I'll hold off on presumptuous. When you write up your campaign you have a specific list of the mechanics that are included in it right? You do do this so that everything fits in it, right? Say you were running a desert campaign, you'd have to exclude storm wreck, for example. Typically, I refrain from stating the glaringly obvious. I don't. I don't have to list allowed sources, or mechanics. I only have to hand them the fluff, and every single character with out exception will fit within flavor. You seem to think that that's something special. I'm afraid it's not as special as you think it is. What you're missing is that I don't restrict material because I have to; I restrict material because my players and I find the game more fun and flavorful that way. You'll take great exception to this, but there's no other way I can express it that would be accurate: every player at my table was an "anything goes" player at one point; we outgrew it. I know its a rare thing, and I am lucky. I know my player are very good, and I also know that I'd be hard pressed to replace any of them, with someone else as good. Kind of like you losing a long regular player. Except to me, I'm more flexible to accommodate their idea of fun, as they are to mine. Yes, yes, you think highly of your players. Good for you. I think you might be surprised to find that most other DMs do, too. I do however know that you do exclude stuff, whatever it is. And as you've stated multiple times, you'd rather the player comprise their concept to fit the campaign. What can I say? I like to game with good players, and in twenty years, I have yet to meet a good player who can't come up with an exciting and compelling character who's fun to play no matter what rules sources are and aren't allowed. And I'd rather have players who know what their sense of fun, and are willing to let me know what it is. That way I can make a better game for them. And yes I do tailor adventure, encounters, etc so as to maximize their enjoyment. That's easier if I know what they enjoy. And yet, you've been very dismissive of the notion of a group where I know my players, I know what works for them, and I'm not willing to change it because some new player who simply must play a ninja in every game comes along. Depends on the situation, game, group, and DM. But lets look at the ninja example again. And we'll pretend the setting is ancient Greece. The DM can comprise by allowing the ninjas mechanics, and the player can comprise by accepting the flavor of being fey touched, or her abilities being granted by fey. (Comso already came up with the reflavor) The DM is happy because the character fits the setting. the player is happy because she's using her favorite mechanics. Like I said: if the definition of "compromise" is "Let the players have what they want and just change the name," that doesn't strike me as all that much of a compromise. What I've noticed, and choose not to respond to, was people only saw it as comprise if the player gave up everything. Giving up something would be nice. "I'll play a Ninja but wear a toga" really doesn't strike me as giving up very much. Again it has been repeated, in the setting sense, that if the player gives up the fluff, for more fitting fluff then they are comprising. So if the campaign's supposed to be a no-magic campaign and the player wants to play a wizard, how would you change the fluff? What I see as not making sense is a player accepting different mechanics, but with the same flavor as before. You have made it clear before that you (and seemingly your players) place more emphasis and attachment on mechanics than I and my players do. Personally, I have never encountered a mechanic so good that I had to have it in order to have fun. To put it another way, whats better, the player using the ninja mechanics, but with Greek flavor in a Greek game, or the player using the rogue mechanics (allowed in the campagn), but with a ninja's flavor in the Greek setting? Oooh, I get to say it! "False dictum!" What's better is the player using a rogue with a rogue's flavor, bluntly, and saving the ninja for another campaign. Yes, I know you'll disagree with that, but frankly, at this point, I'm past caring. Pick one! Do you want to state explicitly that I don't feel anyones style is inherently better or worse, or would rather I left it unspoken? Either way I agreed to not to through around personal attacks, you think you could do the same? Actually, what I'd like to see less of is this: "We have different play styles. I like my players and trust them, and they're smart and creative and gifted, and I realize that most groups aren't so fortunate. You have a different play style, and that's not inherently better or worse. It's just that I value my players as human beings." I will admit this is exaggerated, but it's only slightly exaggerated. You have a very bad habit of saying you don't look down on different playstyles while making it very clear that you do. Before you object to that, I'll simply point out that I'm not the only one making this observation. I'm going to walk away from this one at this point, TPK. I truly don't think you have very much respect for DMs who don't share your philosophy, and it's getting a little tiresome. You make the "Anything goes" style work for your group, and that's genuinely good for you. I don't think it'll make for a very long campaign, based on my own personal experience, and I'm still willing to bet that it wouldn't have the sort of verisimilitude I like to see in a game, but it doesn't really have to. You're not running for me, so whether I would be impressed by your DMing or not is really beside the point. I will say this, though: if I did sit down at your table, and found myself unimpressed, I wouldn't demand that you change what you were doing. I'd simply respect that that works for you, and then go and find a group with whom I saw eye-to-eye.
Sundragon 07-29-07, 01:16 AM	So uhmm do what your player's wants factor in at all? We've heard a lot about how you are the DM, and you do this and that. And you'll "comprise" with the players, so long as you get what you want 100%. But really what about what they like, or dislike? And suppose a player found something in a splat book that they really wanted to use, and could easily be fit into your campaign, but wasn't already in there, would you allow it? Why, or why not? Would your answer change if it was new book, or an older one? Why? You are mischaracterizing what I am saying. As I wrote: I took the time to create the setting with an eye for a great campaign experience for all involved and I decide what is appropriate and what is not. If I find I can compromise with a player and help them to fit a character into a setting relevant class I will do everything in my power to meet their needs. I will happily allow what fits in my setting from a given splatbook. Odds are I have to tweek the fluff of the class to suit the world but what fits, fits. Don't make it seem that I am unreasonable. You and those who share your point of view are not completely grasping that D&D is the rule set and just the rule set for a generic and IMO rather flavorless game. It is a meaningless and inconsistant pile of fantasy tropes smashed together in an uncomfortable corset that is quite painful to look at. As a rule set D&D is good but like any rule set, not perfect but does allow a decent simulation of a variety of fantasy types from high, to low, to dark with some, sometimes considerable, work. Adding D&D to a setting, whether homebrew or premade, is where the magic comes in. Even the RAW is officially only for Greyhawk such as it is. All other settings have other assumptions and rules that are the "houserules" for that setting. In Eberron you have warforged and the pulpy feel of an Indiana Jones movie, while FR has its mighty archmages and ancient empires of magic. The flavor of the setting dictates what works within it. And to note, Greyhawk and FR are settings sold by WoTC and as a buisness decision it is mandated that they allow for the broadest possible utility of spaltbooks and WoTC books. Do you really believe the Ed Greewood's FR looks exactly like WoTC FR? If you do, you would be mistaken and if it did he would be nuts. He runs his campaign as he wants and allows what he wants. His timeline, if I am correct, doesn't include the Time of Troubles which ushered in the changeover from AD&D to AD&D2. I may be mistaken but I believe I read that some time ago. Are you claiming that Ed Greenwood, if his FR doesn't include the God Cyric, doesn't have the right to prohibit clerics of Cyric, with their God and the specific mechanics surrounding that choice, from his FR campaign regardless of what the player wants? Play a priest of Bane or Myrkul or Bhaal instead and fit the character concept to what actually exists in the setting. A better example is Fantasy Flight Games Midnight setting which is D&D with the rules completely adapted to the setting. Midnight and other quality 3rd party settings are under no obligation to cater to WoTCs splatbook/rulebook du jour because their bottom line does not demand that they tie into WoTC's marketing machine. Lets get one thing straight here, these books are made to sell. WoTC and the designers who write the books are not concerned about what fits or does not fit into each individual DM's campaign. They should not care because making sure a given DM's campaign makes sense is the DMs job and not WoTC's, Monte Cook's, Rich Baker's, or whoever's. This is why Rule 0 exists. My job as DM consists of maintaining the setting, telling stories (or helping the PCs create the stories), playing the NPCs, making sure that that folks have fun and being arbiter of everything that occurs in the setting and the campaign. However, when it comes to making sure that everyone has fun, that does not translate into bastardizing the setting for any one player's whim. Would you think it sensible for me, if I were DMing a D&D version of Middle Earth to allow half dragon barbarian sorcerers who worship Cthulhu? If I was playing in Conan's Hyborian setting there are no Vancian wizards of any kind and no magic shops. Should I allow them because someone wants them? Setting trumps whim and most mature player's understand the feel/atmosphere of a setting and willingly live with the ground rules of a setting. If someone would prefer to play vanilla D&D where the nature and atmosphere of the setting are determined by an endless stream of splatbooks feel free to play in a different campaign with a different DM. Also suppose I decide to pick up your setting once you publish it, and I decide to add in drow psoinists. How would you feel about that? Hey, I have written the setting but once you buy it its yours to do with as you please. I cannot fairly claim to be be omnipotent arbiter of my own game while at the same time aguing against the same authority of other DMs. And lastly, which of these would work best, verisimilitude wise, in your game: A) A human who "casts spells" by using the power of his mind, which he readies by a special mediation he does every morning for one hour. (Human wizard) or B) A book learned wizard, who studies and learns his "spells" through scholarly research. But the player chooses to represent this through power point based magic I E psionic mechanics. They use power points because while they love the wizards flavor, they absolutely hate the Vancin spell casting system. Both A and B can work in my setting because the magic system is point based and completely non-Vancian. What you describe above are flavor differences and can be completely the same mechanically. With the mind-magic character, as long as it is understood by the player that his/her magic comes from the same source as that which powers all arcane magic everything is fine. I really take issue with you presuming to know what is "best for all players." But thats a debate for another time, or probably later on this thread, judging by the way things are going. I didn't say that I know what's best for all players in a superficial sense. I said: Utimately what is best for the setting and the campaign is best for the players and for everyone's fun. I stand behind this because a long term, believable, internally consistant campaign must follow this dictum. Not all want this, but for those that do, my words are most certainly true. Starlion
Optimized_Commoner 07-29-07, 01:20 AM	I, on the other hand, tend to find that the better the DM, the more in-touch they are with their own play philosophy, and the more secure they are in the knowledge that a good campaign does not depend on reams of rules. A good DM can run a great campaign using nothing but the core 3 handbooks. Heck, a good DM can run a great campaign using TWERPS or Dinky Dungeons. I agree that a DM can compensate for a lack of rules or even for bad rules with their skill. However I do think that a consistent ruleset which covers all the things you want in the game is a useful tool that helps you to run a great game with much less effort. Not necessary, but it is helpful.
UltimateReality 07-29-07, 02:11 AM	Failed Will save because this post is readable. :) Just thinking re: the desert and banning Stormwrack. Would you say it's specifically banned from your campaign, or that, because your players know it's a desert campaign, and presumably you don't game with simpletons, they know it's not going to fit well? It may seem like splitting hairs, as the end result is the same (i.e. the players don't use Book X), but is it because the DM has disallowed X, or because the players simply, for whatever reason, don't want to use X in the first place? Another thing to take into account is established games that tend to work out an idea of what sorts of flavour they like in a campaign, what sorts of houserules they love and what mechanics they all agree are broken or whatever. They know what works for them and they'll do it. Newcomers need to either adapt to that, prove why their way is better, or find a group more suited to their style of play. Someone who likes core-only characters with heavy intrigue plots will probably not have much fun in TPK's games, as the rest of the group does not lean that way. This whole thread has wandered a lot from the original post into tangentially related territory... It's my experience that a majority of younger gamers tend to prefer "anything goes," and that typically, as a player gets older, he tends towards a "less is more" style of play.Do you mean chronologically younger players, or players who are newer to the game? I am a young gamer by many people's standards (being college-age), but I can appreciate both a "restrictive" list of allowed material and a never-ending one. Each has their place, and each will refocus the game slightly. I don't recall saying anything about "fraught with clashes." I observed that a table where anything goes is, by definition, more open to such clashes.Assuming everyone chooses to take all those options. If I say I'm running an Ancient Greece campaign and everyone makes characters that fit within that flavourwise, I'm not going to be any more fraught with clashes than, I suspect, your table. :) Now if someone new wants to be a ninja then we'll need to figure out what to do about that.... Obviously we need to figure out what part of being a ninja's important to him. Once we find out what that is, then we can either try to work it into the campaign (a full blown ninja in Greece is not likely), twiddle with his flavour a bit (could he play a stealthy character with many of the ninja's abilities but call himself something different), or ask if he'd be willing to shelve the idea until the next campaign. The aim here is a happy compromise: the player gets to play a character he likes, and the group's sense of versimilitude and flavour isn't broken. What you're missing is that I don't restrict material because I have to; I restrict material because my players and I find the game more fun and flavorful that way.My question is: if the whole group agrees not to use it, are you (the DM) actually restricting it? I don't mean to pound this particular point into the ground, but mutual agreeance amongst a group is at least nominally different than the DM saying "I'm allowing X, Y, and Z, but not A." every player at my table was an "anything goes" player at one point; we outgrew it.I would take care in saying anyone has "outgrown" any sort of playstyle. Preferences change, and even cycle at times. I'd prefer to leave it at that. There are some friends we used to game with who now prefer to make, essentially, anime clones who can do nothing more nor less than their characters on the show. I personally do not know why they don't just use BESM and be done with it, but that is their preference. They enjoy that style of play. And that is fine. They don't take offense when I decline their invitation to join their games, and they don't expect me to change mine to suit their preference when they're less than half the group. Giving up something would be nice. "I'll play a Ninja but wear a toga" really doesn't strike me as giving up very much.:rofl: I just got a mental picture... I guess it really depends on WHAT the player wants about the concept. I have only ever met one player who was so bound to his flavourmechanics (I put the words together because to him, they are one and the same and you couldn't even think of separating them) that he wouldn't play ANYTHING else. He was eventually uninvited from the group because he insisted on trying to insert himself in my family's politics, where he was not wanted. You have made it clear before that you (and seemingly your players) place more emphasis and attachment on mechanics than I and my players do. As one of the alluded-to players, I feel compelled to state that my stance on mechanics is a clear "meh". I can do builds for power and tactics if necessary, and I can pick stuff entirely for the book flavour as suits the campaign. I have no real preference for one over the other, although I like to alternate campaigns (i.e. one heavy rp/fluff where I make it up as I go, one hack 'n slash/practically a wargame requiring level 20 builds from the start). Personally, I have never encountered a mechanic so good that I had to have it in order to have fun.I dunno, this whole rolling dice thing seems pretty sweet. :P (Yes, I know there's diceless systems out there. No, I haven't tried them. I won't pass judgment until I do, but I will say they seem an odd concept to me at first blush.) I don't think it'll make for a very long campaignDepends on what you qualify as "long"; I've seen campaigns that I'd consider long but others would think short.
Optimized_Commoner 07-29-07, 02:52 AM	This whole thread has wandered a lot from the original post into tangentially related territory... Page 19 I dunno, this whole rolling dice thing seems pretty sweet. :P (Yes, I know there's diceless systems out there. No, I haven't tried them. I won't pass judgment until I do, but I will say they seem an odd concept to me at first blush.) They're just more an interactive form of storytelling than they are a game. Quite fun to play, I'm particularly a fan of Amber Diceless RPG. Amber has an odd mechanic where in character creation you can buy a trait called "good stuff" which effectively equates to always "rolling well", and gain extra points for having "bad stuff" which is effectively always "rolling badly". Depends on what you qualify as "long"; I've seen campaigns that I'd consider long but others would think short. I played in a game with angels manning an orbital laser cannon, a PC werewolf god of nightmares, cthulloid creatures, invasions of fae, spaceships, guns, people using the magical metals powdered as narcotics, ninja rappers, super-saiyan soldiers, psychic mecha... That game lasted 2 years. Though (rather obviously I think) the DM didn't run a single session of that game without being under the influence of certain chemicals. My games are just a little more restrictive than that though... just a little.
shadzar 07-29-07, 04:01 AM	See, this is the problem - in your mind, the Barbarian fluff and the Barbarian mechanics can't be separated or altered. For you, Barbarian means wild men of the woods. To me, the Barbarian Class is a set of abilities, and the wild men of the woods can be anything from Barbarians to Bards. We can't agree on this point because we are using two separate definitions of 'Barbarian'. So let's talk about something else. *thinks* Something that isn't so obviously tied to a culture, which you feel is important to leave as part of the class. That leaves out Ninja (which I've used to represent an illusionist who did a bit of purse-filching), Paladin, and Monk, for starters. How about Bard? i am just using a reaosn why barbarians would be disallowed that don't extended to the mechanics TPK was originally saying the class was chosen for. if the barbarians as a culture were not present then that would be one reason that they are not allowed. the "fluff" again is a determining gactor in many wordsl creations and concepts.
shadzar 07-29-07, 04:35 AM	for those who think the "flavor" could so easily be seperated formt he mechanics, i ask where so you think the mechanics came form? someone sat down and looked at what part the fighter plays, what part the rogue plays, what abilities do they have and the others have not. what makes a fighter different from a rogue. doing this they compiled a list of things that make each class specia and how to implement it into the games rule system. this doesn't mean they were implemented properly for all players. while yes a barbarian can conceptually be any type of fighter that has the fluff you feel a barbarian to be, or even a barbaric wizard. but therein lies the difference. when you speka of "barbarian" class you are meaning the mechanics of a barbarian a written mostly in the rules. when you speak of a barbaric wizard you are speaking of a wizard probably of a lower class and higher agression rate, but doesn't necissarily use the barbarian clas as written in the rules. i think that is where it comes when people disallow a certain class and here the world they think the player automatically wants the embedded mechanics. someone here said look at what the player wants to do and find something that works. that is the correct approach. if you take each player as a new player that knows nothing of the rules and get a abstract concept of what kind of character he/she wants to play without trying to figure out any mechanics for specific classes other than using magic or not; then you can create a character with the allowed classes that will meet the needs of that player. they just need to roleplay those intricacies of the concept they want. it isn't the mechanics that makes a player a rogue it is the player. why does a wizard class PC exist that rarely uses his spells and prefers melee combat? it is predefined that a wizard is not built structurely for melle because of the low amount of hitpoints. any wizard character dying often due to getting involve in melle would be at the fault of the player and said player needs to change his tactics when playing a wizard to play to the classes trengths and weaknesses. it isn't the DMs job to roleplay for the players, and it isnt the DMs job to use every rule in every book including the 3 core books. it is his job to make the rules work for his group. a long standing group that decides what flabor they want and dont want does have an unwritten set of rules they abide by, and it falls onto the DM to impose these restrictions on any new players that come along. would the arguement "the players don't want it" suffice to you when a DM disallows something? or then would it be a case of "the new guy being picked on" or that the other players aren't wanting the new person to have fun? OR the old players don't want this new thing introduced and if it means excluding the new player then so be it. say outside of D&D this happens a group of friends exist and meets one that is a heavy drinker or does drugs and brings either drugs or lots of alcohol when this older group of friends gather. odds are the new friend will be ejected formt he group unless he can conform to the standards of the odler and established group. while the older group will probably not feel a loss that the new person is gone because he is still a stranger. you find groups that are compatible with you, not the group has to change to accomodate you just because you want to play in it.
Count_Chumleigh 07-29-07, 10:07 AM	You are mischaracterizing what I am saying. Yeah, he does that a lot. Watch for him to switch arguments mid-stream, insult you and your playstyle by implication, and make frequent use of spelling and grammatical errors, too. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
UltimateReality 07-29-07, 10:55 AM	Page 19True. I don't think I could bring myself to go back and read all of the long-winded arguments...I kinda came into this topic a wee bit tardy. ;) Amber has an odd mechanic where in character creation you can buy a trait called "good stuff" which effectively equates to always "rolling well", and gain extra points for having "bad stuff" which is effectively always "rolling badly".Huh. The only RPG I've seen that didn't have a Good Stuff/Bad Stuff mechanic built in was Fate. I'm sure more are out there. (Although on the topic of Fate I did like the idea of aspects and phases for character development, but thought the implementation could use a lot of work. Right now I messing about with Fudge and trying not to make my implemention a D&D clone. I keep finding unnoticed carry-overs, which I then have to question to see if they have a place in the new campaign. It's interesting work.) I played in a game with angels manning an orbital laser cannon, a PC werewolf god of nightmares, cthulloid creatures, invasions of fae, spaceships, guns, people using the magical metals powdered as narcotics, ninja rappers, super-saiyan soldiers, psychic mecha...I haven't played anything that out there, but then I haven't played GURPS. :P My games are just a little more restrictive than that though... just a little.I'm honestly not sure where I sit on the whole "how much to allow/disallow" fence. I've played and run both styles. Players wanting crazy stuff that breaks campaign flavour just doesn't seem to happen to me. Sometimes they want to pick stupid names, but that's about the worst of it. If so, the NPCs will react to that in game and just start calling the PCs a nickname or title they feel is appropriate. (I also discovered that one player made silly names because he felt uncreative, so I started handing out ideas of culturally appropriate names. That solved the problem with him entirely.) Yeah, he does that a lot. Watch for him to switch arguments mid-stream, insult you and your playstyle by implication, and make frequent use of spelling and grammatical errors, too.Would you mind taking the discussion of other poster's personal qualities to the PMs, where it is not moderated? I'm not here to state an opinion either way on anyone's behaviour in this thread, but the sort of discussion your post above leads to tends to get threads locked. I think this thread has been through enough of a flame war already. Although if you really want to get into it, spelling and grammar are not good ways to judge a person's intelligence or the validity of their arguments. (Yes, we do it anyway, but that doesn't make it rational.) Discounting that someone may not be a native speaker or may have a learning disability or just not have a high level of linguistic education, someone's facility with English isn't correlated to their ability to make a sound argument. I have seen numerous posters with atrocious typing make really good posts in a debate, and just as many posters with impeccable writing make arguments so bad I actually stopped and stared at the screen in awe. Edit: and on the topic of the argument itself, from what I can tell it's been one giant fight of: 1. Either you allow everything or you don't care about your players' wants or value them as people, vs. 2. Either you disallow stuff or your players cheat and you don't have a realistic game world. I would have thought both of these false alternatives were obvious enough...
Caelic 07-29-07, 11:43 AM	2. Either you disallow stuff or your players cheat and you don't have a realistic game world. I would have thought both of these false alternatives were obvious enough... Ultimate, Thanks for your points, which are both well-thought-out and eloquent. (Hey, you actually got me to post again, when I was pretty set on not doing so.) With regards to your second point, I don't think it's a single point. Cheating or not cheating has very little to do with whether you allow or disallow material; a player who's going to cheat is as likely to cheat in a core-only game as he is in an anything-goes campaign. That being said, I do stand by my position concerning verisimilitude. I don't keep trotting out the v-word because I like to show off my vocabulary; I use it because talking about a "realistic" gameworld is an exercise in futility. Obviously, any game where people fling fireballs is unrealistic. However, I like my fantasy games...like my fantasy fiction...to have the appearance of reality. I like for them to be believable, given the starting premises. As such, I tend to be fairly conservative when it comes to fantastic elements, because each fantastic element you add makes suspension of disbelief exponentially harder. A continent where dinosaurs survived isn't that hard to believe in. A continent where dinosaurs survived and evolved into psionic ninjas, who now battle the forces of the evil Empire since a Star Destroyer also crashed on that island... Well, that lacks verisimilitude. That's not to say that it couldn't be a fun campaign, but it certainly wouldn't be one that I could take very seriously. That's not a sleight, either; not all campaigns are meant to be taken seriously. I don't take Paranoia campaigns or TF2V campaigns seriously, but I enjoy them.
UltimateReality 07-29-07, 12:48 PM	That being said, I do stand by my position concerning verisimilitude. I don't keep trotting out the v-word because I like to show off my vocabulary;Oh, but it's so fun to say out loud! :D A continent where dinosaurs survived isn't that hard to believe in. A continent where dinosaurs survived and evolved into psionic ninjas, who now battle the forces of the evil Empire since a Star Destroyer also crashed on that island...I tend to have a looser idea of my campaigns, I guess. I'm not a fan of mixing genres or tech levels/magic systems, so I would find your dino/psi-ninja/Star Wars example fairly ludicrous myself. But if my campaign is set in a fantasy version of Arabia, I make sure there's stuff around it. In that particular setting's case, there were countries based loosely off of Africa and Asia, as well as psionic and underwater kingdoms. None of these were central to the campaign, which was set in the mainland desert. But they were there, players could easily travel to or be from them, and so forth. If a player wasn't fond of the Arabian setting, I had no problems walking them to the Aurient (the perennial favourite of just about any player anywhere, especially with the rise of anime) or the Nyambe Jungles (for that one guy who can't stand oriental themed games). The dude who always plays psions? He's from this little island over here. The weird forest elf? She can be from over here, where these petrified ruins are still being investigated. (Unbeknownst to the players, a psionic civilization had risen and fallen prior to the current empire.) If you have a thing for undead, there's an Egyptian necropolis over this way. (But don't step on the queen's toes, she's pretty touchy.) Of course, when you know your players it's easier to tailor settings to their tastes. For a new group I would probably stick to an established WotC setting for the first game. I also find there is something about artwork that really gives people an idea of the atmosphere, so I'm working to include more of that in my handout. (Because I'm not a graphic artist, this usually involves a lot of hours spent on Google and a few frantic IMs petitioning my sister -- who is a graphic artist -- to photoshop stuff for me.) When I make campaign settings, I tend to start with an idea based on a culture, because I'm an anthropology and history geek. But if anthro and history have taught me anything, it's that no place or culture is in a vaccuum. They're affected by the areas around them. For the sake of verisimilitude (damn, that's a lot of "i"s) I need to figure out at least the basic past interaction of these other areas. From there it's not hard to extrapolate to present day. I'm also fairly lenient with the historical accuracy when doing a D&D campaign. Even if there are clear analogues to the real world, even if the characters are very clearly in the Caribbean in May of 1660, they can be druids and wizards (flavour requires considerable reworking but it's been done in two separate campaigns now) and things in the campaign aren't a 1:1 port over from history. Part of this is simply a nod to the fact that most of my players don't care who the governor of Jamaica was then. The other part of it is that I'm running a D&D game and not a history lesson, and I'd rather spend my time developing a juicy plot. </tangent about how I design my campaigns> That's not to say that it couldn't be a fun campaign, but it certainly wouldn't be one that I could take very seriously. That's not a sleight, either; not all campaigns are meant to be taken seriously. I don't take Paranoia campaigns or TF2V campaigns seriously, but I enjoy them.This just made me realize I've been playing in far-too-serious campaigns lately. Thanks for the unintentional heads-up. :)
Caelic 07-29-07, 01:07 PM	In that particular setting's case, there were countries based loosely off of Africa and Asia, as well as psionic and underwater kingdoms. None of these were central to the campaign, which was set in the mainland desert. But they were there, players could easily travel to or be from them, and so forth. That's not so different from what I do; it's just that I like to have more than a vague idea of what's in those areas and how they relate to the rest of the campaign setting. I like to know about their cultures, about their systems of government, about what they trade with the rest of the world. If a player wants to know the system of government of Nimidia, I want to know that answer--not just pull something off the top of my head. When I make campaign settings, I tend to start with an idea based on a culture, because I'm an anthropology and history geek. But if anthro and history have taught me anything, it's that no place or culture is in a vaccuum. They're affected by the areas around them. For the sake of verisimilitude (damn, that's a lot of "i"s) I need to figure out at least the basic past interaction of these other areas. From there it's not hard to extrapolate to present day. English, Psych, and Cultural Anthro, myself, so I know where you're coming from. I'm also fairly lenient with the historical accuracy when doing a D&D campaign. Even if there are clear analogues to the real world, even if the characters are very clearly in the Caribbean in May of 1660, they can be druids and wizards (flavour requires considerable reworking but it's been done in two separate campaigns now) and things in the campaign aren't a 1:1 port over from history. Well, here's the thing for me: if magic is as prevalent as it is in the default D&D setting, then the Caribbean in May of 1660 isn't going to look a thing like it does in the real world. Hence the restrictions; for the world not to be utterly alien, there HAVE to be some restrictions. The players like the idea of ships with cannon, and therefore there has to be a logical reason for cannon to have evolved. The players like the idea of lofty sailing ships, and so there has to be a logical reason why such ships would exist. Neither of these would be the case in a world where fireball-flinging wizards are fairly common. Now, some DMs would just say "They exist anyway, don't worry about it." That's the lack of verisimilitude I try to avoid. Part of this is simply a nod to the fact that most of my players don't care who the governor of Jamaica was then. The other part of it is that I'm running a D&D game and not a history lesson, and I'd rather spend my time developing a juicy plot. But regardless of whether I choose to have the historical governor of Jamaica in the position or not, I want to know who the governor of Jamaica is, and what he's doing. The players may never have need of that information, but I do. Again, it's the same approach I take to writing. I usually do a full write-up on each character of any importance. I want to know what their favorite TV program is, what they eat for breakfast in the morning, and what their kid sister's name is. None of that may ever directly appear in the story, but knowing it makes my characterizations more solid and gives the story more of the magic "v" word.
shadzar 07-29-07, 02:12 PM	When I make campaign settings, I tend to start with an idea based on a culture, because I'm an anthropology and history geek. But if anthro and history have taught me anything, it's that no place or culture is in a vaccuum. They're affected by the areas around them. For the sake of verisimilitude (damn, that's a lot of "i"s) I need to figure out at least the basic past interaction of these other areas. From there it's not hard to extrapolate to present day. what would you do in the event you create a world and weigh out its history and the way these cultures have interacted and have them balacned in the past and one culture is ommited completely from something that might have fit, but a player (say TPK) were to come up and ask for a character of that purporsefully omitted culture? would your microcosm change to have this previously undocumented/unknown culture that never interacted with the other cultures suddenly appear as if it had always been there?
UltimateReality 07-29-07, 03:06 PM	I like to have more than a vague idea of what's in those areas and how they relate to the rest of the campaign setting....If a player wants to know the system of government of Nimidia, I want to know that answer--not just pull something off the top of my head.I suspect your players wander around asking questions a lot more than mine. :) I empathise with you that I need to know what's going on, even if the players don't see it. However, I quickly found out I could spend years detailing a campaign setting and never end up actually playing it. I sacrificed encyclopedic pre-planning (which, yes, I would love to do) for the sake of actually sitting around a table once in awhile. I also discovered that players go through things pretty slowly at times, and I can use those munchie runs to figure out more detail. Will it be as masterful as something I took a month to prepare? Well, probably not, unless I'm particularly inspired. Will it be good enough to get me through to the end of the session, when I can spend some quality time with it? Usually. My sketches for regions usually include name, common races, basic geography, and relations with surrounding areas, and anything that I feel will be pertinent or notable to the campaign. I try to give myself enough of an "atmosphere" that if the players take things in that direction, I can at least get the feel of the area right. My main region gets detailed, with ruling bodies named and organized, named NPCs with goals, personalities, and resources, notes on cities (and districts and establishments within cities), history, races, recent conflicts, the basis for the economy, local rumors, and so forth. I like to pack as much in as I can. :P Well, here's the thing for me: if magic is as prevalent as it is in the default D&D setting, then the Caribbean in May of 1660 isn't going to look a thing like it does in the real world.I agree. However, in my setting it wasn't as prevalent -- it was exceedingly rare and spells had less "obvious" effects. You can easily roleplay the casting of "Doom" as someone going on a tirade against an opponent, berating them for their lack of courage, patriotism, and faith. The druid was a forced child immigrant who had hung out with some native shamans (and yes I did detail the tribes' composition and make him pick appropriate languages). Summoning a dire octopus to attack the ship was a lot more internally consistent than lobbing a flamestrike, so that's what the character did. As far as the setting was concerned, obvious casters were either witches or liars. Smart casters learned to make their spells subtle. After all, the spell merely says there is a verbal or somatic component -- it doesn't dictate what exactly it is. The players like the idea of ships with cannon, and therefore there has to be a logical reason for cannon to have evolved. The players like the idea of lofty sailing ships, and so there has to be a logical reason why such ships would exist.As a tangent, I found Stormwrack's idea of catapults on board a ship pretty funny. That broke my sense of internal consistency. Neither of these would be the case in a world where fireball-flinging wizards are fairly common.Re: fireball in particular, I would imagine that special sails and hulls would be available that had protection and resistance cast upon them for this very reason. My bigger concern about ships would be: what's the point, after you've been there once? Get a mage to teleport there and then set up a portal if it's really that nifty a place to go to. (Actually...that just gave me an adventure idea.) Now, some DMs would just say "They exist anyway, don't worry about it." That's the lack of verisimilitude I try to avoid.May I assume you're not a fan of most published campaign settings? I've noticed they all seem to involve a certain amount of this hand-waving in various topics. I want to know who the governor of Jamaica is, and what he's doing. The players may never have need of that information, but I do.I generally sketch out an outstanding trait or two, the NPC's main objective (yes, even the farm hand has an objective -- it's probably picking up the waitress, but he has one) and, if they're related at all to the current, planned, or past plot, then I get down into a list of resources and actions. I also note what will motivate them (or turn them off) so that if the PCs bump into them, I can have a basis for realistic interaction. I usually do a full write-up on each character of any importance. I want to know what their favorite TV program is, what they eat for breakfast in the morning, and what their kid sister's name is. None of that may ever directly appear in the story, but knowing it makes my characterizations more solidI do this with my characters when I play. Unfortunately, I haven't written fiction in a long time. what would you do in the event you create a world and weigh out its history and the way these cultures have interacted and have them balacned in the past and one culture is ommited completely from something that might have fit, but a player (say TPK) were to come up and ask for a character of that purporsefully omitted culture?Before I answer this I just want to make it clear I'm answering for myself (not TPK or anyone else on the thread) and a hypothetical player. I'm going to toss an example out here, you can tell me if it's close to what you mean. Suppose I created my wonderful Arabian Adventures campaign world and a player came in wanting to play, say, a Jedi? Well, the first thing to find out is why the player wants to play a Jedi. If all he's after is using the Force to smash things and people about, I can offer him the telekinesis spell or numerous psion powers. Both wizards and psions exist in the campaign, so the problem is solved. If he wants to belong to an old order of wise people who espouse the Jedi philosophy, well, I might think it's a bit cheesy, but I have included some secluded monastic groups in the mountains on the eastern border of the campaign, who "borrow" some of their ideas from the oriental nation. If he's all about the lightsaber, I present him with the spell decastave from Faerun and he's set. Now, if he insists on having a "Jedi" name that sounds like Star Wars, dressing in "Jedi" clothes, talking to the Jedi Council and having Yoda as his mentor.... I'm going to gently suggest that he might want to shelve that idea until the next campaign, and ask if there's something else he would be happy playing in this one. In the meantime, I will at least look through the Star Wars rules (I hear Saga Edition's pretty good btw) and see if it's something I'd have fun DMing. Anyone else in the group is welcome to run a SW campaign too, either after or simultaneously with mine.
Caelic 07-29-07, 03:35 PM	I agree. However, in my setting it wasn't as prevalent -- it was exceedingly rare and spells had less "obvious" effects. You can easily roleplay the casting of "Doom" as someone going on a tirade against an opponent, berating them for their lack of courage, patriotism, and faith. The druid was a forced child immigrant who had hung out with some native shamans (and yes I did detail the tribes' composition and make him pick appropriate languages). Summoning a dire octopus to attack the ship was a lot more internally consistent than lobbing a flamestrike, so that's what the character did. As far as the setting was concerned, obvious casters were either witches or liars. Smart casters learned to make their spells subtle. The amusing thing is that the campaign I'm currently preparing to run is, in fact, set in the Carribean...circa 1670 rather than 1660, granted. :) It sounds like we came to many of the came conclusions. In my own campaign, the Inquisition is strengthened by the fact that magic does exist, and objective proof of that can be produced. They're dedicated to actively hunting down and eliminating those who use magic. As a tangent, I found Stormwrack's idea of catapults on board a ship pretty funny. That broke my sense of internal consistency. Mine as well; there's the issue of verisimilitude again. Re: fireball in particular, I would imagine that special sails and hulls would be available that had protection and resistance cast upon them for this very reason. My bigger concern about ships would be: what's the point, after you've been there once? Get a mage to teleport there and then set up a portal if it's really that nifty a place to go to. (Actually...that just gave me an adventure idea.) The answer to this one, at least in my game, follows from what has gone before: magic is rare, and in many countries, highly stigmatized. Consequently, it's going to be hard to find a mage capable of moving massive amounts of cargo via teleport, and he's going to charge an exorbitant amount of money to do so. Spain categorically refuses to use magic; ergo, Spain still needs to ship large amounts of treasure by galleon; ergo, there's still a good reason for pirates to be plying the waters of the Caribbean. As for the issue of fireballing mages, again, the parameters of the campaign go a long way towards dealing with the issue. We're using the generic classes from UA. As such, all spellcasters have very limited spell lists, and most tend to be specialized. A ship's captain, assuming he can afford a mage, is going to look for one who can cast Control Winds, or maybe Purify Food and Drink, or Make Whole, or Find the Path...not one who throws fire spells hither and yon. Few ships can afford the extravagance of two mages. Thus, sea battles seldom come down to wizards hurling fireballs. The threat of wizards hurling fireballs tends to make captains a little more cautious about engaging an enemy, but it rarely actually happens. May I assume you're not a fan of most published campaign settings? I've noticed they all seem to involve a certain amount of this hand-waving in various topics. Yes and no. Way back when, when I was but a wee nipperkin, I was awed by the amount of detail in Ed Greenwood's Forgotten Realms articles in Dragon. The idea that a DM would take the time to worry about the little details--like unique types of gemstones, for instance--had a significant effect on my own thinking as a DM. Later on, the epic spell "Elminster's Gygax Removal" was cast, Forgotten Realms became the default campaign setting, and it started to get a bit silly. Overall, though, I find that running a game in someone else's campaign setting is a little like wearing someone else's shoes. I can walk around in them, but they never fit quite right.
Optimized_Commoner 07-29-07, 03:35 PM	I haven't played anything that out there, but then I haven't played GURPS. :P ... this was D&D :confused: :weep: I'm honestly not sure where I sit on the whole "how much to allow/disallow" fence. I've played and run both styles. Players wanting crazy stuff that breaks campaign flavour just doesn't seem to happen to me. Thinking about it, I probably disallow more things than I realise, it's just that my players don't make a big deal about it. If one of the players says, "Hey can I play a Rakshasha?" and I say "No, I don't think that'll work", then they usually drop it there and neither of us really think about it again. Generally though, if someone asks me whether they can play something, my first thought is how can I allow this, not whether I should disallow it. Of course if I can't come up with a way to say yes to the concept, then it's probably going to cause problems in the game. Will it be as masterful as something I took a month to prepare? Well, probably not, unless I'm particularly inspired. It's depressing me that the things I invent on the spot are generally far more masterful than something I put a lot of hard effort into before-hand. Maybe I just overthink things when I have a lot of time to work on them. As a tangent, I found Stormwrack's idea of catapults on board a ship pretty funny. That broke my sense of internal consistency. I thought they worked well in Avatar: The last airbender. Get a mage to teleport there and then set up a portal if it's really that nifty a place to go to. Yeah, I know the feeling. This issue has been bugging me for a while, so in the gameworld I'm building at the moment there are nine cities linked by permanent teleportation portals. People who aren't interested in those nine cities can hire mages to teleport them or fly on a magic carpet or whatever. However, because I did that, I had to adjust the worldmap so that all the continents were closer together so that sailing in a ship remains a viable economic alternative (because who wants a campaign where you can never sail a ship across the ocean).
Caelic 07-29-07, 03:47 PM	Perhaps I should explain exactly how we manage the whole allowed/not allowed issue. There seems to be an impression that this entails printing out a massive list of all "Banned" items, or an equally massive list of all permitted items. That, of course, would be hugely impractical and time-consuming. Here's what I do: The core three books are fair game. Certain things from outside the core three books are definitely in the campaign, simply by virtue of the nature of the campaign--a good bit of Stormwrack, for instance, is obviously going to find its way into my seafaring campaign. Classes, feats, spells, and sources which are already in the setting appear in my campaign briefing notes. Beyond that, we use a modified version of the RPGA's "Development List." At each level, each player gets to put one non-core item on his or her "development list." This could be a feat, or a spell, or a skill trick, or what-have-you. At every fifth level, he or she may add a prestige class to that list. Everything on the players' lists is carefully considered. If it can reasonably be allowed, it is, and then becomes part of the campaign setting, and thereby available to everybody. It's the responsibility of the player requesting a given item/feat/class to bring the source with him or her to the game.
shadzar 07-29-07, 06:55 PM	of course you can't answer for TPK, unles you truely are TPK using multiple accounts for multiple viewponts. :) so you build into your game unknowns for those instances when you may have something come up that could provide for a sole survivor of a long lost species to turn up in? i just can't do that. i like to have well in advacne planned on what is happening in the world my players are in. trade trade routes, precise time keeping etc. this way when players expect to meet a trade caravan as it passes through a mountian pass and are 3 days behind in their travels, the caravan has probably already been and gone on its way. time is very important to me as the world doesn't revolve around my players. i amke it know to them that my world doesn't need them in it to spin, it was made to spin for them to be in it. however time does stop as their actions do, but it doesn't mean time only progresses in the region they are in. that is where my fun comes in, seeing how my plans are changed by their actions throughout the game and what world changing events they has caused. looking back after several session i can show them the effects of their actions even if they think it did little for the sake of the world and how they themselves had had sometims trmendous impact on EVERYbody in the world even if they have not met them. slowing down or preventing a trade caravan from meeting its scheduled rounds could have people waiting for any numbers of things that local merchants would have sold and don't have avaible and the effects trickle down throughout the populace. having a war break out in a distant country because of pot shortages is interesting to hear about for the players and think they had something to do with it. now they must decide if they must do something about it, or ignore it. :evillaugh i guess in the long run my players have come to want to know what i have in store for them next rather than playing something that wont fit. or i say dont want them to have access for some reason. i haven't yet found one that wants to press the issue rather than choose something else that works (to my memory). so maybe that is why i find it hard to think a DM should answer to players, because it hasn't come up for me. that is why i asked TPK long ago why the issue and this thread came about. if it was just curiosity or a specific incedent that spurred its creation.
UltimateReality 07-30-07, 01:06 AM	In my own campaign, the Inquisition is strengthened by the fact that magic does exist, and objective proof of that can be produced.As an aside, why does it always end up the Spanish are bad guys? :P I had that happen in my campaign too...player bought a spell off a Spanish necromancer, then tried to turn the necromancer in, but only for a reward. That encounter ended a bit poorly I think, but I made it clear the Spanish officer was a <male reproductive organ>. Normally I'd blame PotC for the prevalence of pirate campaigns, but source material for them has been prevalent, from what I can tell, since long before. I'm still looking for the best way to run ship encounters... Mine as well; there's the issue of verisimilitude again.I think TPK actually got to the book first. I heard a guffaw, then he turned the book around and pointed at a floorplan for one of the sample ships and asked me what was wrong with it. (He was actually involved in military-like-stuff when he was younger, so he spotted it right away.) The answer to this one, at least in my game, follows from what has gone before: magic is rare, and in many countries, highly stigmatized. Consequently, it's going to be hard to find a mage capable of moving massive amounts of cargo via teleport, and he's going to charge an exorbitant amount of money to do so.And in a low magic game like the ones we're discussing, that's fine. But a fireball-slinging mage is only 4 levels off from being a teleport-toting mage. I think that most campaign worlds that run with "default" D&D flavour would end up looking somewhat like Faerun, with a bunch of portals going who knows where. We're using the generic classes from UA.I've seen them but never used them. How do they affect your campaigns? A ship's captain, assuming he can afford a mage, is going to look for one who can cast Control Winds, or maybe Purify Food and Drink, or Make Whole, or Find the Path...not one who throws fire spells hither and yon.Exactly. Those other spells are far more useful, and draw much less attention from the wrong kinds of people. The idea that a DM would take the time to worry about the little details--like unique types of gemstones, for instance--had a significant effect on my own thinking as a DM.I have to admit I'm a sucker for unique treasure. I think that stuff is awesome. I try to include distinct things in each campaign setting or area that differentiate it from other places or worlds. I also think that the details are important, but I have to watch myself or I could get swallowed up in them. And really, if what I want to run is a simulation, I'll buy the Sims and start modding. But the world does have to have at least the appearance, on nominal digging, of being internally consistent. Personally I think playing in a campaign as detailed as yours or Shadzar's would be kinda fun as a player. But I know I couldn't run one -- I just don't have the time to put into it. Granted, you can figure out a lot logically off the top of your head, but some stuff just needs time. Overall, though, I find that running a game in someone else's campaign setting is a little like wearing someone else's shoes. I can walk around in them, but they never fit quite right.This is a really excellent quote that explains how I feel about published campaign settings way better than I ever would have thought of. Thank you. ... this was D&D :confused: :weep:LOL. I figured. But it also sounds suspiciously like GURPS, which I hear really lives up to the Universal part of its name. Thinking about it, I probably disallow more things than I realise, it's just that my players don't make a big deal about it. If one of the players says, "Hey can I play a Rakshasha?" and I say "No, I don't think that'll work", then they usually drop it there and neither of us really think about it again.Yeah. My players don't tend to be set on the one build and one build alone. (As an aside, though, TPK and I once went through the MM and reworked all the monsters we felt were viable as player races into LA +3 or less with no HD. It was an interesting experience -- if you ever want to bond hardcore with another DM or end up hating them, try to homebrew stuff together. :P) It's depressing me that the things I invent on the spot are generally far more masterful than something I put a lot of hard effort into before-hand. Maybe I just overthink things when I have a lot of time to work on them.I wish I had that talent. I do best when given a few ideas to ponder over, mush together, and suddenly have an epiphany about as I wake up and stumble into the shower. Perhaps I should explain exactly how we manage the whole allowed/not allowed issue....Beyond that, we use a modified version of the RPGA's "Development List." At each level, each player gets to put one non-core item on his or her "development list." This could be a feat, or a spell, or a skill trick, or what-have-you. At every fifth level, he or she may add a prestige class to that list.Huh. Interesting system. Am I correct in figuring that its main purpose is to ensure a mostly-core build? I'm also curious as to your reasons for using this method instead of having players ask you for case-by-case material as it comes up. Do you find mostly-core (counting the stuff in your campaign handout as "core") adds a lot to your campaign, and if so, what you feel it does? of course you can't answer for TPK, unles you truely are TPK using multiple accounts for multiple viewponts. :)Nope, I got my own sock puppets to back me up in my arguments. ;) so you build into your game unknowns for those instances when you may have something come up that could provide for a sole survivor of a long lost species to turn up in?I do build in spaces where unknowns are. I think of it like making a drawing. Some parts will be done really well in immaculate detail. Other parts will be just a vague sketch until I get a better idea of what belongs there. I've never had someone ask to play the sole member of a species before, but there are numerous ways I could think of to work it in. First thing is, of course, to figure out what the player wants from the race. If it's a mechanical thing, I can probably let him have it and just change the appearance of the species. If it's the look of another species he wants, then he will need a plausible backstory as to how this occured (planar manifest zones, wizard's accidents, and so on are pretty stock explanations for this). I make sure the player is aware of how NPCs will react to, say, a minotaur in Arabia (hint: generally not well) and is prepared to deal with those consequences. If he simply wants to play a race that's uncommon, I can usually find a place to fit them in. If minotaurs would be found anywhere in my Arabian campaign, it would be in one particular mountain range that houses a lot of small nomadic tribes and just happens to border on the necropolis... (The eastern mountains, where the aforementioned monasteries are, would also work well -- in fact I could work in a little minotaur subculture there, probably something with Shinto leanings.) Odd as it might sound, I often welcome it when players do this sort of thing, because they're adding to my setting and investing themselves in it. Long after the character has died of an axe through the skull, the minotaur tribe will live on, and if the players travel to the mountain pass, they will meet them. Intentionally disruptive characters are a whole other ball of wax. I have never DMed for one, and consciously kept it that way. when players expect to meet a trade caravan as it passes through a mountian pass and are 3 days behind in their travels, the caravan has probably already been and gone on its way.I think this is a really rewarding style of play. I just don't have enough hours in the day to this to my satisfaction. (See my reply to Caelic earlier in this post for a bit more detail on that.) that is where my fun comes in, seeing how my plans are changed by their actions throughout the game and what world changing events they has caused.That is truly awesome to see, I agree. I think my favourite moment in a campaign was when the PCs kidnapped an NPC I had intended to dispense information about the upcoming dungeon. It was followed closely by the rogue forging the NPC's ransom note. Many other antics followed. i can show them the effects of their actions even if they think it did little for the sake of the world and how they themselves had had sometims trmendous impact on EVERYbody in the world even if they have not met them.The ripple effect is truly fun to write out, as a DM, and see, as a player. having a war break out in a distant country because of pot shortagesAre we talking about ceramic containers or psychoactive substances here? :P i haven't yet found one that wants to press the issue rather than choose something else that works (to my memory).Pretty much the same here. I find if you put the effort into a campaign (especially a new setting) players are going to want to explore that setting and see what they can do with it before they'll insist on Build and Concept X from twenty splatbooks. so maybe that is why i find it hard to think a DM should answer to players, because it hasn't come up for me. that is why i asked TPK long ago why the issue and this thread came about. if it was just curiosity or a specific incedent that spurred its creation.Well, personally I believe a DM should have a reason if asked. As a player, I will judge for myself whether I think that reason is a "good" or sufficient one. As for the origin of the thread, I think it was just a response to a sudden influx of threads about "my DM banned X, insert ensuing flame war here" that happened in a short period of time.
Caelic 07-30-07, 12:12 PM	As an aside, why does it always end up the Spanish are bad guys? :P I had that happen in my campaign too...player bought a spell off a Spanish necromancer, then tried to turn the necromancer in, but only for a reward. That encounter ended a bit poorly I think, but I made it clear the Spanish officer was a <male reproductive organ>. There's actually a term for this: it's called the "Black Legend." The notion that the Spanish were evil bloodthirsty conquerors has been around for quite some time. I'm blanking on the title of the book, but do a search for Julian Juderias--he is, I believe, the author who coined the term, as well as the "White Legend"--the idea that Spain was the bastion of culture and civilization among the European nations. I'm actually trying to steer away from the "Black Legend." The Spanish aren't all bloodthirsty fanatics, and there's quite a bit of reason for their mistrust of magic; there are some very nasty spellcasters wandering around. Most of the members of the Inquisition are, in fact, Lawful Good, with a vew very notable exceptions. Normally I'd blame PotC for the prevalence of pirate campaigns, but source material for them has been prevalent, from what I can tell, since long before. I'm still looking for the best way to run ship encounters... I think TPK actually got to the book first. I heard a guffaw, then he turned the book around and pointed at a floorplan for one of the sample ships and asked me what was wrong with it. (He was actually involved in military-like-stuff when he was younger, so he spotted it right away.) This is one of the areas where I'm trying to strike a balance. I have a number of naval buffs in my group who would be perfectly happy to debate the efficiency of a French 74 versus a third rate ship of the line, the relative efficiency of a brig versus a brigantine, and the impact of the introduction of the caronnade a hundred years early. I also have players who don't consider the Master and Commander series something to be read over and over again, and who want to just get on with the swashbuckling. And in a low magic game like the ones we're discussing, that's fine. But a fireball-slinging mage is only 4 levels off from being a teleport-toting mage. I think that most campaign worlds that run with "default" D&D flavour would end up looking somewhat like Faerun, with a bunch of portals going who knows where. Well, yes. But how much can that ninth level teleport-toting mage haul with him? There's a word for folks who can carry small quantities of highly-valuable cargo undetectably in and out of a country, completely bypassing customs. ;) I've seen them but never used them. How do they affect your campaigns? It'll be a first, so I'll have to let you know once we've actually played with them a bit. I have to admit I'm a sucker for unique treasure. I think that stuff is awesome. I try to include distinct things in each campaign setting or area that differentiate it from other places or worlds. I also think that the details are important, but I have to watch myself or I could get swallowed up in them. And really, if what I want to run is a simulation, I'll buy the Sims and start modding. But the world does have to have at least the appearance, on nominal digging, of being internally consistent. Personally I think playing in a campaign as detailed as yours or Shadzar's would be kinda fun as a player. But I know I couldn't run one -- I just don't have the time to put into it. Granted, you can figure out a lot logically off the top of your head, but some stuff just needs time. This is where my preference for very long campaigns comes in. My ongoing campaign didn't acquire the depth I want it to have all at once; that happened over the course of several years. LOL. I figured. But it also sounds suspiciously like GURPS, which I hear really lives up to the Universal part of its name. I actually prefer the Hero System to GURPS as a generic engine, but that's personal preference.
solbergb 07-30-07, 04:18 PM	Diceless systems tend to have three outcomes "win by higher attribute" "lose by lower attribute" or "tie and work it out with secondary attribute determined by roleplay". Setting up favorable circumstances can modify things a bit, but usually is only decisive if the attributes are close. They can work pretty well (I've played some Amber) but require both a high degree of trust with the DM, and a setting where it makes sense that the underdog pretty much never wins by luck. Amber being one of them - if Gerard gets his hands on Corwyn, he wins. If you fight Benedict in a straight up fight, you lose. Period. If you're the underdog, you need to cheat in some area not the speciality of the person you're in conflict with in order to win. Even the good and bad stuff mechanic didn't help as much as you'd think. Gerard with Bad Stuff might strain his back a little while wrapping you into a pretzel, but he'll still wrap you into a pretzel. Corwyn with Good Stuff might be more likely to have his actions viewed favorably by Gerard (avoiding the conflict) or might mean he's knocked out early before his bones are broken (allowing easier recovery) but he'll still lose the wrestling match. The interesting conflicts are when people are evenly matched and have to fall back on other things. Corwyn and Eric were pretty evenly matched in War. Eric was better at social stuff, Corwyn was better at just being amazingly hard to kill and at recovering from injuries. Eric was ahead of the game most of the series, he, however, died, where Corwyn just kept plugging along until he won.
Archangel62 07-30-07, 11:39 PM	what would you do in the event you create a world and weigh out its history and the way these cultures have interacted and have them balacned in the past and one culture is ommited completely from something that might have fit, but a player (say TPK) were to come up and ask for a character of that purporsefully omitted culture? would your microcosm change to have this previously undocumented/unknown culture that never interacted with the other cultures suddenly appear as if it had always been there? That depends though too. If a person wants to play a barbarian because they like the mechanics they can be a thug, a brawler, or a gladiator or some other way to fit it in. Or do you mean something like a samurai or shugenja, I ask them why they want it and if it's mechanical I can probably alter things a little to fit them in. There are actually very few new classes that I've ever had an issue figuring out how to add to any of my games.
Manic Man 07-31-07, 06:42 AM	If i play a character who when fighting stays deathly quiet but whose eyes burn with anger and determination or become flat with the acceptance of death, would this match the rage ability of a barbarian? If this character was wounded in the head causing him difficulty in remembering words, would he be illterate? What if a player said he wouldn't mind removing the illteracy with skill points? Must a barbarian always be like Conan? Must one always be stuck in a box when thinking of what a class is like?
Lethanic 07-31-07, 06:52 AM	If i play a character who when fighting stays deathly quiet but whose eyes burn with anger and determination or become flat with the acceptance of death, would this match the rage ability of a barbarian? If this character was wounded in the head causing him difficulty in remembering words, would he be illterate? What if a player said he wouldn't mind removing the illteracy with skill points? Must a barbarian always be like Conan? Must one always be stuck in a box when thinking of what a class is like? No. . . however, as to the point - If I say a certain race or class is not allowed in my campaign. .it isn't. And that is quite simply that. If a player is not able to find somethign that they can play or enjoy without one or two specific races or classes, then they really need to brush up on their imagination, because they must not have much. If somebody just HAS to play whatever the DM forbids, then I have not even a single scrap of sympathy; there is no need to purposely stir up trouble when there is a nearly infinite galaxy of possible character ideas to choose from, and somewhere in that galaxy lies a concept that doesn't cause problems with the DM's rules and is interesting to play.
shadzar 07-31-07, 08:35 AM	Or do you mean something like a samurai or shugenjashugenja i have only seen in DDM as i recall, is it anything like the old Wu Jen and such from oriental adventures (old or new)? i think many people like to allow any class because of Forgotten Realms appearance to have jsut about everything in its diferent areas, in an attempt to present all real world cultures of the past into a single world. for me they just don't all fit, and the fighting styles that make up the various classes dont always belong together. like samurai and elves....just don't feel right. and it gets into problems when combining all the real world gods of the past like in FR from Mazteca to Kara Tur, and the standard FR gods. just loses the feel of the game that way. :yuck:
Optimized_Commoner 07-31-07, 09:03 AM	shugenja i have only seen in DDM as i recall, is it anything like the old Wu Jen and such from oriental adventures (old or new)? Similar. It is the eastern equivalent of cleric, whereas wu jen is the easter equivalent of wizard. They are both elementally focused. Forgotten Realms They were better left forgotten.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-31-07, 12:48 PM	like samurai and elves....just don't feel right. and it gets into problems when combining all the real world gods of the past like in FR from Mazteca to Kara Tur, and the standard FR gods. just loses the feel of the game that way. :yuck: And something like loses verisimilitude for me. To me a world that restrict, or with everything preplanned like that comes across as unrealistically small. Think about how diverse a city like NY city is, let alone our entire world is, at any point in history. And that is with out the fantasy aspect of the game. Take the world at any point in its history, add in the element of fantasy and you have something that simply can not be defined with a single hand out. It'd just be too big. Sure your game could be focusing on china in the 13th century. But what about the middle east at that time? Or Europe, and Africa? Do they cease to exist? Heck what about the rest of Asia for that matter? And neither Japan, nor Korea are that far away either. I suppose you could do everything, but there are so many cultures, and so much, everything, that you'd be hard pressed to reasonable deny anything reasonable. Note that I used the words reasonable. Baleen whales with antimatter rifles, or wizards in a no-magic setting are not reasonable requests. Which brings me to my original position on saying, "no" for setting reasons:Switching gears for a moment, suppose a DM disallowed something because it did not fit the flavor of the world. This is perfectly valid. One would not expect to play a Jedi in a Star Trek campaign. Nor a ninja in a Pirates of the Caribbean campaign. If this situation comes up, we must first Identify it by determining why the rule was not allowed. Then we must prove that the flavor of the rule could work in the campaign. Or, failing that, the mechanics could be re-flavored to work in said world. But we must realize that not everything will work everywhere, and maybe this isn’t the campaign for our concept. On that note, the DM should also realize that when their players request something they are also letting the DM know what they would find fun. Thus, if an entire party wanted to play mecha pilots, maybe the standard medieval fantasy game is not a good fit.
Caelic 07-31-07, 12:52 PM	And something like loses verisimilitude for me. To me a world that restrict, or with everything preplanned like that comes across as unrealistically small. Think about how diverse a city like NY city is, let alone our entire world is, at any point in history. And that is with out the fantasy aspect of the game. So suppose I had a planet where I chose to disallow Monster Manual races as player characters? Suppose I then went farther and disallowed elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, and half-orcs. Would that strike you as unrealistically small? Lacking in verisimilitude?
shadzar 07-31-07, 01:04 PM	Take the world at any point in its history, add in the element of fantasy and you have something that simply can not be defined with a single hand out. It'd just be too big. Sure your game could be focusing on china in the 13th century. But what about the middle east at that time? Or Europe, and Africa? Do they cease to exist? Heck what about the rest of Asia for that matter? And neither Japan, nor Korea are that far away either. no suppose your game is focusing on 1200's china. the entire world is known to be this setting. the other areas were purposefulyl ommited because the world concept was specifically focused on china of the 1200's. there would be no need to worry about the other cultures that existed in the real world, that are not present in the game world. you can alter real history to fit into a game world anyway to combine any number of opposing cultures. (see Forgotten Realms) but it doesn't mean you have to try to include them all. i would hate to see how you reacted when elf was a class rather than a race. it would probably make your head explode. human the only race and elf, dwarf, cleric, MU, etc were all classes. good times.
OravennasBrother 07-31-07, 01:36 PM	OK for the "Mechanics are separate from Fluff and I accommodate any Mechanic if the fluff is addressed" Crowd. I want to play a Klingon from the Last Unicorn Star Trek Game. DM - Uh you realize there are no Klingons in this world. Me - Well I really want to play a Klingon and I can get past that problem DM - What? How? Me - Transporter Accident, duh. DM - Why hidn't they send a rescue party through after you. Me- Klingons duh, they wrote the poor guy off as dead. DM - Well I'm not sure how Klingongs should work Me - Easy they carry disruptors, I even have a book that lists the damage for a disruptor, 160+12d6. That's in a system where the most damage it CAN take to kill someone is around 130 Points. DM Why don't we adapt this to D&D, say... Me - NO IT'S THE MECHANIC I WANT. DM - Well sure since we have the mechanics and have addressed the RP aspect, err.. Wait how do you talk to the locals. Me - Hello, Universal Translator, duh. DM - Won't all that exceed the GP allotment for a starting character? Me - No, Star Trek has replicator based economy, so disruptors and Tricorders etc are dirt cheap, duh. Sounds like a campaign in trouble if you ask me, but hey I limit my players rather than accommodating anything Perhaps though it could "keep a campaign fresh" by introducing "new material and mechanics" Sounds like jumping the Shark to me.
Comus 07-31-07, 02:57 PM	OK for the "Mechanics are separate from Fluff and I accommodate any Mechanic if the fluff is addressed" Crowd. I want to play a Klingon from the Last Unicorn Star Trek Game. DM - Uh you realize there are no Klingons in this world. Me - Well I really want to play a Klingon and I can get past that problem DM - What? How? Me - Transporter Accident, duh. DM - Why hidn't they send a rescue party through after you. Me- Klingons duh, they wrote the poor guy off as dead. DM - Well I'm not sure how Klingongs should work Me - Easy they carry disruptors, I even have a book that lists the damage for a disruptor, 160+12d6. That's in a system where the most damage it CAN take to kill someone is around 130 Points. DM Why don't we adapt this to D&D, say... Me - NO IT'S THE MECHANIC I WANT. DM - Well sure since we have the mechanics and have addressed the RP aspect, err.. Wait how do you talk to the locals. Me - Hello, Universal Translator, duh. DM - Won't all that exceed the GP allotment for a starting character? Me - No, Star Trek has replicator based economy, so disruptors and Tricorders etc are dirt cheap, duh. Sounds like a campaign in trouble if you ask me, but hey I limit my players rather than accommodating anything Perhaps though it could "keep a campaign fresh" by introducing "new material and mechanics" Sounds like jumping the Shark to me. This is a terrible strawman argument. Let me list the problems with it: 1) You start with the premise that this is going to be about being unable to change fluff to make mechanics fit. Nowhere in your example is fluff changed at all. 2) The example uses a non-d20 game, from what I can tell. There's no way to fit non-d20 game mechanics into a d20 game as-is. Of course they're going to be 'problem mechanics'! When we say any mechanic, we mean any mechanic that is designed for D&D use. If we were playing the Star Trek game and the GM said "Everyone is in Starfleet, no Klingons", maybe we could do something with this argument, like "But Worf is both a Klingon and in Starfleet." But that is neither here nor there. Come up with an argument that uses Dungeons and Dragons mechanics.
OravennasBrother 07-31-07, 03:47 PM	1) You start with the premise that this is going to be about being unable to change fluff to make mechanics fit. Nowhere in your example is fluff changed at all. But I wanted a Klingon who was part of an away team, with full support, instead I had to change the Fluff to one stranded on a D&D world. That's a BIG, nay HUGE change in the fluff. I might even change the fluff to be one of Ming the Merciless Guards, with an unusual weapon similar to a light Saber (from the D20 Star Wars game - hey we have matching D20 mechanics) and then I DID change the fluff to get some abomination no sane DM should allow - but WHATEVER FLUFF GETS IT IN IS OK Right? Disallowed mechanics are Disallowed Mechanics and no "FLUFF" Change will get it past me, though it seems some posters would cater to their "Friends" demands, no matter how detrimental to the campaign.
kalyb 07-31-07, 04:05 PM	I remember the good old days of 2E, when TSR let the players know that the supplements they published were optional material. I used to think it was odd that they felt the need to include that statement in every supplement they made. Now I see why that statement was so important. WotC is making goood money by simply leaving one sentence out of their books.
Comus 07-31-07, 04:22 PM	But I wanted a Klingon who was part of an away team, with full support, instead I had to change the Fluff to one stranded on a D&D world. That's a BIG, nay HUGE change in the fluff. It isn't just 'change the fluff', it's 'change the fluff so it fits the world'. A I might even change the fluff to be one of Ming the Merciless Guards, with an unusual weapon similar to a light Saber (from the D20 Star Wars game - hey we have matching D20 mechanics) and then I DID change the fluff to get some abomination no sane DM should allow - but WHATEVER FLUFF GETS IT IN IS OK Right? D20 games are rarely compatible with each other. Mechamorphosis, for example, uses a different list of skills, and uses nonstandard rules for a lot of things, to represent the changed scale of the game. I ask you again to choose a D&D mechanic, though I note Psionic Warrior would make a fine Jedi. Disallowed mechanics are Disallowed Mechanics and no "FLUFF" Change will get it past me, though it seems some posters would cater to their "Friends" demands, no matter how detrimental to the campaign. This is true - no fluff change will ever get it past you. This is because you are stubborn. That can be a good thing, as it means you won't be a pushover. It can also be a bad thing. Now, I want to ask you a question - is the fluff of the classes sacred to you? I want to know what perspective you're looking at this from.
OravennasBrother 07-31-07, 05:00 PM	I ask you again to choose a D&D mechanic, 2nd level (or higher) campaign. Standard PHB Races only. I want a character who was recently killed and reincarnated as an Orc. The Fluff is that I'm still human under it all - the mechanics are that I abused the reincarnate MECHANIC to get the equivalent of +4 Strength, +3 Int, +3 Wis, and +3 Cha, and 60' darkvision in an LA +0 race. Sure I'm a level behind the party, but really that's hardly a problem. Now, I want to ask you a question - is the fluff of the classes sacred to you? I want to know what perspective you're looking at this from. No, fluff is not "Sacred" but changing the Fluff does not change the mechanic and a banned mechanic is a banned mechanic. This is particularly relevant if the character concept can be realized by allowed class mechanics. IF a concept (Psychic) cannot be realized by existing mechanics (Sorcerer could do it) then the player needs to change their concept. What happens to the "only one mechanic" player when the group plays something else - say Cyberpunk? Do they choose not to play at all? Because I'm not interested in playing a single "everrubbish" campaign so "everything" can fit in.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 07-31-07, 05:54 PM	So suppose I had a planet where I chose to disallow Monster Manual races as player characters? Suppose I then went farther and disallowed elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, and half-orcs. Would that strike you as unrealistically small? Lacking in verisimilitude? That would depend on the rest of the campaign. My point is that a campaign lack verisimilitude for including too much, it can also lack for including too little. Most worlds, I would think, are large diverse places. I remember the good old days of 2E, when TSR let the players know that the supplements they published were optional material. I used to think it was odd that they felt the need to include that statement in every supplement they made. Now I see why that statement was so important. WotC is making goood money by simply leaving one sentence out of their books. They still do. You should find this at the beginning of every source book. Only the core three are required for play. But that really isn't the point, and not at all what we're talking about. 2nd level (or higher) campaign. Standard PHB Races only. I want a character who was recently killed and reincarnated as an Orc. The Fluff is that I'm still human under it all - the mechanics are that I abused the reincarnate MECHANIC to get the equivalent of +4 Strength, +3 Int, +3 Wis, and +3 Cha, and 60' darkvision in an LA +0 race. Sure I'm a level behind the party, but really that's hardly a problem. Ermmm reincarnate doesn't work that..... Are you talking about banning things for balance reasons, because that been covered already. Or is it that you are trying to make the argument that a DM has to ban things or the players will cheat? In which case my advise is to avoid playing with cheaters, and these problems will be solved. I wonder though, could you come up with an example in which the player is neither, odviousely cheating, nor being an asshat about it? It seems that your entire argument relies on the players being complete asshats. Now i don't know about you, but I try to avoid playing with asshats, so your arguments are really nothing more then poorly done strawmen. No, fluff is not "Sacred" but changing the Fluff does not change the mechanic and a banned mechanic is a banned mechanic. This is particularly relevant if the character concept can be realized by allowed class mechanics. IF a concept (Psychic) cannot be realized by existing mechanics (Sorcerer could do it) then the player needs to change their concept. well there is that, and everything could be realized with just core. But not everybody wants to play core only. Further the question is not weather or not a DM can ban mechanics, they can. The question is why the mechanic was banned. And in the case of flavor, or setting bannings, could the mechanic be reworked so that it could fit? That way the players get the mechanics they want to use to represent their characters, and the DM still keeps the flavor of the setting. We call this comprising in civilized society. What happens to the "only one mechanic" player when the group plays something else - say Cyberpunk? Do they choose not to play at all? Because I'm not interested in playing a single "everrubbish" campaign so "everything" can fit in. What happens when the "I am God" DM faces a rebellion from the players who are sick of them being told that what they want to play is rubbish?
Optimized_Commoner 07-31-07, 06:20 PM	well there is that, and everything could be realized with just core. Uh, it really can't. Well, not without the DM writing house rules that are the equivalent of other splatbooks, either literally or subconsciously. There's nothing necessarily wrong with playing core-only if that's what you want. I remember doing that back when core was the only thing published and it was pretty neat. It's just, no, not everything can be realised with core. A finite book does not contain infinite options. What happens when the "I am God" DM faces a rebellion from the players who are sick of them being told that what they want to play is rubbish? Usually? Everyone sulks for a month and then either crawls back to the DM begging for another whipping, or finds a new DM who the old DM redfacedly asks to let him in (after an extra few weeks of sulking and complaining on these boards). That about cover it?
shadzar 07-31-07, 06:25 PM	It isn't just 'change the fluff', it's 'change the fluff so it fits the world'. A that is just it, the "fluff" the actual meat of the character, that which it and its mechanics were derived from, go hand in hand with the mechanics. it doesn't matter what you call a given set of mechanics, when the mechanics are not wanted you can't jsut change the culture assigned to them in order to trt to create some loophole in order to get something into the game that if forbidden. the DM decides what "fluff" goes with a given set of mechanics. it is his world. players should learn that. you can call a fighter anything you want, swashbuckler, barbarian, ruffian, thug, etc that you can find in the Player's Handbook References form 2E (which is where these prestige classes came form), but it doesn't mean that those kits were often allowed even then. most people even despised those books for the MECHANICS of the kits. you can call acid water all day long but when you get it on you just keep thining it will act like water sicne that is the "fluff" you want and see if that changes it from burning the flesh off your bones. or you can call a terd a candy bar all day long if you want to, but it wont change the fact you are eating ****. the mechanics were created from the historical information on a certain culture in order to comply with the D&D system. DMs forbid material based on those mechanics. no changing the "fluff" as you call it will change the fact the DM doesn't allow the use of the mechanics that he has made forbidden for use in his game.
shadzar 07-31-07, 06:37 PM	They still do. You should find this at the beginning of every source book. Only the core three are required for play. But that really isn't the point, and not at all what we're talking about. well there is your answer why the DMs have any power to disallow. WotC has given it to them if said "this book is optional material" is included in all books other than the core. you have just answered your own problem. who decides what optional material is allowed? Every Dungeon Master is the creator of his or her own game world. ~~~Though the PCs are powerful and important, they should seem to be residents of some fantasy world that is ultimately larger than they are. Consistency is the key to a believable fictional world. Adjudicating When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. there you have it everyone. straight from your precious core 3.5 books. :eek: so you can't say i am pulling something out of other editions. you can't say it is my opinion. it is your own coveted edition that you love so much telling you bluntly that the DM is in charge and he makes the world and its rules! ~EOL~
loaba 07-31-07, 07:35 PM	I don't think TPK is saying that the DM isn't in charge, rather he's questioning the santimonious and self-righteous DM who arbitrarily bans X (wether it be a core race or an expansion character class or whatever) with no other reason than because "I said so". I am one of those DMs who allows anything, because I don't care what the mechanic is particuraly. I'm an adaptive guy, I'll figure it out and we'll move forward as a group. I've got a player with every book under the sun, so the material is there. If a player wants to use something, that's fine. It does blow my mind when a DM disallows something like Elves or Dwarves or Barbarians. I just don't get that, seems really stupid in my opinion. Oh well, if that's the power-trip you get off on, so be it.
Caelic 07-31-07, 07:47 PM	That would depend on the rest of the campaign. My point is that a campaign lack verisimilitude for including too much, it can also lack for including too little. Most worlds, I would think, are large diverse places. Well, at least you didn't walk into the trap of declaring Earth to be "unrealistically small and lacking in verisimilitude." Good on you for that. :) The point, however, stands: Earth is a large and diverse place, and it doesn't need fifty different sentient species, seventeen distinct forms of magic, and a hundred and sixty-eight different long-lost monastic orders to be so. They still do. You should find this at the beginning of every source book. Only the core three are required for play. But that really isn't the point, and not at all what we're talking about. It actually kinda is. What this comes down to is the shift in mentality from "The core rules are default, and the DM can allow other rules" to "Everything is default, and the DM had better have a darned good reason if he chooses to disallow any of it." Ermmm reincarnate doesn't work that..... Actually, it does. Getting to Venerable age and then Reincarnating is an amazingly good deal, since you specifically come back in a new young adult body.
loaba 07-31-07, 07:52 PM	The point, however, stands: Earth is a large and diverse place, and it doesn't need fifty different sentient species, seventeen distinct forms of magic, and a hundred and sixty-eight different long-lost monastic orders to be so. Uh, not trying to be rude, but all those things you mention would by definition make any world diverse. It actually kinda is. What this comes down to is the shift in mentality from "The core rules are default, and the DM can allow other rules" to "Everything is default, and the DM had better have a darned good reason if he chooses to disallow any of it." Any time you disallow something, you should be able defend your decision with something other than "because I said so". Most of the time, when a DM thwarts a player's choice, it's based on obstinance. "My world, my rules" is not a good way to make friends.
Caelic 07-31-07, 08:15 PM	Uh, not trying to be rude, but all those things you mention would by definition make any world diverse. ...to the point of being difficult to believe. It's one of the major problems White Wolf had with their "World of Darkness." Each of the games worked in isolation, but when you combined them, the resultant world was almost impossible to take seriously because it was so blatantly self-contradictory. "Diverse and interesting" does not require dozens of different rules subsystems; dozens of different rules subsystems do not guarantee a diverse and interesting world. Any time you disallow something, you should be able defend your decision with something other than "because I said so". Why should I have to "defend" my decision at all? Why is there this mentality that, by default, all optional rules are allowed, and the DM must "defend" himself if he tampers with that status quo? When did "I'm not going to add any optional rules this time around" become an actionable offense requiring the DM to mount a defense?
Comus 07-31-07, 08:22 PM	that is just it, the "fluff" the actual meat of the character, that which it and its mechanics were derived from, go hand in hand with the mechanics. it doesn't matter what you call a given set of mechanics, when the mechanics are not wanted you can't jsut change the culture assigned to them in order to trt to create some loophole in order to get something into the game that if forbidden. I do not agree with your position. You're still thinking too small - why does a certain culture have to arise for a given mechanic? the DM decides what "fluff" goes with a given set of mechanics. it is his world. Also, why can't a given mechanic have several different types of fluff? Take Power Attack, for example. The base fluff of Power Attack is that you swing harder and with less accuracy - basically just swinging for the bleachers. But the same mechanic can represent called shots - the more difficult the shot, the more damage it does. Both can exist in the same world without conflicting with each other. players should learn that. you can call a fighter anything you want, swashbuckler, barbarian, ruffian, thug, etc that you can find in the Player's Handbook References form 2E (which is where these prestige classes came form), but it doesn't mean that those kits were often allowed even then. most people even despised those books for the MECHANICS of the kits. I have no idea what you're trying to say, here. Clarify. you can call acid water all day long but when you get it on you just keep thining it will act like water sicne that is the "fluff" you want and see if that changes it from burning the flesh off your bones. or you can call a terd a candy bar all day long if you want to, but it wont change the fact you are eating ****. Yeah. I'm definitely getting the impression that you think changing the fluff of D&D is some kind of sin. the mechanics were created from the historical information on a certain culture in order to comply with the D&D system. Yes. All Norsemen flip out and gain incredible strength. All hippies have pets and change into animals. Every thief in the world knows detailed anatomy. Seriously, shadzar, mechanics were created to follow archetypes, true - the raging barbarian, the noble knight, and so on. But we don't have to be restricted by them. D&D is more than the iconic characters. DMs forbid material based on those mechanics. no changing the "fluff" as you call it will change the fact the DM doesn't allow the use of the mechanics that he has made forbidden for use in his game. And if he has forbidden them, he had darn well better have a reason for it that doesn't include fluff. One of my DMs banned all Raise Dead effects. I asked why. He said it was because he wanted death to be more permanent. That's a good reason. Later, when he asked me to help him expand the campaign setting, we came up with a good ingame reason - reincarnation. It's impossible to bring the dead back to life because the souls have already moved on to another body. The point, however, stands: Earth is a large and diverse place, and it doesn't need fifty different sentient species, seventeen distinct forms of magic, and a hundred and sixty-eight different long-lost monastic orders to be so. Just as a note - we have had tons of diverse cultures, lots of different mystical belief systems, and hundreds of long-lost monastic orders.
Caelic 07-31-07, 08:26 PM	Just as a note - we have had tons of diverse cultures, lots of different mystical belief systems, and hundreds of long-lost monastic orders. None of which require the introduction of Kewl New Powerz (tm) to be interesting. Differing cultures can be compelling without the necessity for a dozen or more different races with unique powers; different belief systems can be compelling without dozens of different magic systems; monastic orders are fascinating without adding yet another initiator class/monk subschool/way of kicking someone in the head.
shadzar 07-31-07, 09:11 PM	And if he has forbidden them, he had darn well better have a reason for it that doesn't include fluff. see page 6 of the 3.5 DMG...the reason, because he can. you whiny ass players that think the DM has to bow down to you and kiss your feet shouldn't even be playing D&D. go home and cry to your mommies because you can't get everyting your way. :weep: DM: this ain't Burger King, you get it my way or no way at all!
loaba 07-31-07, 09:14 PM	Why should I have to "defend" my decision at all? Why shouldn't you? Why is there this mentality that, by default, all optional rules are allowed, and the DM must "defend" himself if he tampers with that status quo? Why is there this mentality that the DM can do whatever he wants for whatever reason, with little or no regard to the wishes and desires of the players? When did "I'm not going to add any optional rules this time around" become an actionable offense requiring the DM to mount a defense? Because if his players want to use those rules, he's cutting into their experiance. It's not all about anyone player's desires (and the DM is a player of the game), it's about everyone at the table having a good time and enjoying themselves. It serves no purpose, other than to stroke your own ego, to arbitrarily disallow X class or ability because it didn't come from core.
shadzar 07-31-07, 09:28 PM	Why shouldn't you? that has to be the dumbest question i have ever heard. and i am a firm believer that the only dumb quesitons are the ones that go unasked. how about these for answers. because the DM isn't on trial. because the DM isn't a babysitter. because the DM should get up and walk away from people, as gamers and ex-friends; that think he should have to defend himself. because anyone who thinks a DM is required to defend himself is showing no repect to that DM as a person and deserves no respect in return. i think many people here have lost sight of what D&D is. it isn't and shouldn't be at any point players vs DM. do you people that say a DM should let players have whatever mechanics jsut by changing fluff around and such think and try to do this in the real world? are any of you people thinking along those lines or saying that a DM should defend himself or his position on a given ruling over the age of 12?
loaba 07-31-07, 09:52 PM	Oh dear, baby Shadze must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed today… Why else would he be acting like a big jerk? Oh well… that has to be the dumbest question i have ever heard. and i am a firm believer that the only dumb quesitons are the ones that go unasked. So the dumbest question asks why the DM should have to explain his views for the benefit of his players (who are presumably his friends, and not his minions)? Joseph, is that you, comrade? because the DM isn't on trial. Who said he was? Questioning the DM is the right of every player. That doesn’t mean that to do so is to put him “on trial”. Why, as a DM, are you so scared of explaining your reasoning? If your logic is sound, your decisions will stand up, right? because the DM isn't a babysitter. Here’s one of my all time all-time favorite excuses (and it always gets trotted out when the going gets rough); if you don’t do exactly what I say, you’re all a bunch of whiney babies. And DM who says that, is a despot who just wants to have things your way… This is not a climate that is conducive to harmonious play, kids. because the DM should get up and walk away from people, as gamers and ex-friends; that think he should have to defend himself. Oh my god, someone who dares to question you couldn’t possibly be your friend? Dude, Godwin’s Law be damned, that’s the thought process of a baby Stalin. Just because someone questions why you don’t want to allow X, it doesn’t mean they’re not your friend. It means they have a different opinion then you do and they want to know where you’re coming from. because anyone who thinks a DM is required to defend himself is showing no repect to that DM as a person and deserves no respect in return. See the above response; this thought process is utter crap. You make me cry, if indeed you really believe this is the way it should be. i think many people here have lost sight of what D&D is. it isn't and shouldn't be at any point players vs DM. And no one has said that it is; but you have said that the players have no choice but to play the game as you’ve presented it to them. My game, my rules, this is the way it is because I said so. That sounds an awful lot like an “Us vs. Them” mentality to me. do you people that say a DM should let players have whatever mechanics jsut by changing fluff around and such think and try to do this in the real world? Uh, dude, the only real-world angle to this debate is how treat your friends when you have a difference of opinion regarding the rules of a game. And that's what it comes down to; when you as a DM tell your players that you're disallowing X, you owe them an explanation. are any of you people thinking along those lines or saying that a DM should defend himself or his position on a given ruling over the age of 12? I was just gonna ask you the same thing. Judging by your (poor) sentence structure and limited thought-process, I’d have to go with maybe 15. You're old enough to parrot the opinions of your bettors and to add a little spite of your own; but you don't really understand what you're saying at all.
Comus 07-31-07, 11:21 PM	None of which require the introduction of Kewl New Powerz (tm) to be interesting. Differing cultures can be compelling without the necessity for a dozen or more different races with unique powers; different belief systems can be compelling without dozens of different magic systems; monastic orders are fascinating without adding yet another initiator class/monk subschool/way of kicking someone in the head. Ah, but the opposite is also true - 'Kewl New Powerz' don't require a new culture to go along with them. The samurai might be shock troops in the very European army, the Psions might just be from the Mage's Academy on the other side of town, and the Warblades... well, Warblades aren't exactly hard to fit in. They're just fighters with a little extra HOT BLOODED ACTION! I know part of the point you're trying to make is that you don't have to be different to have a fun and interesting character - the DM would have to actively work against you for that. But sometimes it's fun to try something new, you know? It's part of why I advocate changing the fluff - to make something new fit in as if it was always there, but the players never noticed it. see page 6 of the 3.5 DMG...the reason, because he can. you whiny ass players that think the DM has to bow down to you and kiss your feet shouldn't even be playing D&D. go home and cry to your mommies because you can't get everyting your way. :weep: DM: this ain't Burger King, you get it my way or no way at all! Well, that's that. You're either trolling, which is annoying as we're trying to have a discussion here, or you're immature, and think DMing is some sacred thing, as if the DMG is Excalibur and only the Once and Future King can wield it! Follow him without question, for his is the destiny that will guide us to freedom! :rolleyes: D&D is about playing a game. While it may be all Serious Business to you... or to the people you're trying to emulate, as I begin to suspect you have no opinions of your own... To some of us, the most important thing is the fun of the thing. Uh, dude, the only real-world angle to this debate is how treat your friends when you have a difference of opinion regarding the rules of a game. And that's what it comes down to; when you as a DM tell your players that you're disallowing X, you owe them an explanation. QFT. That's the reason I'd expect an explanation, and 'it's banned because I can ban it, I HAVE ALL THE POWER!!!' isn't a good explanation. I was just gonna ask you the same thing. Judging by your (poor) sentence structure and limited thought-process, I’d have to go with maybe 15. You're old enough to parrot the opinions of your bettors and to add a little spite of your own; but you don't really understand what you're saying at all. 15? Maybe. Most people can at least capitalize sentences at that age.
Caelic 07-31-07, 11:33 PM	Why shouldn't you? Wow. Is that the attitude you take in daily life? Do you generally feel that people should be interrogated and required to defend innocuous decisions...well, just because? Why is there this mentality that the DM can do whatever he wants for whatever reason, with little or no regard to the wishes and desires of the players? Uhm. Wow. I say "Play the game without optional rules." You translate that as "Do whatever I want for whatever reason, with little or no regard for the wishes and desires of the players." I'm glad I didn't say "Why should I have to defend my decision to order a pizza?" That might very well have translated to, "Why should I have to defend my desire to suspend my players' pets from a tetherball pole and do horrible things to them with a fork?" Because if his players want to use those rules, he's cutting into their experiance. This is precisely the mentality I'm talking about. "If it's published, I should automatically be allowed to use it, or you're lessening my D&D experience!" You want to use an optional rule. You want to bring a new book into the game. You want me to commit time and probably money to incorporating that rule into the game. Why, then, is the onus on me as DM? Why is the default assumption that I must do these things, unless I can come up with a defense that satisfies you? Y'know, I can't help but find it funny: take any given one of these splatbooks...say, Complete Mage. Now: the game went on for years and years and years without the rules, spells, and prestige classes in that book. Nobody used them, and nobody seemed to feel that the game was particularly lacking. But, all of a sudden, out it comes...and all of a sudden, you have players who HAVE to use those rules, or the game won't be fun for them. It serves no purpose, other than to stroke your own ego, to arbitrarily disallow X class or ability because it didn't come from core. Well, you're entitled to your opinion. You're simply, factually, demonstrably wrong in saying so, but you're entitled to be wrong if you so choose. Oh, and loaba: before you start sneering at the writing skills of others: I was just gonna ask you the same thing. Judging by your (poor) sentence structure and limited thought-process, I’d have to go with maybe 15. You might REALLY want to spend a little time working on sentences like this: And DM who says that, is a despot who just wants to have things your way…
loaba 07-31-07, 11:40 PM	Ah, but the opposite is also true - 'Kewl New Powerz' don't require a new culture to go along with them. The samurai might be shock troops in the very European army, the Psions might just be from the Mage's Academy on the other side of town, and the Warblades... well, Warblades aren't exactly hard to fit in. They're just fighters with a little extra HOT BLOODED ACTION! This is true, you can make anything fit, if you want to. I just don't believe their is a DM who has thought of everything; therefore I don't believe that there is this huge problem fitting new classes etc. into existing games. Rather what I do believe is that a great number of DMs look at expansion material as a way for a player to gain a leg up. And, apparently, we can't be having that now can we? :rolleyes: I know part of the point you're trying to make is that you don't have to be different to have a fun and interesting character - the DM would have to actively work against you for that. But sometimes it's fun to try something new, you know? It's part of why I advocate changing the fluff - to make something new fit in as if it was always there, but the players never noticed it. Exactly, sometimes you just want to see if Skirmish really is different from Sneak Attack, and whether or not you like it better. The only way to do that is to play a Scout... But the DM says there are no Scouts in his world... :confused: 15? Maybe. Most people can at least capitalize sentences at that age. Point taken, the child may just be "special" lad. :D
Caelic 07-31-07, 11:43 PM	Y'know, I have to say: I don't agree with everything Shadzar's saying here, and he may well be a younger player...but at least his idea of making a funny isn't: Point taken, the child may just be "special" lad. Uncool. Totally, utterly uncool, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
loaba 07-31-07, 11:57 PM	Dude, you have so much to learn about debating. I've read your posts, and whether you know it or not, whether it's your intention or not, you come across as the kind of DM who says these are my rules, take 'em or leave 'em. I'm treating you according to your expressed views. Wow. Is that the attitude you take in daily life? Do you generally feel that people should be interrogated and required to defend innocuous decisions...well, just because? Did I say that a DM should be interrogated? I don't recall saying that, show me where? You can't, because I didn't. What I did say was that if, as an example, the DM disallowed the Complete Warrior, and I wanted to play a Swashbuckler, then the DM had better have an explanation for me. It's my right to ask why, and to argue for an overturning of the ban. And yes, I'll be more than a little cross if the response is along the lines of "because I said so". If thethought of that kind of exchange bothers you as a DM, well that means you must not like being challenged. If that's the case, who are these sheep you've managed to cow? Uhm. Wow. I say "Play the game without optional rules." You translate that as "Do whatever I want for whatever reason, with little or no regard for the wishes and desires of the players." Then tell me what you would say when your players say "we'd rather play with open resources, thanks for asking". I'm glad I didn't say "Why should I have to defend my decision to order a pizza?" That might very well have translated to, "Why should I have to defend my desire to suspend my players' pets from a tetherball pole and do horrible things to them with a fork?" Huh? Do me a favor, stay on topic and can this kind of inaccurate crap, m'kay? Thanks. This is precisely the mentality I'm talking about. "If it's published, I should automatically be allowed to use it, or you're lessening my D&D experience!" This is precisely the the attitude I'm talking about; "I don't like what's been published here and you can't use it because I said so". Care to try again? And please note that when you make these generalized statements, I always respond in kind. If there is a player mentality that says all published material has to be available, there is definately a corrosponding DM mentality that says published material is bad and forever banned. Neither view is right and an unyeilding faith to either belief creates bad blood and generally makes people unhappy. True story. You want to use an optional rule. You want to bring a new book into the game. You want me to commit time and probably money to incorporating that rule into the game. Oh my god, you can't take a few minutes to read the relevent entry? Don't give me that crap. You don't want to read it in the first place. And forget about the money angle, because you know whatever books I have are open to everyone, including you. If you like it enough to buy it, well that's your deal. Why, then, is the onus on me as DM? Why then is the onus on the players to accept what they've been given, when there might be something out there that they would like to try? Y'know, I can't help but find it funny: take any given one of these splatbooks...say, Complete Mage. Now: the game went on for years and years and years without the rules, spells, and prestige classes in that book. Nobody used them, and nobody seemed to feel that the game was particularly lacking. But, all of a sudden, out it comes...and all of a sudden, you have players who HAVE to use those rules, or the game won't be fun for them. It's called growth, expansion if you will. You were given the basics when the game came out and now those building blocks have been expanded on for advanced users. This sort of thing happens in every game system, as you might well be aware. Advanced players get tired of the basics and want to try something new. Alternatively some players always prefer the basics and like to see just how far they'll go. Neither attitude is wrong and both can coexist together nicely. Well, you're entitled to your opinion. You're simply, factually, demonstrably wrong in saying so, but you're entitled to be wrong if you so choose. In what facet of my opinion am I wrong? Caelic, I could go back and correct several typos in my writing, most of the time I do. That doesn't mean I am wrong to sneer at the poorly written drivel that is spewed forth by the trolls of this world (who don't even bother to capitalize). But nice try, come again.
loaba 08-01-07, 12:07 AM	Y'know, I have to say: I don't agree with everything Shadzar's saying here That's good, because he embodies all the traits of the Ugly DM, whether he knows it or not. and he may well be a younger player... That is clearly evident, nice to see you to cottoned to it. but at least his idea of making a funny isn't: Point taken, the child may just be "special" lad. Me thinks you protest too much, but if this is what you're crying about you may be headed for some tough times. Uncool. Totally, utterly uncool, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Yes, implying that the lad is retarded is a grave thing; I should probably go to Confession soon.
Count_Chumleigh 08-01-07, 12:17 AM	They still do. You should find this at the beginning of every source book. Only the core three are required for play. But that really isn't the point, and not at all what we're talking about. well there is your answer why the DMs have any power to disallow. WotC has given it to them if said "this book is optional material" is included in all books other than the core. you have just answered your own problem. who decides what optional material is allowed? Every Dungeon Master is the creator of his or her own game world. ~~~Though the PCs are powerful and important, they should seem to be residents of some fantasy world that is ultimately larger than they are. Consistency is the key to a believable fictional world. Adjudicating When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. there you have it everyone. straight from your precious core 3.5 books. so you can't say i am pulling something out of other editions. you can't say it is my opinion. it is your own coveted edition that you love so much telling you bluntly that the DM is in charge and he makes the world and its rules! Bravo, sir! Bravo! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
loaba 08-01-07, 12:22 AM	Bravo, sir! Bravo! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: Cheers, --Count Chumleigh He has a valid point here, Count. Fair enough. The game has always emphasized that expansion material is optional. So what do you do when your friends ask you about X resource? Do you just tell them "my game, my rules and I'm not allowing it" or do you actually have a reasoned response for your ban? Again, that is the crux of the matter, and I think that's what TPK is talking about. Does the DM have carte blanch to ban whatever he likes and doesn't like? The answer is yes, clearly. Does the DM owe his players any kind of explanation for said banning? The answer is, strictly speaking, no. However, if you're playing the game with your friends, people who you like and respect, then you need to be willing to talk about your decision (and you need to have an open mind). That's my point, if not TPK's.
Count_Chumleigh 08-01-07, 12:30 AM	Yes, implying that the lad is retarded is a grave thing; I should probably go to Confession soon. It may or may not necessitate a visit to the confessional for you, but it certainly doesn't make you look any better, that you're resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than assaulting his logic, that's for sure. Also, speaking as the only member of my generation of the family not to be retarded, autistic, or institutionalized (I got me some good genes to pass on, I tell you what), I can honestly say that your admitted implication that "the lad is retarded" offends me on as profound a level as I can find from an anonymous poster on the internet. Also, for those of you playing the Catch Count Chumleigh Being A Hypocrite game at home, I urge you to recall that I made mention of TPK's argument rather than mental capacity. The spelling errors, that's just a pet peeve of mine, especially coming from a mostly-grammatically-correct poster such as TPK. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
loaba 08-01-07, 12:41 AM	It may or may not necessitate a visit to the confessional for you, but it certainly doesn't make you look any better, that you're resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than assaulting his logic, that's for sure. I found his overall tone insulting and damaging to the game and it's players. I stand by my statement. Also, speaking as the only member of my generation of the family not to be retarded, autistic, or institutionalized (I got me some good genes to pass on, I tell you what), I can honestly say that your admitted implication that "the lad is retarded" offends me on as profound a level as I can find from an anonymous poster on the internet. Thanks for the family history, pardon me if I choose not to accept it. The world is a tough place and people say mean things. That's how it goes (I also wouldn't lose much sleep over anything an anonymous poster says on the internet). Also, for those of you playing the Catch Count Chumleigh Being A Hypocrite game at home, I urge you to recall that I made mention of TPK's argument rather than mental capacity. The spelling errors, that's just a pet peeve of mine, especially coming from a mostly-grammatically-correct poster such as TPK. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh Please note that I elected to question both his viewpoint and his mental capacity. Also, I give as good as I get. Always have, always will.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-01-07, 12:49 AM	@ Cealic; You are absolutely correct when you say that you don't "have" to represent every single everything with a different set of mechanics. The people from across the continent and the far east can be just as human as the people representing the Europeans. And sure those chaps in the monetary could be run of the mill monks. You don't need 50 different sets of mechanics, or what have you to have a good time. But you also don't need to ban them all either. I mean those monks in that monistary up the mountain their. They could be swordsages, or they could be wu-jen, or they could be monks, or they could be experts, they could be a a lot of things. And thats kind of mine, and Comso's point, at least when it comes to flavor. We aren't sacrificing our concept for mechanics, we're just choosing different mechanics to represent it. As a player if i were asking you for something like that I wouldn't be asking you to rewrite anything in the world at all. I'd be asking you if I could use mechanics X to represent concept Y. Now if concept Y will fit flavor wise into the world, then why not mechanics X which are representative of concept Y? On a side note, I really like the way you determine if mechanics will work for your game or not. Its open, transparent, and fair, for all. Further if something is found to not work, then I'm sure you can explain why. It's not that a player would be rude in asking you why either, they just want to know. Now if the mechanics are banned, regardless of the flavor attached to them then that is a whole another matter entirely. Maybes it balance, maybe unfamiliarity with the rules? Could be a lot of things, maybe they don't like it. I personally don't like the "because I don't it" reason. Because it does set the precedent of the DMs preferences above the other players, and I don't believe that to be either fair or right. Further the DMG does grant you the power of final adjudication over all the rules, but this does not translate to a license to place yourself, and your likes, ahead of everyone else. Doing is just as much an abuse of rule zero, as declaring that all NPC elves can fly, but not PC elves. Further if a DM can set aside their dislikes for another DM when they become players, why can't they do it for players in their own games? And yaa I know its coming, but if you can't set aside your dislikes even in someone else's game, then you should be expected to DM it. I.E if I find baseball so boring that i would never consider attending a game, or let alone playing in one, why would be an umpire? If I hate FR so much that i would never play in an FR game, why would I DM one? An example of me putting aside my dislikes for players: clerics, and fighters. I really hate them. I'd never play them. But I won't ban them from my games. Just because i don't them is no reason why my players can't play them if they choose. A non-core example would warlocks, and spell thieves. hate them too, but hey if you wanna play in my game, go nuts.
loaba 08-01-07, 12:55 AM	I personally don't like the "because I don't it" reason. Because it does set the precedent of the DMs preferences above the other players, and I don't believe that to be either fair or right. Further the DMG does grant you the power of final adjudication over all the rules, but this does not translate to a license to place yourself, and your likes, ahead of everyone else. Doing is just as much an abuse of rule zero, as declaring that all NPC elves can fly, but not PC elves. Further if a DM can set aside their dislikes for another DM when they become players, why can't they do it for players in their own games?. Great point. The DM is a player at the table, same as everyone else. His likes and dislikes shouldn't be any more or less important than anyone elses.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-01-07, 12:59 AM	Also, for those of you playing the Catch Count Chumleigh Being A Hypocrite game at home, I urge you to recall that I made mention of TPK's argument rather than mental capacity. The spelling errors, that's just a pet peeve of mine, especially coming from a mostly-grammatically-correct poster such as TPK. However you did to choose to call into question my spelling and grammer. And you choose to do so in manner that would imply you were calling into question my mental capacity as well. So yaa jumping on someone for doing the same, just in a more crude manner, is being a hypocrite. Further your arguments have been just as full, if not more, with your own logical fallacies, including ad hominimin. So fort hose who are playing the catch count chumleigh being a hypocrite, they've got two in your one post alone. P.S In case you care the reason for most of spelling errors, is that I am Dyslexic. So if you want to get ****** off at guy for targeting the "challenged" with a personal attack, you need look no further then the mirror. Enjoy your juice.
Caelic 08-01-07, 12:59 AM	Edit: No. Heck with it. I'm not going to play that game. Way too many insults being tossed around in this thread already. I choose not to continue that trend.
Caelic 08-01-07, 01:07 AM	However you did to choose to call into question my spelling and grammer. And you choose to do so in manner that would imply you were calling into question my mental capacity as well. So yaa jumping on someone for doing the same, just in a more crude manner, is being a hypocrite. Further your arguments have been just as full, if not more, with your own logical fallacies, including ad hominimin. So fort hose who are playing the [i] catch count chumleigh being a hypocrite, they've two in your one post alone. So tell me, TPK: do you agree with Loaba that he was right and justified in insulting Shadzar's intelligence? Do you think that flinging around accusations of being "mentally challenged," either directly or by implication, is acceptable? I don't think I've attacked your intelligence, have I? I've admittedly questioned your debate tactics and called them disingenuous; I've expressed confusion when some of your wording seemed garbled to me, but I don't think I've said or implied that you were an unintelligent person. I'm just hoping we can find common ground here. To be honest, I think I missed the Count's post that's being referenced here; I tend to skip over posts that I don't think are directly related to the threads of conversation I'm following. I'm man enough to say that if he did attack your intelligence, that was uncool, and he should apologize. Heck, if you feel that I've attacked your intelligence--rather than your arguments--please feel free to say so, and I'll be man enough to apologize for that. P.S In case you care the reason for most of spelling errors, is that I am Dyslexic. So if you want to get ****** off at guy for targeting the "challenged" with a personal attack, you need look no further then the mirror. Enjoy your juice. I didn't so much get mad at him for "targeting the challenged." I got mad at him for thinking having a mental handicap was a funny subject worthy of joking about. I'm freely willing to admit that I'm a bit hypersensitive about that. I work with the special ed kids in our school on a regular basis, and as a result, I've gotten more than a bit thin-skinned towards those who use "special" as an insult.
High Octane 08-01-07, 01:21 AM	I'm glad I didn't say "Why should I have to defend my decision to order a pizza?" Why should you have to defend your decisions? Because these decisions affect OTHER PEOPLE and can be contrary to the desires of those other people. If you are going to order pizza for yourself, there would be no question. But if someone were to say "Lets order Chinese" and you say "No we are ordering pizza." you would owe the person an explanation as to "Why can't we order Chinese?" because that decision affects him. He wanted Chinese food but you decided not to allow it. Assuming this person is your friend, you would have a solid enough relationship to explain why you made such a decision. Being a DM is a lot like being the one footing the bill for the food. You have a right to buy what you feel like since they are all getting a free meal, and if you were simply providing food for your employees or even co-workers you might not owe them an explanation, but you have to remember that these players are, or at the very least SHOULD BE, your friend. You can argue back and forth whether you owe players an explanation, but there is no doubt in MY mind that you always owe a friend an explanation when you make a decision that goes against his wishes and desires and affects him directly. But as your friend, he is still obligated to trust your reasoning and work with you. If you say "No we are not ordering Chinese" and he asks why, you should answer since the reasoning may lead to different options. "I am allergic to soy" will result in him suggesting dishes that have no soy. "I can't stand X restaurant's Chinese food" may result in your friend suggesting another takeout place to try. "I don't like Chinese" will result in him probably not suggesting Chinese ever again. "Chinese makes you flatulent" will result in a possible revelation as to why his girlfriend dumped him last time they ordered Chinese. At any rate, it is your dollar so you get the decision, but as friends you are obligated to try your best to work out whatever issues were going on. "Because I said so" just leads to bad feelings and suspicions of a DM power madness. It may or may not be true, but that is what it looks like, and even though friends should trust each other, it isn't a good friendly thing to force a player to trust you despite suspicions and aggravation when a simple explanation will help absolve most every type of issue that would result from a reasonless ban. It is your game, but it affects your players when you make decisions within it, and these players are your FRIENDS. Remember that.
Count_Chumleigh 08-01-07, 01:21 AM	He has a valid point here, Count. Fair enough. The game has always emphasized that expansion material is optional. So what do you do when your friends ask you about X resource? Do you just tell them "my game, my rules and I'm not allowing it"? My default response to people asking about Splatbook X is, "Not now, we're in the middle of a campaign," since most of those questions in my experience involve books that have come out since the campaign started. Of course, if I know about Splatbook X before the campaign starts, there's no need for the player to ask if it's allowed or not, because it should be pretty obvious from the campaign treatment I pass around to gauge the interest of potential players what the campaign is about--that is, what books do and don't fit the overall theme. There are exceptions, naturally, but each one is its own special, rules- and circumstances-intensive snowflake. P.S In case you care the reason for most of spelling errors, is that I am Dyslexic. So if you want to get ****** off at guy for targeting the "challenged" with a personal attack, you need look no further then the mirror. Enjoy your juice. Actually, and this is the weird part, I do in fact care about this sort of thing, since it (1) is a valid explanation for grammatical errors from a mostly grammatically correct poster such as yourself; (2) informs me that you have a disability you are sensitive about, that I might avoid bringing it up again and offending you in the future (believe it or not, I am one of the few people on the internet who does not have psychic powers); and (3) gives me an excuse to drink juice. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh EDIT: You know what? This has gone on too long, and I've gotten too snarky for it to go on any longer. I'm sorry that I offended you, TPK. Yes, it sounds hollow and false because it's the internet and it's me of all people saying it in an EDIT no less, but there you have it. I apologize for offending you by commenting about your Dyslexia. I honestly did not know you were dyslexic, and merely sought to point out what I ass-u-me'd was a shoddy debate practice: i.e., inconsistent spelling and grammar. It turned out that I was wrong, and I regret that I have come across as boorish as I have.
High Octane 08-01-07, 01:32 AM	Damn it I HATE it when I get the last comment on a page! It's always knocked out of view before anyone reads it! Please, everyone backstep one page and read my comment. >.<
Caelic 08-01-07, 01:39 AM	If you are going to order pizza for yourself, there would be no question. But if someone were to say "Lets order Chinese" and you say "No we are ordering pizza." you would owe the person an explanation as to "Why can't we order Chinese?" because that decision affects him. He wanted Chinese food but you decided not to allow it. That analogy sort of falls apart, though, Octane; he could certainly order Chinese food whether or not I ordered pizza. I don't have the ability "not to allow it." Assuming this person is your friend, you would have a solid enough relationship to explain why you made such a decision. Sure--because I want to, because he's my friend. There's a world of difference between than and "The DM had better have a good explanation." Being a DM is a lot like being the one footing the bill for the food. You have a right to buy what you feel like since they are all getting a free meal, and if you were simply providing food for your employees or even co-workers you might not owe them an explanation, but you have to remember that these players are, or at the very least SHOULD BE, your friend. Of course...despite the demonization that goes on...we both know that this is very seldom a case of "I want pizza, so I don't care if anybody else does." It's more frequently, "Most of us want pizza. I'm sorry that Jim wants Chinese, but I'm going to order what I know will taste good to most of the people here." You can argue back and forth whether you owe players an explanation, but there is no doubt in MY mind that you always owe a friend an explanation when you make a decision that goes against his wishes and desires and affects him directly. Okay. Scenario for you. Real-life scenario, in fact. Mike wants to use some of the rules in Book of Vile Darkness. I tell him "We can't do that in this campaign, sorry." I don't offer him any explanation beyond that; when he presses, I just say "Look, I can't explain. You'll just have to trust me." So, tell me: would you consider this acceptable? Or an abuse of my "power" as DM? But as your friend, he is still obligated to trust your reasoning and work with you. If you say "No we are not ordering Chinese" and he asks why, you should answer since the reasoning may lead to different options. That's nice when there's ample time, but what if we're on lunch break and only have half an hour, or forty five minutes? We could spend the whole time discussing options, and then nobody would get to eat. This is why I draw a distinction between going to the DM after the game and discussing issues, and exercising your "right to argue" during the game, which a lot of people in this thread seem to feel is perfectly justified and appropriate. "Because I said so" just leads to bad feelings and suspicions of a DM power madness. It may or may not be true, but that is what it looks like, and even though friends should trust each other, it isn't a good friendly thing to force a player to trust you despite suspicions and aggravation when a simple explanation will help absolve most every type of issue that would result from a reasonless ban. As I said, I'd be curious to see your response to the scenario above, which is (as I said) a real-life example, and the last time I told a player "No, and I can't explain to you why."
loaba 08-01-07, 01:40 AM	Nope; just the kind who's profoundly glad that his players don't have tantrums if a given book isn't in play. That's good, you've trained your players to take what they're given. Then again, maybe you're all of like minds and don't need or want extra material. Good for you and your group. Because your group works with limited resources, does that mean that your viewpoint is the only correct one? I don't think so. No; when I asked why I should have to defend myself...which, by definition, presupposes an attack of some sort...you said "Why shouldn't you?" Any time someone asks you to backup your reasoning behind a ban, they are asking you to "defend" yourself. This doesn't imply malice, rather it means you need to have a reasoned argument that makes sense to all involved. Also, when they counter with an argument that has merit, you shouldn't fall back on "because I said so". If the player has to be prepared to accept your ruling, you should be prepared to relent. It's called give and take. Yep. That's what I want to hear from my friends. "You'd BETTER have an explanation!" So your friends need to treat you as some kind of God, of whom they should expect nothing but dry rulings and ultimatums? I mean, how dare someone actually expect you to answer their complaint? That speaks volumes. It's your "right" to argue with your friends? Maybe so; I'm glad I game with folks who don't feel like that's a right they need to exercise regularly, at least not over something as minor as a game. Do you and your friends always agree? In everything? That's great, I'm glad you've found people who see things exactly the way you do. I live in the real world, where people don't always agree. I've found that it's best to be able to backup whatever it is I have to say. That goes for D&D as well. If the game is so minor, why not relent on your ban? Oh, right, I forgot, it's only minor when it's a player complaint. You see the problem with your argument, it goes both ways. Both the player and the DM need to be able to give a little in order to get a little. Ah, yes. I don't agree with you, and yet my players aren't abandoning me in droves; therefore, there must be something wrong with my players. Lovely logic. If your players aren't questioning you, then that's great. And I sincerly mean that. But by your tone, you seem like an unyeilding guy. Therefore, I do wonder if your players have just given up. Who know, I'm not at your table. Maybe you're a fantastic DM and your players put up with your limitations because of it. Maybe you play with close personal friends who have known you forever and feel like this isn't something worth arguing about. Don't confuse apathy with approval. I suppose I should consider myself lucky, though. At least you aren't calling them mentally challenged yet. Give me some examples and I will be happy to judge your players mental capacity, or lack thereof. Probably something along the lines of, "I'm sorry, but I'm not really ready or willing to run a campaign with completely open resources at the moment. If someone else would like to run instead, that's fine, and I'll be glad to step down and run this campaign at a later time." That's nice of you. And would you then play in said open-source campaign? Which I have done, in the past--not in response to "We want open resources," which has never come up, So you've never had any players with their eyes on lots of different expansion materials? Does that mean you don't really have any experiance at all with using most of these things we've been talking about banning? but in response to "We'd rather play System X," where System X wasn't the system I was ready or willing to run at that time. Again, that's big of you. You let them play another game. Dude, c'mon, like you had a choice. You can't control everything, so I wonder what your point is? You've apparently never had to deal with players who wanted to use lots of different resources. This is an issue that hasn't come up for you. Tell you what: you stop wildly misrepresenting what I said, and I'll stop poking fun at your misrepresentations. M'kay? Thanks. I have yet to mispresent you... Ah. You can, of course, produce DMs who have taken that position, right? Provide quotes? /quote] Do I really need to? I guess you don't frequent the DMs forum. If this is at all in question, just go look for yourself. [QUOTE=Caelic;13262270]Yeah. Definitely what I'd want to hear from one of my "friends" when I'm trying to get ready for a game and they want me to memorize, say, the rules for martial adepts, maneuvers, and how to initiate them. You don't trust your friend to produce the rules during the session? You can't look at the book whenever X action comes up? Well, okay, I guess that's too much work for you. Right. Because, you know, my posts over the past several years have revealed a reluctance to read new rules. It's apparently a chore for you, pity. You're missing out, or more acurately, your players are missing out. But then again, maybe they don't care and are happy with the material that is allowed. ...and, of course, having it available at the game session (when people are presumably playing instead of, y'know, trying to memorize new rulebooks) is just as good as owning it. You're kind of **** over this memorization thing, like everything depends on it. For me, and I guess I'm just different here, I can read the rules whenever I need to. In your world, clearly, there isn't. There's the onus to argue with the DM until he gives in. Not until he gives in, until he gives me a reason other than "I said so". And it goes both ways, when I DM, if there is something that gives me pause, I tell my players. Really, that hasn't come up yet (though I expect it will eventually). Actually, it's been my experience that advanced players are typically the ones who have gotten past the notion that they need tons of new rules on a regular basis in order to keep the game fresh and interesting. But I thought you said your players didn't use alot of this stuff anyway. Maybe you could clarify? I know that observation is going to set some forehead veins to throbbing, but, m'man, it's the simple truth. I know many, many old grognards who used to own every single rules supplement, memorize them voraciously, and have now said "Hell with it" and gone back to having a good time with minimal rules. And I wouldn't disagree with you here; but that statement implys that they played with all of those expansions at one time or another. As long as expansions are published, people will buy them and want to use them. I have no problem with that, I'll allow whatever and deal with the consequences as they come. Like you said, it's just a game and I'm okau with a few hiccups now and again. Apparently not, if the DM is the one who prefers the basics and you're at his table. If I'm playing a game that focuses on the basics, it was a group decision, not soley a DM decision. I think that's a fine point that you simply refuse to accept.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-01-07, 01:41 AM	So tell me, TPK: do you agree with Loaba that he was right and justified in insulting Shadzar's intelligence? Do you think that flinging around accusations of being "mentally challenged," either directly or by implication, is acceptable? No, absolutely not. It was uncool, and well just plain uncalled for. I disagree with shadza, and feel that his arguing technic is highly dubious, but that is no excuse to imply he is retarded. I don't think I've attacked your intelligence, have I? I've admittedly questioned your debate tactics and called them disingenuous; I've expressed confusion when some of your wording seemed garbled to me, but I don't think I've said or implied that you were an unintelligent person. And I yours, but thats kind of the nature of an internet argument. I've said somet hings I'm not proud of either. But I don't think either of us intentional implied that the other was "special" I'm just hoping we can find common ground here. To be honest, I think I missed the Count's post that's being referenced here; I tend to skip over posts that I don't think are directly related to the threads of conversation I'm following. I'm man enough to say that if he did attack your intelligence, that was uncool, and he should apologize. I think we can find common ground as well. Actually your DMing style doesn't strike me as all that different from my own. Mostly just a few difference on what, and when to allow things, but probably pretty close to each other. You also put more work into your campaign setting then i do. Well maybe not, I see you, and correct me if I'm wrong, putting weeks into them all at once, and only launching them when ready. I'll take years to do the same thing, but I'll shelf them for the time being, or play parts of them and adjust depending on how that went. I'm sorry I should say that, the only thing I know, from what've told me, is that you do take weeks to develope them and you do pour your heart and soul into them. Thats certainly admirable. Me, I don't have the patients for that, after about 2-3 weeks of designing them, I want to play them. then I go back to working on them. And by them I mean one. As for what I'm arguing here: I'm noting saying that DMs should be interrogated, or anything like. And yaa if a Player wants an explanation for everything, then their being rude. Mostly i think it should like so: Player can I play mechaincs thingy X? DM: No. Player, oh. Why? DM: because of reason A. Player: what about reason B? DM: I'll think about it. Player: OK. Heck, if you feel that I've attacked your intelligence--rather than your arguments--please feel free to say so, and I'll be man enough to apologize for that. I don't think that. And if you have then I'd have just ignored it for the most part. I'm not sure why count got to me, just something about his post really got under my skin... I didn't so much get mad at him for "targeting the challenged." I got mad at him for thinking having a mental handicap was a funny subject worthy of joking about. It isn't, and people who do think that **** me off too. I find this whole make fun of someone for something they can't help or because their different really childish. I'm freely willing to admit that I'm a bit hypersensitive about that. I work with the special ed kids in our school on a regular basis, and as a result, I've gotten more than a bit thin-skinned towards those who use "special" as an insult.I'm more thick skinned about it, especially on the internet. But that doesn't change the fact that making fun people who are specially challenged is wrong. Oh and on a lighter note, you edditted it away, but you had asked for a quote from a DM who said that everything non-core was bad, and forever banned. here it is: My explanation is always the same. I only play with books I own. I refuse to waste money purchasing anything beyond the three core books. So if it isn't in core I don't let it in. If you can't accept that explanation play at another table. Because I hope, however vainly, that someday gaming will return to the time when there were a LOT of different games on the market and players were glad to give a new system a try. IF enough people could be convinced that splatbooks were a waste of their money, then splatbooks would stop being produced. Then other games might resurge and the availability of innovative non-D20 games would increase. D&D is OK for High Fantasy but that's about it, the amount of "fixing" required to shoehorn it to a different genre is oppressive. So I have a Strict Core Only Policy at my table.
Comus 08-01-07, 01:56 AM	That analogy sort of falls apart, though, Octane; he could certainly order Chinese food whether or not I ordered pizza. I don't have the ability "not to allow it." Well, if the DM is the one 'footing the bill', as it were, then you do have the ability to not allow it. You can say "I refuse to pay for Chinese food", and he would have to either pay for it himself (that is, run his own game), or deal with the pizza. Sure--because I want to, because he's my friend. There's a world of difference between than and "The DM had better have a good explanation." No, there isn't. If a player sits down at your table, he deserves the same treatment from the DM as your best friend. If you would tell your best friend why he couldn't play class X, you should do the same for any player. Of course...despite the demonization that goes on...we both know that this is very seldom a case of "I want pizza, so I don't care if anybody else does." It's more frequently, "Most of us want pizza. I'm sorry that Jim wants Chinese, but I'm going to order what I know will taste good to most of the people here." And here's the thing - that's the explanation. That's what you tell Jim about his Chinese/Chaotic Evil Wu Jen - everyone else wants something different, and it isn't compatable. Okay. Scenario for you. Real-life scenario, in fact. Mike wants to use some of the rules in Book of Vile Darkness. I tell him "We can't do that in this campaign, sorry." I don't offer him any explanation beyond that; when he presses, I just say "Look, I can't explain. You'll just have to trust me." So, tell me: would you consider this acceptable? Or an abuse of my "power" as DM? If the reason for the ban involves very specific plot reasons that you can't reveal, you can just say so. That's fine. I'm okay with "I have a reason - a good one, too - but I can't tell you what it is right now. " That's nice when there's ample time, but what if we're on lunch break and only have half an hour, or forty five minutes? We could spend the whole time discussing options, and then nobody would get to eat. This is why I draw a distinction between going to the DM after the game and discussing issues, and exercising your "right to argue" during the game, which a lot of people in this thread seem to feel is perfectly justified and appropriate. Let's be honest, here - we're talking about bringing a suppliment into a game. No one does that in the middle of combat. It'll only come up at character creation or when levelling up, and both have more than enough time for some dialogue. I should really apologize for my snide comments to shadzar. I really should. For form's sake, at least. There's no need to be rude on the internets, after all. There's enough of that by default. So... Shadzar, I apologize if my posts seemed insulting towards you. That said, I do wish you would capitalize more, as it makes posts easier on the eyes.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-01-07, 02:02 AM	Okay. Scenario for you. Real-life scenario, in fact. Mike wants to use some of the rules in Book of Vile Darkness. I tell him "We can't do that in this campaign, sorry." I don't offer him any explanation beyond that; when he presses, I just say "Look, I can't explain. You'll just have to trust me." So, tell me: would you consider this acceptable? Or an abuse of my "power" as DM? If Mike were a long time regular player of yours, then he would know that your stand up guy, and have every reason to just trust you. After the game was done, and he asked again, say he was just curious, would you explain it to him then? Now suppose that Mike is a new player, and doesn't know you from a hole in the ground. He may want more of explanation then just trust me, he may not. Either way it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to find, "just trust me" a little dubious. However him stopping play, and demanding you drop everything to give an explanation right then and there is unreasonable. But it would not be if he were to wait for a better time, say after the session, or on a smoke break or a mid-week email. And again it does come down to how asks as well. "Tell NOW WHY I CAN"T HAVE THIS *****!" is never a good way to ask for the explanation. But maybe a, "Uhm I'm a little confused as to why you said no. If its not too much trouble, would mind explaining it to me, please?" Would be a much better way of asking. out of curiosity, what was the reason why mike couldn't play out of the BOVD. (I don't allow it when I play either. I find that the hole evil = ugly bugs me on a moral level, and a lot of the crap in there creeps me out.) EDIT: You know what? This has gone on too long, and I've gotten too snarky for it to go on any longer. I'm sorry that I offended you, TPK. Yes, it sounds hollow and false because it's the internet and it's me of all people saying it in an EDIT no less, but there you have it. I apologize for offending you by commenting about your Dyslexia. I honestly did not know you were dyslexic, and merely sought to point out what I ass-u-me'd was a shoddy debate practice: i.e., inconsistent spelling and grammar. It turned out that I was wrong, and I regret that I have come across as boorish as I have. Apology accepted. But this really does go to show that you can't judge people by their spelling errors. There could be hundreds of reasons for it, so chances are that you will only offend someone, and come off as boorish. Note that Albert Einstines grade five teacher said that he would never be able to read, and would never amount to anything. Now can we let the spelling and grammar thing drop please?
loaba 08-01-07, 02:03 AM	Shadzar, I apologize if my posts seemed insulting towards you. That said, I do wish you would capitalize more, as it makes posts easier on the eyes. Ya know, I don't make it a habit of doing this, and it is the internet where people say whatever they want. That being the case, as I have clearly offended at lease 3 posters here, I apologize for making fun of Shadzar at the expense of retarded children.
High Octane 08-01-07, 02:05 AM	That analogy sort of falls apart, though, Octane; he could certainly order Chinese food whether or not I ordered pizza. I don't have the ability "not to allow it." And a player could DM his own game. You can't disallow that either. But in this case you can not pay for his food, much like you cannot DM for him. Analogy remains. Sure--because I want to, because he's my friend. There's a world of difference between than and "The DM had better have a good explanation." Only in tone. If all you are saying is the player should have good manners and give the DM the benefit of the doubt before asking, I agree, but he still has the right to ask. Of course...despite the demonization that goes on...we both know that this is very seldom a case of "I want pizza, so I don't care if anybody else does." It's more frequently, "Most of us want pizza. I'm sorry that Jim wants Chinese, but I'm going to order what I know will taste good to most of the people here." Perfectly valid reason. Tell your friend that. If he can't get behind that, then HE is the one being a jerk. Thing is, you still told him. Okay. Scenario for you. Real-life scenario, in fact. Mike wants to use some of the rules in Book of Vile Darkness. I tell him "We can't do that in this campaign, sorry." I don't offer him any explanation beyond that; when he presses, I just say "Look, I can't explain. You'll just have to trust me." So, tell me: would you consider this acceptable? Or an abuse of my "power" as DM? Well that simply depends on why you can't tell him anything beyond "You will just have to trust me." If you are planning something in the campaign that will be disrupted by a character being evil, then no it is not. Believe it or not "There is a reason, but I can't tell you what it is, at least not now" is actually an explanation or at least a communication that allows the player to understand that this isn't some arbitrary DM ruling. I DO think it's an abuse of power if the reason you are doing it is because you have a big bad evil guy coming up and the ability Mike is gunning for happens to prey on a weakness the big bad evil guy has and will suddenly make that CR 8 into a CR 5 or 6 because of him. When people desire to go into a class they like to have their strengths and specialities actually come into play sometimes. They pay for them in opportunity cost. You gave me a highly incomplete example, so I can't answer your question. That's nice when there's ample time, but what if we're on lunch break and only have half an hour, or forty five minutes? We could spend the whole time discussing options, and then nobody would get to eat. THIS is where the analogy breaks down actually. You can plan ahead for games and very well should, especially for anything you disallow that the player should know about. And for crying out loud, you can explain after and give a quick one sentence explanation until then saying "Ill explain later." "I'll explain later" is still an explanation, or at least the promise of one, which should turn into one. Friends trust you, but if you never show them WHY they should trust you, they will stop having reason to trust you. This is why I draw a distinction between going to the DM after the game and discussing issues, and exercising your "right to argue" during the game, which a lot of people in this thread seem to feel is perfectly justified and appropriate. I agree arguing should be kept before and after a game, but that doesnt mean that explanations and even discussion/arguments should never be allowed because the DM's rule is law. As I said, I'd be curious to see your response to the scenario above, which is (as I said) a real-life example, and the last time I told a player "No, and I can't explain to you why." Could you explain later?
MaximumPain 08-01-07, 02:13 AM	Listen to this bunch of “If I don’t get my splat book” whiners!! If the DM chooses to disallow a class or race or whatever live with it or find a new game! I find the splat books to be a huge burden especially if I need to keep looking up something in different books. I don’t have the time to figure out how every class is supposed to work and some things I just don’t want to deal with. At this time I allow Warlock, War mages, Scouts, Ninjas, and Dragon shaman. If one of my players wants to play something else I will look at it and make a decision based on my world and how much work its going to be for me to make it work in my game. But they need to live with my decision and come with a concept not a mechanic and we will work it out somehow.. You see the DM needs to balance the fun factor for the entire group not just one player and trying to deal with 5 or more different splat books gets to be a pain. You almost need to force the players playing the splat book characters or using spells, feats ect from splat books to make a card with everything about said ability written out so it can be referenced at a moments notice. In the end it’s the DM and the players that make the game and they all need to work together to make it fun. But the players need to live with the DMs choices as they know their world and what may or may not fit, and sometimes they know their players too and that in it self may be a good enough reason to disallow something. If you can only have fun playing some obscure character from some splat book I feel sorry for you.
High Octane 08-01-07, 02:21 AM	Listen to this bunch of “If I don’t get my splat book” whiners!! If the DM chooses to disallow a class or race or whatever live with it or find a new game! This is the type of attitude that will push away prospective players and leave you a lonely DM. I find the splat books to be a huge burden especially if I need to keep looking up something in different books. I don’t have the time to figure out how every class is supposed to work and some things I just don’t want to deal with. At this time I allow Warlock, War mages, Scouts, Ninjas, and Dragon shaman. If one of my players wants to play something else I will look at it and make a decision based on my world and how much work its going to be for me to make it work in my game. But they need to live with my decision and come with a concept not a mechanic and we will work it out somehow.. You see the DM needs to balance the fun factor for the entire group not just one player and trying to deal with 5 or more different splat books gets to be a pain. You almost need to force the players playing the splat book characters or using spells, feats ect from splat books to make a card with everything about said ability written out so it can be referenced at a moments notice. In the end it’s the DM and the players that make the game and they all need to work together to make it fun. But the players need to live with the DMs choices as they know their world and what may or may not fit, and sometimes they know their players too and that in it self may be a good enough reason to disallow something. If you can only have fun playing some obscure character from some splat book I feel sorry for you. Valid reasons to disallow most splat books, and you do give them a chance to show you what they want. You can accomplish the same ends without the tyrannical overtone and actions.
Caelic 08-01-07, 02:26 AM	(Wow. I deleted the post well over half an hour ago; I know that because I went back to it fifteen minutes later and tweaked it, and that was exactly half an hour ago. Either you spent forty minutes on this response...which is kinda scary...or you saved the post so you could respond to it later...which is kinda scary. Either way, I'm still not going to play the insults game. Because your group works with limited resources, does that mean that your viewpoint is the only correct one? Nope. It means that it works for us. It means that someone who showed up at our table with the attitude of "I want to play this and the DM had better have a good explanation if he says no!" would be considered disruptive and selfish. Any time someone asks you to backup your reasoning behind a ban, they are asking you to "defend" yourself. This doesn't imply malice, rather it means you need to have a reasoned argument that makes sense to all involved. The general tone of your comments doesn't match well with the notion of politely asking the DM to explain a call. So your friends need to treat you as some kind of God, of whom they should expect nothing but dry rulings and ultimatums? I mean, how dare someone actually expect you to answer their complaint? Hrm. "He'd better have a reason!" are your words. Who's giving the ultimatum? And, yes, if a player came to me and told me that "I'd better have a reason" for disallowing Swashbuckler, I wouldn't be at all inclined to respond. Fortunately, I know my friends, and I trust them not to be that rude. Do you and your friends always agree? In everything? That's great, I'm glad you've found people who see things exactly the way you do. No. But we agree on the important things. We agree, for instance, that we all trust each other enough to give up a little bit of control when somebody else is DMing. We agree that most of what's in the D&D splatbooks really isn't all that remarkable, and certainly that we're not dependent on the latest Splatbook of the Month for our fun. If the game is so minor, why not relent on your ban? Oh, right, I forgot, it's only minor when it's a player complaint. Which ban in particular? There are going to be different reasons for each. Weren't you the one saying reasons were important? And yet, here you are treating "ban" as a universally-bad blanket term. You see the problem with your argument, it goes both ways. Both the player and the DM need to be able to give a little in order to get a little. Not really; I just quantify that differently than you do. I respect the decisions others make when they're DMing and don't hassle them. I'm willing to give a little and maybe not play my pet system/concept/build. In turn, they do the same for me. But by your tone, you seem like an unyeilding guy. By yours...and while I said I wasn't going to fling insults, there's no way I can say this in a really nice way...you seem like a rude, demanding, and fairly mean-spirited sort of person. I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that you may not come across that way in real life, though. Therefore, I do wonder if your players have just given up. You're free to wonder. It's baseless and uninformed speculation, and I'll refrain from engaging in the same regarding your player and tables, but you're free to wonder. Who know, I'm not at your table. I think, perhaps, that's a good thing for both of us. Maybe you're a fantastic DM and your players put up with your limitations because of it. Maybe you play with close personal friends who have known you forever and feel like this isn't something worth arguing about. Maybe I know my players a bit better than you do. Don't confuse apathy with approval. I'm not. It seems like you are. Maybe you should sit at my table for a week or two before you start speculating on which is which. Give me some examples and I will be happy to judge your players mental capacity, or lack thereof. Yes, you seem like a fairly judgemental sort of person, but it's still sort of sad that you're willing to judge the mental capacity of people you've never met or spoken to. That's nice of you. And would you then play in said open-source campaign? In a heartbeat. I own all but 2 of the 3.5 rulebooks currently on the shelves. The fact that not every one of my campaigns uses every one of them doesn't mean I want them to just sit and gather dust forever. And, yes, I said "not every one of my campaigns." There's another misconception I think we should dispel; I do and have run "Anything goes" campaigns in the past, and will in the future. They tend to be fairly short and light-hearted, but there's nothing wrong with that. I just like to run different things. Is that reason enough not to run every single campaign as a wide-open So you've never had any players with their eyes on lots of different expansion materials? Does that mean you don't really have any experiance at all with using most of these things we've been talking about banning? You really don't get over to the CO Boards much, do you? Thanks for the chuckle, either way, and see my above comment. Again, that's big of you. You let them play another game. Dude, c'mon, like you had a choice. You can't control everything, so I wonder what your point is? You asked what I'd do. I'm not big on conditional-hypothetical, so I told you what I did do. You've apparently never had to deal with players who wanted to use lots of different resources. This is an issue that hasn't come up for you. Wrong again. See above. I just have players who are mature enough not to demand to use lots of different resources in every campaign. "We want open resources!" hasn't come up because I'm part of a group where people respect each other and are willing to give new campaign concepts a try--even if they aren't the campaign concepts they, personally, would have chosen. The 'System X' example which apparently baffled you so much was the closest we've come; the majority of the group just got sick of D&D, and wanted to use the Hero System. I wasn't in any way prepared to run a campaign in the Hero System. I like the system, but I'm not great at running it. Hey, I know my limits. I have yet to mispresent you... That is, without a doubt, the funniest thing you've said all night. You don't trust your friend to produce the rules during the session? You can't look at the book whenever X action comes up? Well, okay, I guess that's too much work for you. That depends entirely on the rule in question. If we're talking about a feat, that's fine. If we're talking about a whole rules system--like Incarnum or martial maneuvers or Truenaming--then, yeah, I want to know the system, not just "look at the book whenever it comes up." But, hey, that's just me. I like to know the rules I'm using, not waste my players' time routinely paging through rulebooks in the middle of play. It's apparently a chore for you, pity. You're missing out, or more acurately, your players are missing out. You really are quick to judge, aren't you? But then again, maybe they don't care and are happy with the material that is allowed. Gracious of you to allow that that might be a possibility. You're kind of **** over this memorization thing, like everything depends on it. For me, and I guess I'm just different here, I can read the rules whenever I need to. Like I said: I like to know the rules, not waste my players' time trying to look them up as I go. Maybe it's just me, but I find that making an effort to actually know the rules means you don't have to spend as much time reading the rules. Hey, I understand that not everyone has my memory; if you can't commit at least the fundamentals of the rules to memory, and need to look them up as you go, I'm not going to find fault with that. But I thought you said your players didn't use alot of this stuff anyway. Maybe you could clarify? Already clarified; see above. And I wouldn't disagree with you here; but that statement implys that they played with all of those expansions at one time or another. Already clarified; see above. As long as expansions are published, people will buy them and want to use them. I have no problem with that, I'll allow whatever and deal with the consequences as they come. Like you said, it's just a game and I'm okau with a few hiccups now and again. I like my players enough that I want to give them a game that's as good as it can possibly be. To me, that means trying to keep the hiccups to a minimum, and that's best done by not writing a blank check to "allow whatever." Please, give me a few pedestrian examples of exapansion material that you would be valid in disallowing. I'll stick to real examples. Here's one: I'm running a game with one highly assertive and highly knowledgeable player and five neophytes. At the start of the campaign, I simply let it be known that we'll only be using the three core rulebooks. The knowledgeable player isn't very happy with this, but the five new players are confused enough by the concept of a tabletop roleplaying game and a bit intimidated even by the prospect of three books. I know that the veteran player will grandstand if allowed material that the other players aren't using, and I know that this will likely annoy the other players.
MaximumPain 08-01-07, 02:29 AM	This is the type of attitude that will push away prospective players and leave you a lonely DM. Actually I have to turn players away I have so many. When my current game restarts I will have 9 players and several others that want in. Valid reasons to disallow most splat books, and you do give them a chance to show you what they want. You can accomplish the same ends without the tyrannical overtone and actions. I do believe in trying to make the game fun for all of my players and I try to make concepts fit into the availible classes races ect. I just rail against the splat books and against the players who feel they can do whatever they want and damn any DM who wont allow it.
loaba 08-01-07, 02:31 AM	Listen to this bunch of “If I don’t get my splat book” whiners!! This is yet another example of the Ugly DM attitude that so pervasive on these boards. I find the splat books to be a huge burden especially if I need to keep looking up something in different books. I don’t have the time to figure out how every class is supposed to work and some things I just don’t want to deal with. So it's simply not an option for your player to keep track of that stuff throughout the course of game play? I mean, after player uses X routine a couple of times, you still don't know what to expect? If one of my players wants to play something else I will look at it and make a decision based on my world and how much work its going to be for me to make it work in my game. So what would be an example of something that just woudn't work and simply could not be ported into your game? But they need to live with my decision and come with a concept not a mechanic and we will work it out somehow.. Could the same be said that if the player really wants something, you'll make every effort to assimilate it into your game? You see the DM needs to balance the fun factor for the entire group not just one player Agreed, everybody needs to have a good time. Have you ever had a player, whose use of X splat book ruined the game for all of your players? and trying to deal with 5 or more different splat books gets to be a pain. You almost need to force the players playing the splat book characters or using spells, feats ect from splat books to make a card with everything about said ability written out so it can be referenced at a moments notice. This is actually a really good idea for players, especially if they have lots of spells or other options, In the end it’s the DM and the players that make the game and they all need to work together to make it fun. I couldn't agree more, well said. But the players need to live with the DMs choices as they know their world and what may or may not fit, and sometimes they know their players too and that in it self may be a good enough reason to disallow something. I can honestly say that I have never had a problem making something fit into my world. I didn't think of everything, it's not possible. I enjoy fitting my world around the PCs choices. It's their world too after all. If you can only have fun playing some obscure character from some splat book I feel sorry for you. I don't think anyone has mentioned that in this discussion, but if a player has found a certain comfort-level with X character-type, I respect that.
Comus 08-01-07, 02:35 AM	MaximumPain - Just a simple question. Let's say a new book comes out, and one of your players wants to try something from it. For the sake of argument, it doesn't fly in the face of anything in your campaign, and doesn't seem overpowered. He has the book, and offers to loan it to you so you can take a look at your leisure and make a decision on your own time. What would you do?
Caelic 08-01-07, 02:37 AM	If Mike were a long time regular player of yours, then he would know that your stand up guy, and have every reason to just trust you. After the game was done, and he asked again, say he was just curious, would you explain it to him then? No. I would not. Bear with me and you'll see why. Now suppose that Mike is a new player, and doesn't know you from a hole in the ground. He may want more of explanation then just trust me, he may not. Either way it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to find, "just trust me" a little dubious. In this particular case, he'd just have to deal with the "Trust me," because no further explanation would be forthcoming in this particular case, no matter HOW politely he asked. out of curiosity, what was the reason why mike couldn't play out of the BOVD. (I don't allow it when I play either. I find that the hole evil = ugly bugs me on a moral level, and a lot of the crap in there creeps me out.) Okay, here goes. (Octane, this is for you, too.) At the time this situation came up, I had a player in my group who was the victim of sexual abuse when she was young. She was extremely sensitive about it, attending counselling, and prone to panic attacks when confronted by things that reminded her of what she'd gone through. I knew about this situation, as did one of my players. The rest of the group did not. As I said, the player in question was very sensitive about the issue, and had made us both promise not to say anything about it. (I wouldn't be bringing it up here and now, but happily, this was quite a long time ago, she's mostly worked through the trauma, and she released me from that promise several years ago.) Now: obviously, I was doing a fairly delicate job of tiptoeing through a minefield with this particular campaign. I had to try to run what is by definition a fairly violent game, and I had to do it while steering clear of things which could trigger panic attacks in my player. This was not easy. I seriously considered suggesting that she not play several times, but she was happy with the group, and at the time, socializing was hard for her; I didn't have the heart to take that away from her, even though I knew there could eventually be problems. The material Mike wanted to use was definitely of the nature that I wanted to avoid in the campaign. I can't say for sure that it would have set her off, but the potential was definitely there, and I wasn't willing to risk it. So I said "no"--but, because of my promise, there was no way I could explain why to Mike. He wasn't a dumb guy; if I'd explained it to him in general terms without naming names, he would've figured out who I was talking about in a second, and I'd consider that breaking my word to her as much as if I'd just named her. So: there you go. Make of it what you will...but I hope it will at least illustrate that, at least some of the time, a DM can have reasons that he can't share with his players. (Loaba: I can't force you to honor this, but I'm going to ask you politely: please don't respond to this post. I'm likely to take anything you say about the player I'm discussing very personally. That could result in a very nasty exchange, and I'd like to avoid that, if possible. I'm admitting to being thin-skinned and overprotective of the person in question, so this is a "me" issue, not a "you" issue.)
8for47 08-01-07, 02:45 AM	Look Maximum Pain, in the current campaign I am playing in my character had recently died and I had also recently read Perdito Street Station. I came up with a concept that involved a Raptoran and this race wasn't used before and may not be used again. No big deal really and my DM allowed my character into the game although we really have had to brush up on the flying rules because it is the only part of the game that requires facing. Quite often when players come up with character concepts it's because of something they have just read or would like to try out. I brushed up on the rules, downloaded the articles in the rules of the game section, had the DM skim over them and am pretty much the expert on flying in our group now because of it. The DM has said he won't use the bits on aerial tripping and I am cool with that because as a flyer stalling sucks. But he basically lets me run my own character because cheating in D&D is like cheating at solitaire and he both knows and trusts me enough to let me keep track of this on my own. I wonder how many of these core only games end up with the party being the Holy Rollers with Nature Boy and Wizzy because even going through every splat book known to man you really have to work very hard to get anything approaching the power level of that.
UltimateReality 08-01-07, 02:55 AM	At the time this situation came up, I had a player in my group who was the victim of sexual abuse when she was young. She was extremely sensitive about it, attending counselling, and prone to panic attacks when confronted by things that reminded her of what she'd gone through. I knew about this situation, as did one of my players. The rest of the group did not. As I said, the player in question was very sensitive about the issue, and had made us both promise not to say anything about it. (I wouldn't be bringing it up here and now, but happily, this was quite a long time ago, she's mostly worked through the trauma, and she released me from that promise several years ago.) <snip> So I said "no"--but, because of my promise, there was no way I could explain why to Mike. He wasn't a dumb guy; if I'd explained it to him in general terms without naming names, he would've figured out who I was talking about in a second, and I'd consider that breaking my word to her as much as if I'd just named her. There are other ways to deal with this. Something like "the material in the book makes me uncomfortable" (using it will make the player uncomfortable, which will definitely make you uncomfortable, so it's actually the truth) or, "our/my games do not contain that kind of content", or (if true) "sorry, no Evil characters". I'm not saying how you dealt with it was wrong, but I just wanted to point out there are other ways to explain why it's not allowed without blabbing all.
MaximumPain 08-01-07, 03:00 AM	This is yet another example of the Ugly DM attitude that so pervasive on these boards. Ugly players beget ugly DM's and I suppose the reverse is true as well. So it's simply not an option for your player to keep track of that stuff throughout the course of game play? I mean, after player uses X routine a couple of times, you still don't know what to expect? I like to know about my player’s capabilities so I can design balanced, fun, and challenging encounters for them. When I do allow an unfamiliar concept I will try and catch up or make the player keep track of their abilities. Several times I have had players get a spell or feat totally wrong (mage hand is a good recent example) and It has affected game balance. So what would be an example of something that just woudn't work and simply could not be ported into your game? You got me on this one. The things I have disallowed so far have been Knights and Samurai and I honestly haven’t had any player ask to be one. I honestly just don’t like the challenge and Kai shout mechanics and would direct players towards the fighter and Paladin class for those types of characters. I admit a lot of it is personal prejudice against a mechanic I just plain don’t like. Honestly If a player came to me and begged to be a knight or Samurai I would probably allow it. Although some of the prestige classes really bug me like the blood Magus for example some of the abilities seem quite stupid in a lot of those classes. Could the same be said that if the player really wants something, you'll make every effort to assimilate it into your game? Absolutely especially if a player comes to me with a concept rather than a mechanic I will make every effort to make them happy with there character. Agreed, everybody needs to have a good time. Have you ever had a player, whose use of X splat book ruined the game for all of your players? Honestly no but I have an amazing group of players who are very mature and open to doing what it takes to make the game fun for all. This is actually a really good idea for players, especially if they have lots of spells or other options, I had my caster start doing it first and then realized to potential for every thing else. I even plan on creating cards for some major magic items and summoned monsters. Its great because they are reusable from game to game. I can honestly say that I have never had a problem making something fit into my world. I didn't think of everything, it's not possible. I enjoy fitting my world around the PCs choices. It's their world too after all. Honestly neither have I. I have been in games where an item from a non-core book caused the DM a headache. A player made a tripper character using a certain weapon from Eberon and just abused the snot out of it. Part of the issue was that the DM didn’t know the trip rules well enough and the player did but was not very good about sharing how it worked, he was however good at using it in every fight constantly. Of course this could have been just as easily done with a spiked chain from the core book so its not truly a splat book issue. I don't think anyone has mentioned that in this discussion, but if a player has found a certain comfort-level with X character-type, I respect that. I try to as well. I just hate to drag 20 books to a game and spending the time to make sure players are actually using something correctly. When it comes down to it we as DMs need to try and make all of the people at our table happy just don’t forget to include your self in there as well. Cheers
MaximumPain 08-01-07, 03:03 AM	MaximumPain - Just a simple question. Let's say a new book comes out, and one of your players wants to try something from it. For the sake of argument, it doesn't fly in the face of anything in your campaign, and doesn't seem overpowered. He has the book, and offers to loan it to you so you can take a look at your leisure and make a decision on your own time. What would you do? I would decide on a case by case basis. Most likely I would allow it. Especialy if allowed to review it before the game.
Caelic 08-01-07, 03:08 AM	There are other ways to deal with this. Something like "the material in the book makes me uncomfortable" (using it will make the player uncomfortable, which will definitely make you uncomfortable, so it's actually the truth) Well, two things to consider here. One: I believe "I'm not comfortable including this" may have come up at some point when he was pressing for an explanation. Two: "I'm not comfortable with this" is exactly the sort of reason many people in this thread have rejected as invalid or not good enough. Is there really much difference between "I don't like it" and "I'm uncomfortable with it?" or, "our/my games do not contain that kind of content", or (if true) "sorry, no Evil characters". Neither of these would've worked in this particular case; we've had evil characters before, and campaigns that contained that kind of content, and Mike knew that. It's not like he was asking for anything totally out of bounds; most of what he was asking for wasn't even the really squicky stuff in the BoVD. If it hadn't been for the specific player being in the campaign, I most likely would've okayed it.
Caelic 08-01-07, 03:11 AM	I wonder how many of these core only games end up with the party being the Holy Rollers with Nature Boy and Wizzy because even going through every splat book known to man you really have to work very hard to get anything approaching the power level of that. Sometimes, it's not about being as powerful as you can possibly be. Who knows? Maybe that priority is one of the differences between some groups that feel slighted if they don't have unlimited access to rules and some groups that have a good time without mountains of splatbooks.
MaximumPain 08-01-07, 03:12 AM	Look Maximum Pain, in the current campaign I am playing in my character had recently died and I had also recently read Perdito Street Station. I came up with a concept that involved a Raptoran and this race wasn't used before and may not be used again. No big deal really and my DM allowed my character into the game although we really have had to brush up on the flying rules because it is the only part of the game that requires facing. Quite often when players come up with character concepts it's because of something they have just read or would like to try out. I brushed up on the rules, downloaded the articles in the rules of the game section, had the DM skim over them and am pretty much the expert on flying in our group now because of it. The DM has said he won't use the bits on aerial tripping and I am cool with that because as a flyer stalling sucks. But he basically lets me run my own character because cheating in D&D is like cheating at solitaire and he both knows and trusts me enough to let me keep track of this on my own. I wonder how many of these core only games end up with the party being the Holy Rollers with Nature Boy and Wizzy because even going through every splat book known to man you really have to work very hard to get anything approaching the power level of that. Wow hot topic!!! I see your point and by no means am I a "core only" DM. I try to balance power level issues between classes with customized magic Items for the weaker character classes. And I do allow some of the alternate classes. I dont see anything that really helps the non caster classes much in those books any way as any minor feat could never be as good as a high level spell, and casters get more and more spells every level.
loaba 08-01-07, 03:13 AM	Edited: because I'm tired of this. All I will say is that the DM needs to remember that his players are every bit as important as he is.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-01-07, 03:14 AM	At the time this situation came up, I had a player in my group who was the victim of sexual abuse when she was young. She was extremely sensitive about it, attending counselling, and prone to panic attacks when confronted by things that reminded her of what she'd gone through. I knew about this situation, as did one of my players. The rest of the group did not. As I said, the player in question was very sensitive about the issue, and had made us both promise not to say anything about it. (I wouldn't be bringing it up here and now, but happily, this was quite a long time ago, she's mostly worked through the trauma, and she released me from that promise several years ago.) Now: obviously, I was doing a fairly delicate job of tiptoeing through a minefield with this particular campaign. I had to try to run what is by definition a fairly violent game, and I had to do it while steering clear of things which could trigger panic attacks in my player. This was not easy. I seriously considered suggesting that she not play several times, but she was happy with the group, and at the time, socializing was hard for her; I didn't have the heart to take that away from her, even though I knew there could eventually be problems. The material Mike wanted to use was definitely of the nature that I wanted to avoid in the campaign. I can't say for sure that it would have set her off, but the potential was definitely there, and I wasn't willing to risk it. So I said "no"--but, because of my promise, there was no way I could explain why to Mike. He wasn't a dumb guy; if I'd explained it to him in general terms without naming names, he would've figured out who I was talking about in a second, and I'd consider that breaking my word to her as much as if I'd just named her. So: there you go. Make of it what you will...but I hope it will at least illustrate that, at least some of the time, a DM can have reasons that he can't share with his players. I'm really lost as to how to respond to this... At best all I can come up with a rewording of the "just trust me" and "I have a good reason, I just can't tell you." or the like. And Mike would have to accept that, because you really couldn't tell him. It would have been a major breach of trust to your friend if you had. I've worked with people who have been in her situation, some worse then others. I'm not saying any worse then hers, because I don't know hers. But I will say that working with people in those situations is what made reconsider one of my career choices. It got too hard. And I have to commend you for what you did for that young women. It must have been hard, and I admire you for it. And you are absolutely correct, when you say that Mike would have just had to trust you; before, during and after the game. I did not take that into consideration, because I honestly did not think about when making my OP. Although rare, highly personal, and sensitive issue are an exception. In that case you should absolutely not have explained the reason to the player. It frankly was none of his business. I'll leave it at that. (Loaba: I can't force you to honor this, but I'm going to ask you politely: please don't respond to this post. I'm likely to take anything you say about the player I'm discussing very personally. That could result in a very nasty exchange, and I'd like to avoid that, if possible. I'm admitting to being thin-skinned and overprotective of the person in question, so this is a "me" issue, not a "you" issue.) I don't want to sound like an ass or anything, but you do have an ignore feature....
loaba 08-01-07, 03:28 AM	I don't want to sound like an ass or anything, but you do have an ignore feature.... He asked me not to respond, IGNORE is not required.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-01-07, 03:35 AM	All I will say is that the DM needs to remember that his players are every bit as important as he is. QFT
loaba 08-01-07, 03:46 AM	DM Perogative, and the percieved abuse thereof, brings out the worst in me. I've been an ass, my apologies to all.
High Octane 08-01-07, 03:53 AM	Okay, here goes. (Octane, this is for you, too.) At the time this situation came up, I had a player in my group who was the victim of sexual abuse when she was young. She was extremely sensitive about it, attending counselling, and prone to panic attacks when confronted by things that reminded her of what she'd gone through. I knew about this situation, as did one of my players. The rest of the group did not. As I said, the player in question was very sensitive about the issue, and had made us both promise not to say anything about it. (I wouldn't be bringing it up here and now, but happily, this was quite a long time ago, she's mostly worked through the trauma, and she released me from that promise several years ago.) Now: obviously, I was doing a fairly delicate job of tiptoeing through a minefield with this particular campaign. I had to try to run what is by definition a fairly violent game, and I had to do it while steering clear of things which could trigger panic attacks in my player. This was not easy. I seriously considered suggesting that she not play several times, but she was happy with the group, and at the time, socializing was hard for her; I didn't have the heart to take that away from her, even though I knew there could eventually be problems. The material Mike wanted to use was definitely of the nature that I wanted to avoid in the campaign. I can't say for sure that it would have set her off, but the potential was definitely there, and I wasn't willing to risk it. So I said "no"--but, because of my promise, there was no way I could explain why to Mike. He wasn't a dumb guy; if I'd explained it to him in general terms without naming names, he would've figured out who I was talking about in a second, and I'd consider that breaking my word to her as much as if I'd just named her. So: there you go. Make of it what you will...but I hope it will at least illustrate that, at least some of the time, a DM can have reasons that he can't share with his players. (Loaba: I can't force you to honor this, but I'm going to ask you politely: please don't respond to this post. I'm likely to take anything you say about the player I'm discussing very personally. That could result in a very nasty exchange, and I'd like to avoid that, if possible. I'm admitting to being thin-skinned and overprotective of the person in question, so this is a "me" issue, not a "you" issue.) With all due respect for the situation, I must say that this is an extreme case and an exception to just about any situation anyone could have come up with. No I do not think that was out of bounds for you to do as a person, friend, or DM. However if it was me who got told that without an explanation I would be curious and some would probably prod at it a bit. In this case though, you could have also banned the material for several other reasons, not the least of which is it's obvious bad taste, and simply given Mike that explanation. I do not think you made an incorrect decision, but I stress that this case was extenuating circumstances. Not to be confused with a general pattern.
shadzar 08-01-07, 06:48 AM	And yaa I know its coming, but if you can't set aside your dislikes even in someone else's game, then you should be expected to DM it. I.E if I find baseball so boring that i would never consider attending a game, or let alone playing in one, why would be an umpire? If I hate FR so much that i would never play in an FR game, why would I DM one? An example of me putting aside my dislikes for players: clerics, and fighters. I really hate them. I'd never play them. But I won't ban them from my games. Just because i don't them is no reason why my players can't play them if they choose. A non-core example would warlocks, and spell thieves. hate them too, but hey if you wanna play in my game, go nuts. then the quesiton comes down to why you don't like clerics, fighters, warlocks, or spell-thieves. you have your own reasons for this. you don't have to go into depth to tell other playes or a DM why you don't like them when you don't play them. likewise a DM may have a reason they don't like them so much that they just don't want them in thier game. anything from vorpal weapons, to paladins, to non-standard (whatever is stndard these these) demi-human races. the precept that by default the DM has to defend himself just because he is playing with friends is the entire problem with the arguements. friends just don't do that. if you can't just accept your friends decision about something then are you really friends with that person? again if you chose the DM then you should respect his decisions. just because you can't play one obscure race/class combination doesn't mean you can't find something enjoyable to play with all your "options" in 3.5. (i use the term options lightly and only because it is a term most here classify the multitude of innocuous rules presented therein) if you can't find something that fits with what is allowed, then find another game or gaming group. not all "friends" have the same playstyles of D&D. you chose the DM so accept their decisions. if you didn't chose the DM but are coming into a game as a new player, then you chose to play in that game an must abide by the rule that group chose as DM. in the event of a FLGS event where the players didn't chose the DM, everyone chose to attend that FLGS event and its unknown assigned DM, so accept their decisions. if you can't accept the DM decision then all you do is end up looking like the arguementative player that could be a potential problem for the group as a whole. me personally would have to eject one such from the current game, and ban them from any following games. just because you, TPK personally, would allow anything in any game you DM; doesn't mean others have to play your way. Lastly, when judging any call a DM makes if the players are judging the DM then the game has probably already fallen apart. the player or group should find a new game or DM, and vice versa.
shadzar 08-01-07, 07:02 AM	It is your game, but it affects your players when you make decisions within it, and these players are your FRIENDS. Remember that. also remember that the DM has a life outside of D&D and doesn't have the time to rebalance every obscure optional rule within the game system in order to make it work for the group. he has enough to do to create the world and adventures. Remember that.
shadzar 08-01-07, 07:14 AM	P.S In case you care the reason for most of spelling errors, is that I am Dyslexic. So if you want to get ****** off at guy for targeting the "challenged" with a personal attack, you need look no further then the mirror. Enjoy your juice. i find this kind of funny. not the reason for the spelling mistakes and such, but when you defend yourself because someone called them to attention you included the "enjoy your juice" part. not entirely sure what that means other than a deragatory implication that relates to giving children juice before sending them for naptime or a "time out". meaning you did not really enjoy defending yourself on this subject. and quite frankly there should have been no reason for you to. this one simple example here explains why DMs shouldn't have to defend themselves. we all are humans, we all have certain things we don't like for whatever reason. a civil person does not press the question "why" for that reason in chance to scratch the surface of a subject that a given DM or more correctly human doesn't want to discuss. you should not have had to defend yourself TPK, nor should the one who was offended by the "retarded"/"special" comment.
shadzar 08-01-07, 07:37 AM	This is yet another example of the Ugly DM attitude that so pervasive on these boards. i recall in another recent thread that a DM with a single problem player found out this player cared less about D&D and more about socializing. more to the fact...the group itself played D&D jsut because they wanted to be aorund each other as friends. this was actually a surprise to that DM who was playing D&D because he liked D&D. the problem he was trying to resolve was what to do with his prime group of friends since a for new players appeared that have never played. this one player that the problem was form was always reading some novel of late instead of playing in the game. her bf was an active player in the game as well and feared tossing out the girl would also remove the boy from the game because of their relationship. upon hearing his friends played D&D jsut as something to do while they were together kind of shocked him. he found this out in response to an email about what to do about the current game and the player he saw as problematic. he got one response so far saying that she also was playing just to be with friends and D&D wasn't that important. when she then found out that the DM wanted to play in a game where the reason people were playing D&D was because they liked D&D rather than just something to do while together with friends and may DM for the new players rather than the old group she was shocked. she decided that since he was going to not be DMing for the old group that she would rather join the new players where he is a DM. now there may be something more to her following him to the new game than wanting to play D&D for D&D's sake but i just thought of that situation and wondered something. how many people here play D&D to play D&D rather chose D&D as an activity to do while socializing with friends? i personally play (A)D&D because i like to play (A)D&D and will play with anyone that is playing D&D. (unless they are using psionics :yuck: ) but won't play with a group that use D&D as a socializing activity. if i don't like the game i just don't play anymore with that group. HOWEVER, i prefer to DM for likeminded people. those that play for the same reason i do, and those who enjoy the same things i do out of the game.
Count_Chumleigh 08-01-07, 08:30 AM	i find this kind of funny. not the reason for the spelling mistakes and such, but when you defend yourself because someone called them to attention you included the "enjoy your juice" part. not entirely sure what that means other than a deragatory implication that relates to giving children juice before sending them for naptime or a "time out". meaning you did not really enjoy defending yourself on this subject. and quite frankly there should have been no reason for you to. this one simple example here explains why DMs shouldn't have to defend themselves. we all are humans, we all have certain things we don't like for whatever reason. a civil person does not press the question "why" for that reason in chance to scratch the surface of a subject that a given DM or more correctly human doesn't want to discuss. you should not have had to defend yourself TPK, nor should the one who was offended by the "retarded"/"special" comment. The "enjoy your juice" comment hearkens back to another thread, where I commented that Participating in an internet argument is a lot like the Special Olympics: everyone gets juice and a cookie at the end. It's something I use when I want to defuse an escalating internet shouting match. Also, this guy: :whatsthis As an aside, it does appear that TPK just called me--and only me, rather than everyone contributing to the internet argument, myself included--a retard. Really nice way to make yourself look sympathetic there, pal. :waits: But I keed. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
OravennasBrother 08-01-07, 09:27 AM	What I did say was that if, as an example, the DM disallowed the Complete Warrior, and I wanted to play a Swashbuckler, then the DM had better have an explanation for me. It's my right to ask why, and to argue for an overturning of the ban. And yes, I'll be more than a little cross if the response is along the lines of "because I said so". Then tell me what you would say when your players say "we'd rather play with open resources, thanks for asking". IF a player comes to me and asks for something I disallow I'll give them the short reason - I run core only, and am not about to expand. If they still INSIST that the D&D experience is "Incomplete" without Mechanic X from Class Y in Splatbook Z, then I'll turn the tables on them. They get to run the game and be DM to PROVE that the game is better with the sourcebook material they demand. Or not. If they opt not to DM then they can play Core or LEAVE. If they DM and No One enjoys the game I call that proof enough. I have yet to find DM who ran an enjoyable 3.x game with loads of splatbook material, until I do, I won't use it. Period. End of Discussion. Any whiny player who absolutely MUST have non-core can play with another DM.
Sundragon 08-01-07, 11:01 AM	On_the_wings_of_TPK I would like a response to some of the points I made in post #567 as I wasn't writing to myself but instead responding to you. For everyone else: I want to ask a question of those who tend to feel that a DM has to justify his or her decisions to disallow certain classes, feats, PrCs, etc. Is it that the DM is disallowing it that bothers you because you feel that the decision is arbitrary? Would you feel the same way if a published setting placed hard-wired limitations on available classes and whatnot? 1.) If you were playing in a D&D Conan campaign based on R.E.H.'s books would a DM be justified in disallowing half-dragon sorcerors because they don't exist on the planet? 2.) If you were playing D&D in Tolkien's Middle Earth would it be ok for the DM to say no to your request to play a Githyanki psion when neither githyanki or psionics exist in Middle Earth? 3.) If you were playing D&D in Lankhmar or Dragonlance's world of Krynn would the DM be justified in disallowing you from playing an orc cleric who got his powers from Asmodeus when neither orcs nor Amsmodeus exist in either setting? In all the above instances the DM is banning that WHICH DOES NOT EXIST in the millieu. In instances where something doesn't exist conceptually or actually in the setting, it cannot be played. Asking for something like this is akin to asking to have a character that knows how to pilot a spelljamming ship in a cosmology that doesn't have crystal spheres, phlogistan, or even the physics to allow for spelljaming. As a DM you actually feel that I should violate the integrity of the setting by adding something that is completely against the feel, atmosphere, nature, history, etc. of the setting because some WoTC designer created a new splatbook? If I wanted to do something like that, I wouldn't create a setting at all or buy a pre-published setting with solid flavor I would instead just play a generic, kitchen-sink campaign on a generic vanilla fantasy world. I don't do that because I refuse to run campaigns in colorless settings that have no personality and no uniqueness. If a player wants that they can find a new DM who runs their game on either Greyhawk or some other barely defined world where anything and everything goes and nothing has any rhyme or reason and everything is left open because we know that WoTC will be releasing a new splatbook and we just have to include everything in it because not to do so would be limiting the player's D&D experience. :rolleyes: Starlion
shadzar 08-01-07, 11:07 AM	~~~millieu~~~ no!!!! the world come back to haunt me again! and just when i thought i was done with it entirely! i don't know why i just don't like this word. :mad: millieu ← ← ← ← ← :elf:
Sundragon 08-01-07, 11:26 AM	no!!!! the world come back to haunt me again! and just when i thought i was done with it entirely! i don't know why i just don't like this word. :mad: millieu ← ← ← ← ← :elf: LOL :D The first time I read that word was in the 1e DMG written by Gygax. I thought it was a weird word then and I do now. However, I do use such words to demonstrate my pseudo-intellectualism amongst the common man. ;) Starlion
shadzar 08-01-07, 11:44 AM	LOL :D The first time I read that word was in the 1e DMG written by Gygax. I thought it was a weird word then and I do now. However, I do use such words to demonstrate my pseudo-intellectualism amongst the common man. ;) Starlion maybe that is why i don't like it. also 1E DMG, and for the same reason you use it...seems like Gygax was just trying to show of and say i am better than you because i use bigger words. looking back i have no real love for AD&D 1E but i am cheap and don't see any reason to use a $4 word when a 10-cent word will do just as good. that way i can get my point across even to the unwashed masses.
Caelic 08-01-07, 11:44 AM	With all due respect for the situation, I must say that this is an extreme case and an exception to just about any situation anyone could have come up with. The point I was trying to make, though, Octane, is that exceptions happen. This one happened to me; another, different one might happen to you; still another might happen to TPK or loaba. Exceptions happen, and there's really no way for you or me, as a player, to know if the DM saying "No, you'll just have to trust me" is doing so because he's "abusing his power" or because he has a genuine reason. If the DM is your friend, as most here have stressed he should be, shouldn't you afford him the benefit of the doubt? This is why I cannot and will not accept the notion that the DM is always obligated to explain his reasoning, or that players should always expect answers; I know from personal experience that it doesn't always work out that way. Maybe it's only one time in ten, or a hundred...but I as a player have no way of knowing if this is the one time. Therefore, because the DM is my friend and I respect and trust him, I am going to assume that he has a legitimate and valid reason. The scenario I presented in one of my responses to Loaba was another exception: a group of brand-new and somewhat skeptical players and one highly experienced player who tends to powergame. What I didn't mention in the example was that all of these players were 11-12 years old; this was a group I was running as an extracurricular activity at the school where I teach. I decided to ban anything beyond core, because most of the players were already indimidated by the prospect of a game that had that many rules and I didn't trust the one experienced player not to dominate play. No, I didn't consult them on this decision, and, no, I didn't treat them as friends and equals. I always treat students with respect, but treating them as friends and equals is an extremely bad idea for a teacher. So we have a completely different situation...but still one in which I feel I was completely justified in laying down firm ground rules and restrictions. I could probably list a dozen more exceptions--perhaps not as extreme as the first, but still entirely valid. They happen. That needs to be kept in mind.
Caelic 08-01-07, 11:48 AM	DM Perogative, and the percieved abuse thereof, brings out the worst in me. I've been an ass, my apologies to all. Peace. The assumption of abuse does the same to me, and I apologize for retaliating.
Manic Man 08-01-07, 11:57 AM	the mechanics were created from the historical information on a certain culture in order to comply with the D&D system. Ah so the sorcerers and wizards in history had actual spell casting powers. Apparently middle ages monks were all versed in hand to hand combat as well. Female monks (nuns?) were just as highly skilled as well DMs forbid material based on those mechanics. no changing the "fluff" as you call it will change the fact the DM doesn't allow the use of the mechanics that he has made forbidden for use in his game. Forbidding mechanics based on balance reasons and with regard to a sound understanding of the rules is in fact highly encouraged. For example forbidding knowledge (planes) to allow a commoner 1 to become Pun Pun. However when one has no idea of the rules, yet position oneself as better than the creators of the new edition rules (which coincidently consists of the 2e sage, the writer of wilderness survival guide, a member of the planescape setting team), it is not recommended anyone listen to such a person (one could "mistake" such a person to be a troll as well). If said mechanics of a barbarian (rage, DR) is of such danger to balance that it must be house ruled out, i would seriously advise such a person to learn the rules better.
OravennasBrother 08-01-07, 12:10 PM	Maybe it's only one time in ten, or a hundred...but I as a player have no way of knowing if this is the one time. Therefore, because the DM is my friend and I respect and trust him, I am going to assume that he has a legitimate and valid reason. Now you're being unfair. The whole point of this thread is to coerce, err convince, DM's into allowing material they would normally ban. Sure it's worded in the most neutral tones possible, but it would be totally unfair to point out that the "Anything Goes" and "Just change the Fluff and keep the mechanic" crowd have already compromised their position. Let me compare to that old joke about the guy who offers a girl $One Million for action X (Insert thematic element from the Movie "Indecent Proposal" here). She says yes. Then he offers her $10 for action X. She responds "What kind of girl do you think I am?" he answers, "We already established that, all we're doing now is haggling over the price." Here I offered something which was out of bounds thematically (A Star Trek Disruptor) as well as mechanically (damage 160+12d6) for most campaigns and the "Anything Goes" crowd gave a response of "That's not even a D20 game" - sure but it does men they have a MECHANICAL Limit. I then proposed a D20 game mechanic and similarly the response was "That's not a D&D Mechanic." Finally I proposed a COMPLETELY CORE Character using CORE mechanics (Say Reincarnation Abuse ten times fast) and got "I don't interpret the rules that way" (more or less - the response was that's not how the rules work even though it is EXACTLY how the Reincarnate CORE rules work) Thus the Anything Goes crowd have admitted they will restrict material, they just hedge it with a bland "Unless a player can convince me otherwise" SO what it seems what the Anything Goes crowd means is "Anything goes as long as the DM can be talked into it." which is a recipe for disaster. It does in fact give the DM tyrannical power to allow something for his best buddy and deny something equivalent for another player because he doesn't like them as much. The use of hard and fast lines "This subset of Core is allowed" prevents such abuse. As a player I GREATLY PREFER a Core or Subset of Core to anything broader. Sure my fighters don't have access to all the splatbook feats, but the opposing NPC Wizards don't have all the splatbook spells, so that sounds fair.
shadzar 08-01-07, 12:13 PM	Ah so the sorcerers and wizards in history had actual spell casting powers. Apparently middle ages monks were all versed in hand to hand combat as well. Female monks (nuns?) were just as highly skilled as well yes they did. the Oracle of Delphi could see the future. Merlin could do mystical things that other people were incapable of doing. be it superstition as with the oracle, or science on the part of Merlin then people did see these acts as being magical to be able to understadn them enough without fearing them comepletely. so goes for a lot of religions, but i can't discuss things like that on these forums. Shaolin monks i am pretty sure are not just some new group of people.... The Shaolin Monastery was originally founded in AD 495. nope not something new and happen about the same time of the middle ages and continue even now. female inclusion into the D&D class is to avoid gender discrimination disputes i am sure. i never said they were exact copies of, but are more than just close proximities. Forbidding mechanics based on balance reasons and with regard to a sound understanding of the rules is in fact highly encouraged. For example forbidding knowledge (planes) to allow a commoner 1 to become Pun Pun. However when one has no idea of the rules, yet position oneself as better than the creators of the new edition rules (which coincidently consists of the 2e sage, the writer of wilderness survival guide, a member of the planescape setting team), it is not recommended anyone listen to such a person (one could "mistake" such a person to be a troll as well). If said mechanics of a barbarian (rage, DR) is of such danger to balance that it must be house ruled out, i would seriously advise such a person to learn the rules better. you don't have to know a specific rule in any game to understand that at least one person in this world would find it objectionable, and that is reason enough for them to not allow/use it. unless one is so closed and small minded as to think that everyone thinks like himself.
Manic Man 08-01-07, 12:32 PM	yes they did. the Oracle of Delphi could see the future. Merlin could do mystical things that other people were incapable of doing. Then perhaps you should refer to that not as historical information but as mythical information, as i quote "the mechanics were created from the historical information on a certain culture in order to comply with the D&D system." Shaolin monks i am pretty sure are not just some new group of people.... Ah so i see, you only see monks as Shaolin monks, yet do not know that in the middle ages, monk and nuns existed. So based on historical information, is a medieval monk a monk? i never said they were exact copies of, but are more than just close proximities. I find it highly suspect that medieval monks were even a close proximity of a D&D monk. you don't have to know a specific rule in any game to understand that at least one person in this world would find it objectionable, and that is reason enough for them to not allow/use it. unless one is so closed and small minded as to think that everyone thinks like himself. Indeed people who do not know the system and their interactions tend to object to one or more part of the rules which are actually balanced until they are proven wrong or ignorant, in which case they fall back to non-factual arguments or point to spelling/vocabulary/grammer mistakes. Very sad. I would agree that one would have to be extremely closed minded and well as small brained to think that everyone thinks like him. Perhaps we can lump those that think they know their players better than the players themselves into this group.
Comus 08-01-07, 12:39 PM	The use of hard and fast lines "This subset of Core is allowed" prevents such abuse. As a player I GREATLY PREFER a Core or Subset of Core to anything broader. Sure my fighters don't have access to all the splatbook feats, but the opposing NPC Wizards don't have all the splatbook spells, so that sounds fair. I am not going to get into a balance argument with you, but we all know the strongest spells and classes are in Core. That aside, we've already said that banning things for balance reasons is fine. Some of us just have a different opinion on what that means.
shadzar 08-01-07, 12:52 PM	Then perhaps you should refer to that not as historical information but as mythical information, as i quote "the mechanics were created from the historical information on a certain culture in order to comply with the D&D system." pick a definition of history the aggregate of past events; "a critical time in the school's history" the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future; "all of human history" a record or narrative description of past events; "a history of France"; "he gave an inaccurate account of the plot to kill the president"; "the story of exposure to lead" the discipline that records and interprets past events involving human beings; "he teaches Medieval history"; "history takes the long view" all that is remembered of the past as preserved in writing; a body of knowledge; "the dawn of recorded history"; "from the beginning of history" history is a record of events in the point of view of the writer. so were there witches in old Salem? all we have is the written records to say they think they were and thus burned people for it. are you saying that anything that involves a "magical"* event is mythological^? * any art that invokes supernatural powers ^ based on or told of in traditional stories; lacking factual basis or historical validity again too many religious implications for that to be discussed here n'est pas? all definitions taken from princeton.edu website.
Manic Man 08-01-07, 01:02 PM	pick a definition of history I prefer simply using the Oxford Dictionary's definition • noun (pl. histories) 1 the study of past events. 2 the past considered as a whole. 3 the past events connected with someone or something. 4 a continuous record of past events or trends. Hmm, i wonder where in history would i find Merlin? Now is a medieval monk a monk? Is a Shaolin monk a monk? are you saying that anything that involves a "magical"* event is mythological^? You should pick up a good history book sometime. Fact based information and mythical information are seperated from each other, simply with the words "alleged", "claimed", "thought to" and so forth. Its not difficult to understand.
OravennasBrother 08-01-07, 01:03 PM	Forbidding mechanics based on balance reasons and with regard to a sound understanding of the rules is in fact highly encouraged. If said mechanics of a barbarian (rage, DR) is of such danger to balance. You do realize that the barbarian example was chosen for CLARITY? As an actual example, I did have a DM ban Barbarians from his campaign and then I proceeded to play a Ranger/Fighter MC because it 1:Fit the figure and 2: allowed me to use little homilies to point out the absurd without needing modern anachronistic thought processes ("Why I recall the time my great Uncle told me about the time in the winter my dad was born when....") But hey ANYTHING GOES right? so using the Banning of barbarians (for fluff/setting reasons) as some example of DM's not understanding rules is just par for the course.
Caelic 08-01-07, 01:36 PM	You should pick up a good history book sometime. Fact based information and mythical information are seperated from each other, simply with the words "alleged", "claimed", "thought to" and so forth. Its not difficult to understand. ...and any halfway-serious student of history knows that all histories are to some extent fictionalized, as all history is recounted through the subjective perspective of the observer. Did the British slaughter American troops at the Battle of the Wexhaws? You'll find people who'll tell you that it's a fact they did. You'll also find others who make a convincing case that they did not, that they did in fact accept surrender, and that the incident was portrayed as a "massacre" to stir up the fighting spirit of the patriots. Hmm, i wonder where in history would i find Merlin? If you could dig deep enough, probably right around the later half of the sixth century AD; do a bit of research on Myrddin Wyllt, if you're interested, and also possibly Myrddin Emrys; there's debate over which of the two was "Merlin," and the general consensus last I checked is that he was an amalgamation of both.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-01-07, 01:40 PM	then the quesiton comes down to why you don't like clerics, fighters, warlocks, or spell-thieves. you have your own reasons for this. you don't have to go into depth to tell other playes or a DM why you don't like them when you don't play them. likewise a DM may have a reason they don't like them so much that they just don't want them in thier game. anything from vorpal weapons, to paladins, to non-standard (whatever is stndard these these) demi-human races. heres the thing, though. I don't like them, for numerous reasons. However i don't ban them from my games. I set aside my dislikes, even when DMing for greater fairness. The only things i refuse to DM for based on dislikes, are things that I refuse to play in a game with regardless of who is DMing. the precept that by default the DM has to defend himself just because he is playing with friends is the entire problem with the arguments. I don't see why. I have no problem explaining my descions to my players. Its no big deal really. When they ask why, unless in the case of an extreme situation, just tell them. friends just don't do that. if you can't just accept your friends decision about something then are you really friends with that person? What? yes they do, all the time. Actually one of the more important aspects I look for in a friend is someone who is willing to be honest with me. That means that when I'm out to lunch on something they'll let me know. Again i want my friends to be my equals, not my servants. Further disgreeing with your friends is healthy. Its not disrespectful or anything to have a difference of opinion, or to want to discuss that. again if you chose the DM then you should respect his decisions. just because you can't play one obscure race/class combination doesn't mean you can't find something enjoyable to play with all your "options" in 3.5. I do respect him, and his/her discions. But that doesn't mean i agree with them. if you can't find something that fits with what is allowed, then find another game or gaming group. Why does it have to be this way? DM: "Take what I play or leave." Player: "Play my way or I leave." Seriously why should everyone express them self in terms of my way or the highway. Don't people talk with each other anymore? Comprise? Work with each other to find something they both like, can live with, and is mutually benifical. What ever happened to zero-sum conflict resolution? not all "friends" have the same playstyles of D&D. I would hazard to say that no two people have the exact same play style. BUt that doesn't mean they can't find common ground. I suppose if their play styles are radically incompatible they shouldn't play together. But a difference of opinion is not an irreconcilable difference. you chose the DM so accept their decisions. No, I "choose" my DM because I think their a decent individual with a level head on their shoulders, and can run a good game. That doesn't mean I'll agree with everything they say or do. And further it doesn't mean that I will take everything with out question. I'm an individual, not a slave. if you didn't chose the DM but are coming into a game as a new player, then you chose to play in that game an must abide by the rule that group chose as DM. See above. in the event of a FLGS event where the players didn't chose the DM, everyone chose to attend that FLGS event and its unknown assigned DM, so accept their decisions. I avoid these, because i prefer to play with friends, and not strangers. if you can't accept the DM decision then all you do is end up looking like the arguementative player that could be a potential problem for the group as a whole. me personally would have to eject one such from the current game, and ban them from any following games. Given the attitude you display towards working with your players, and the limits of DM authority, i doubt a banning from future games would necessary. just because you, TPK personally, would allow anything in any game you DM; doesn't mean others have to play your way. Please show me were i said everyone has to play my way. I don't believe I've ever said that. if the players are judging the DM then the game has probably already fallen apart. the player or group should find a new game or DM, and vice versa. I don't see how this makes logical sense, let alone is anywhere near true at all. Questioning a DM will not bring about the end of the campaign, unless the DM really is abusing rule zero by using it arbitrarily. But then I'd say that that game was doomed to failure anyways. i recall in another recent thread that a DM with a single problem player found out this player cared less about D&D and more about socializing. more to the fact...the group itself played D&D jsut because they wanted to be aorund each other as friends. this was actually a surprise to that DM who was playing D&D because he liked D&D. the problem he was trying to resolve was what to do with his prime group of friends since a for new players appeared that have never played. this one player that the problem was form was always reading some novel of late instead of playing in the game. her bf was an active player in the game as well and feared tossing out the girl would also remove the boy from the game because of their relationship. upon hearing his friends played D&D jsut as something to do while they were together kind of shocked him. he found this out in response to an email about what to do about the current game and the player he saw as problematic. he got one response so far saying that she also was playing just to be with friends and D&D wasn't that important. when she then found out that the DM wanted to play in a game where the reason people were playing D&D was because they liked D&D rather than just something to do while together with friends and may DM for the new players rather than the old group she was shocked. she decided that since he was going to not be DMing for the old group that she would rather join the new players where he is a DM. now there may be something more to her following him to the new game than wanting to play D&D for D&D's sake but i just thought of that situation and wondered something. how many people here play D&D to play D&D rather chose D&D as an activity to do while socializing with friends? i personally play (A)D&D because i like to play (A)D&D and will play with anyone that is playing D&D. (unless they are using psionics :yuck: ) but won't play with a group that use D&D as a socializing activity. if i don't like the game i just don't play anymore with that group. HOWEVER, i prefer to DM for likeminded people. those that play for the same reason i do, and those who enjoy the same things i do out of the game. Uhmm what does this have to do with anything we're talking about? As an aside, it does appear that TPK just called me--and only me, rather than everyone contributing to the internet argument, myself included--a retard. Really nice way to make yourself look sympathetic there, pal. :waits: But I keed. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh I'm a little confused as to were I implied you were retarded. If you got that impression, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say you were retarded. Only that you were a hypocrite. However if telling you to enjoy your juice implies that your a retard, I wonder how many poeple on this thread, alone, have you implied were retards, by offering them juice? On_the_wings_of_TPK I would like a response to some of the points I made in post #567 as I wasn't writing to myself but instead responding to you. Sorry. For the most part I agree with what you said, and its sounds as though your a reasonable person about those things. You mentioned that you do consider, and look at those, then try and find them into your game. No one can ask for more. Further you said that you have to use rule zero to adjust things, because WotC makes books to sell, and as such they don't always fit. Again that is perfectly valid. I'm not telling any one to do anything. Nor am I advocating that everyone accept everything anyone produces into their games. I'm advocating listening to your players. Which i get the impression that you do. That you consider what they have to same seriously. Again I feel that you do that. And finally if you have to say no, then you have a reason, and be able to present it to them if asked. Again something I doubt you have a problem with. Now maybe you didn't think of something, or maybe your reasoning is incorrect. If that is the case the player should be able to clarify. But that does not mean arguing it for hours on end. the DMs decision is final, but should not be arbitrary. For everyone else: I want to ask a question of those who tend to feel that a DM has to justify his or her decisions to disallow certain classes, feats, PrCs, etc. Is it that the DM is disallowing it that bothers you because you feel that the decision is arbitrary? Would you feel the same way if a published setting placed hard-wired limitations on available classes and whatnot? 1.) If you were playing in a D&D Conan campaign based on R.E.H.'s books would a DM be justified in disallowing half-dragon sorcerors because they don't exist on the planet? 2.) If you were playing D&D in Tolkien's Middle Earth would it be ok for the DM to say no to your request to play a Githyanki psion when neither githyanki or psionics exist in Middle Earth? 3.) If you were playing D&D in Lankhmar or Dragonlance's world of Krynn would the DM be justified in disallowing you from playing an orc cleric who got his powers from Asmodeus when neither orcs nor Amsmodeus exist in either setting? I can answer all of these by referring you to my OP. Here is the relevant bit on setting: Switching gears for a moment, suppose a DM disallowed something because it did not fit the flavor of the world. This is perfectly valid. One would not expect to play a Jedi in a Star Trek campaign. Nor a ninja in a Pirates of the Caribbean campaign. If this situation comes up, we must first Identify it by determining why the rule was not allowed. Then we must prove that the flavor of the rule could work in the campaign. Or, failing that, the mechanics could be re-flavored to work in said world. But we must realize that not everything will work everywhere, and maybe this isn’t the campaign for our concept. On that note, the DM should also realize that when their players request something they are also letting the DM know what they would find fun. Thus, if an entire party wanted to play mecha pilots, maybe the standard medieval fantasy game is not a good fit.
Alyri 08-01-07, 01:41 PM	You should pick up a good history book sometime. Fact based information and mythical information are seperated from each other, simply with the words "alleged", "claimed", "thought to" and so forth. Its not difficult to understand. Go back in time 2500 years or so and pick up the local history book. You'll see a whole different concept.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-01-07, 01:48 PM	You do realize that the barbarian example was chosen for CLARITY? As an actual example, I did have a DM ban Barbarians from his campaign and then I proceeded to play a Ranger/Fighter MC because it 1:Fit the figure and 2: allowed me to use little homilies to point out the absurd without needing modern anachronistic thought processes ("Why I recall the time my great Uncle told me about the time in the winter my dad was born when....") Speaking of absurdity... In that example you indicated that the barbarian was banned due to flavor reasons. However you then gave they barbarians flavor to you ranger/fighter. So the flavor isn't good when its the barbarians mechanics, but it is good for a ranger/fighter? Well which is it, is the flavor, good or bad for the game. And if the flavor was ok for the ranger/fighter, but not the barbarian, then that would indicate a problem with the barbarians mechanics, and not their flavor. In which that could be another form of comprise. Perhaps the DM has no problems with the flavor of the class, just its mechanics. I could then use the fluff of that class, but put it on different mechanics. But hey ANYTHING GOES right? so using the Banning of barbarians (for fluff/setting reasons) as some example of DM's not understanding rules is just par for the course. I'm really getting sick of this. Please tell me how listening, and working with your player equates to anything goes? ...and any halfway-serious student of history knows that all histories are to some extent fictionalized, as all history is recounted through the subjective perspective of the observer. Did the British slaughter American troops at the Battle of the Wexhaws? You'll find people who'll tell you that it's a fact they did. You'll also find others who make a convincing case that they did not, that they did in fact accept surrender, and that the incident was portrayed as a "massacre" to stir up the fighting spirit of the patriots. Kind of like who actually won the war of 1812?
SirTodd 08-01-07, 01:56 PM	I can't believe this is still being argued... A GM has been given authority over his players by their own consent. Much like any club has a leader. This means the GM doesn't have to justify their decisions. EVER. You as the players willingly gave him this authority. Whining over his decisions is just going to irritate him and make others question why you wanted him in such a position of authority in the first place. In other words you come off as foolish and irritating. We all know at heart your not really foolish or deliberately irritating. So why not find a better way to comport yourself? TALK in a reasonable fashion with your GM about the limits he has set up. Maybe it's arbitrary or maybe not. If he tells you then you've gained insight. If not then you've lost nothing. If his GMing is so clearly bad (arbitrary or any other bad GMing) then you can always try to get someone else elected to the GM seat. Again because this is a club you have to follow the methods your gaming group uses. But if your group of players keeps him in the GM seat then he has his mandate to GM in whatever way pleases him. Better to just learn to enjoy his way of doing things and set aside your wants for a later date when you think you can replace the current GM. To bail out of the club just because you don't get your way is an option. But it sure does make you look immature. -_-_-_-_-_-_ Example: A particular guy named (for simplicity) Mr GM, has decided he wants to take a turn GMing in his group. It is well known MrGM loves rogues and often plays only rogue variant characters. He has proposed a campaign set in the back alleys of a major city. He has house rules which would favor rogue characters over other types. Yet the group (each for their own personal reasons) has agreed to give MrGM the GM seat. If you suddenly start whining about his house rules, or the fact that he banned your super spell casting combos, or even that he nerfed the clerical spell selection. You have to realize your NOT in the majority. People wanted to play this low fantasy rogue game. So by whining about your high fantasy wizardry being banned or nerfed your only irritating the rest of the group. If these are your friends it's far better just to sit back and make a rogue and enjoy the game. Keeping your high fantasy builds for another game. Or even use them when the time comes and you wish to throw your name on the ballot to run just such a game yourself. _-_-_-_-_- Remember this isn't a democracy its a club. You elect your dictator and live with the results. MrGM may not be any good with high fantasy spell casting. So it doesn't help anything by demanding to know all his reasons behind his decisions, or whining when you don't like the answers. The other players probably either know MrGM is best at low fantasy games or want low fantasy themselves.
Manic Man 08-01-07, 02:00 PM	...and any halfway-serious student of history knows that all histories are to some extent fictionalized, as all history is recounted through the subjective perspective of the observer. Absolutely true, such as the attempt to rewrite the Nanjing Massacre as one where very few people died. However do keep in mind the context here as referenced. Magical references are non-factual based, which in a serious history work is seperated from the facts (as in the Nanjing Massacre is a fact, the actual numbers of dead are not a known fact). If you could dig deep enough, probably right around the later half of the sixth century AD; do a bit of research on Myrddin Wyllt, if you're interested, and also possibly Myrddin Emrys; there's debate over which of the two was "Merlin," and the general consensus last I checked is that he was an amalgamation of both. Which at no point in time was proven to be an actual person. Since the person i was responding to pointed to historical information as the basis of the mechanics, i am pointing out that as wrong. The basis is as fictional as they come. Since the source is fictional, why must one restrict themselves into a box and support this restriction with "historical" information.
Manic Man 08-01-07, 02:07 PM	Go back in time 2500 years or so and pick up the local history book. You'll see a whole different concept. Unfortunately, this is not 500 BC. Anything that is discussed in this forum is based on current times. For example, if someone wrote "Bobby", i would not reference this as a police officer but rather a specific person.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-01-07, 02:22 PM	Remember this isn't a democracy its a club. You elect your dictator and live with the results. MrGM may not be any good with high fantasy spell casting. So it doesn't help anything by demanding to know all his reasons behind his decisions, or whining when you don't like the answers. The other players probably either know MrGM is best at low fantasy games or want low fantasy themselves. Well as long as we're on the political analogy... Anyone who is too rule, must do so with consent of the people. If they do not have consent of the people, they either leave, or take up arms and over through the ruling party. Thus even the benign dictorial DM must still take their players likes into consideration, or risk a mass exodus. Further on that note, even if you are in the minority, you may still question a DMs house or whatever, simply on the basous that you as well are entitled to have as much a good time as everyone else. Note that I'm saying you can question them, I'm not saying that anyone has to give in to anyone. Now what comes of those questions depends largely on the group, and their collective wants. But in any event, just being the only one with that opinion is not a reason why the dialog should not take place.
shadzar 08-01-07, 02:28 PM	Feel free to add me to your ignore list as i do not find it worthwhile to explain things to someone who feels what was that previously? 2d6+5 is good damage at 20th level? Thanks. Bye. :eek: vBulletin has ignore lists now? where?
solbergb 08-01-07, 02:35 PM	Edited: because I'm tired of this. All I will say is that the DM needs to remember that his players are every bit as important as he is. Except that they actually aren't. If an individual player gets fed up and leaves, or is "voted out" by the other players (I've seen both happen), the campaign continues. If the DM leaves, the campaign is over. I've seen it happen just because he's tired, he's run out of ideas and also because of out of game things like scheduling headaches, DM too busy, or two key players were dating, broke up with each other and the remaining players "took sides". I've never seen a campaign end because of the players walking away from the GM. It's always the GM giving up on the campaign. Bottom line is, if it stops being fun for the DM, it is over. A new game may start, but the campaign is dead, and all of the investment in the characters by the players is lost. (round-robin-campaigns are more durable to DM burnout. In those, the DM usually is also a player and is "more equal" in his contribution to the campaign. DM burnout is still serious though, as anything he "owned" needs to be either taken over by another DM or abandoned)
shadzar 08-01-07, 02:37 PM	If you could dig deep enough, probably right around the later half of the sixth century AD; do a bit of research on Myrddin Wyllt, if you're interested, and also possibly Myrddin Emrys; there's debate over which of the two was "Merlin," and the general consensus last I checked is that he was an amalgamation of both. sorry i was busy looking for the origins of Arthur and got so lost in about 4000 pages of claims who "King Arthur" was i forgot to even look for Merlin. :( yeah history has a funny way of being written...lets say by the author. some books i consider great works of fiction. maybe one day in the future too someone will pray to Harry Potter when people have forgotten who he is and decline to dig deep in the obsolete technology that holds records of him. :rolleyes: i recall being taught in one school in one state that Amercian presence in Vietnam was considered a victoy for America, while in another state and a school therein i was taught that it was a tragic waste of lives, never mentioning any American victory. so which history is correct? and lets not even get into the Amercian Civil wars "history". but i guess even his Oxford dictionary doesn't classify that and history therefore, like everythign you read in the internet or see on TV, must be 100% factual.
Manic Man 08-01-07, 02:45 PM	until they are proven wrong or ignorant, in which case they fall back to non-factual arguments or point to spelling/vocabulary/grammer mistakes. Very sad. Sad isn't it.
shadzar 08-01-07, 02:49 PM	I can't believe this is still being argued... A GM has been given authority over his players by their own consent. Much like any club has a leader. heck i will extend this to a specific club! President of the United States of America. Nixon to be exact. did he defend himself when his impeachment trial was coming around? no he left his position in favor of not divulging the circumstances. just like a DM that doesn't feel like being questioned by the people who voted him into office could "step down". why would Nixon or a DM do this? because they can, want to, etc. elected "officials" just have that ability. And further it doesn't mean that I will take everything with out question. then you have a problem with gaming or your trust of the DM. you don't have to question something to have fun. you dont need to know every answer. even if a time comes when you would be able to know the answer would you be willing to wait if the DM told you "i'll explain later". later hasn't come in 3 months, do you press the subject? that is just assuming say it involves some plot hook of the game. but since you all create the game world as players there is not that much new you would be able to find out from some dark secrets in the worlds past that you don't already know. those are the things that make the game fun. learning about the world your characters participate in. if you knew of the secrets of the world, what would left be to solve?
shadzar 08-01-07, 02:55 PM	The basis is as fictional as they come. Since the source is fictional, why must one restrict themselves into a box and support this restriction with "historical" information. wow. so Gary Gygax was not truely in a job dealing with either archeology or whatever the other historical research was prior to creating D&D. he just pulled all these ideas for cultures and races out of a hat and they have no basis on any real fact! :eek: elves were never heard of in Scandinavia prior to D&D, polytheism never existed before D&D, and all these weapons including the atl atl were made up by EGG in order to sell his fantasy game. you learn something new every day.
SirTodd 08-01-07, 02:56 PM	Well as long as we're on the political analogy... Anyone who is too rule, must do so with consent of the people. If they do not have consent of the people, they either leave, or take up arms and over through the ruling party. Thus even the benign dictorial DM must still take their players likes into consideration, or risk a mass exodus. Further on that note, even if you are in the minority, you may still question a DMs house or whatever, simply on the basous that you as well are entitled to have as much a good time as everyone else. Note that I'm saying you can question them, I'm not saying that anyone has to give in to anyone. Now what comes of those questions depends largely on the group, and their collective wants. But in any event, just being the only one with that opinion is not a reason why the dialog should not take place. EXACTLY! The GM is there because the players put him there. A GM without players has no club to rule. But this doesn't all happen in a vacuum like you seem to think. The players already liked his game or he wouldn't be GMing right now. So to, as you put it, 'Demand answers' is poor taste and often seen as rude. If a player wants a swashbuckling game from that GM he can come right out and say 'Hey I like your game. Would you consider running a swashbuckling game later on?'. It's not the GMs responsibility to read the minds of his players who merely might want to try out a variant of a build they saw yesterday on the Opt Boards. If they want a specific game just ask. An informed GM makes better decisions regarding your character than if he has to constantly guess. If the GM doesn't want to run such a game he may still toss you a few cookies later if your nice and not 'demanding'.
Manic Man 08-01-07, 03:06 PM	wow. so Gary Gygax was not truely in a job dealing with either archeology or whatever the other historical research was prior to creating D&D. he just pulled all these ideas for cultures and races out of a hat and they have no basis on any real fact! :eek: elves were never heard of in Scandinavia prior to D&D, polytheism never existed before D&D, and all these weapons including the atl atl were made up by EGG in order to sell his fantasy game. you learn something new every day. So i take this long winded passage as you admitting that there is no historical reason for the mechanics of the game? So if the barbarian's mechanics is adapted to one that suits the world setting, you admit that there is no problem in allowing it? Interestingly, you have no answered my question on whether a medieval monk is a monk and whether a Shaolin monk is a monk.
shadzar 08-01-07, 03:08 PM	So i take this long winded passage as you admitting that there is no historical reason for the mechanics of the game? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+sarcasm
Manic Man 08-01-07, 03:13 PM	http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+sarcasm And yet nothing concrete is used to refute any points raised. Interesting in what is implied no? I think this to be similar to clapping your hands over your ears and saying "nyah nyah, i can't hear you". Not very mature, but one cannot expect that from everyone. Still, it helps in that i can now lump you along with oven-whats his name. Thanks. bye.
High Octane 08-01-07, 03:15 PM	wow. so Gary Gygax was not truely in a job dealing with either archeology or whatever the other historical research was prior to creating D&D. he just pulled all these ideas for cultures and races out of a hat and they have no basis on any real fact! :eek: elves were never heard of in Scandinavia prior to D&D, polytheism never existed before D&D, and all these weapons including the atl atl were made up by EGG in order to sell his fantasy game. you learn something new every day.Historically inspired and historically accurate are two completely different things. Right now I have a group of caravan leaders (kings actually) who are nomadic desert people based largely on the Arabian desert nomads and caravans in my campaign. Just because they are based on an Arabian idea does not mean that I will restrict them from using European style lances or Asian style katanas or using bird feathers as a sign of rank and/or accomplishment as seen from Native Americans.
SirTodd 08-01-07, 03:23 PM	LOL Shadzar! It isn't likely any gaming group would ever have been built around the structure of the USA. Can you imagine... the main GM who runs the game only. a group of co-GMs who only write house rules. and another different group of rules lawyers who make on the spot ruling decisions. The main GM can veto the house rules unless 6 out of 10 of the group of co-GMs support them. And the main GM appoints people to the group of rule lawyers. With the simple majority approval of the co-GMs. The players elect the GM and co-GMs from those willing. And they can be removed mid game and replaced by someone else if enough players get upset. I can see the pure chaos now! player 3 "Hey you can't kill me off with a charge attack! I am appealing this to the rules lawyers!" rules lawyers (after a long debate): "yes he can because house rule #310 allows charging around corners." Co-GMs: "Sorry guess your dead... but we are now changing the house rule to prevent that abuse, and adding a new one to the list on the same bill that allows people to do anime leaps." Main GM: "Arrgh!!! this is a realistic setting of man vs nature! that ruins everything! I veto!" Co-GMs: "we watched anime last night so just change the setting for us. 60% of us want this so bye bye veto. Welcome anime jumps!" Players: "can we get back to the game please?" Player 3 "Hey my new character will be made for those cool anime leaps!" rest of players "Noooo!!! Unfair!" rules lawyers: "I guess it's fair but only if just fighters and rogues can do them." Ect....
OravennasBrother 08-01-07, 04:21 PM	In that example you indicated that the barbarian was banned due to flavor reasons. However you then gave they barbarians flavor to you ranger/fighter. Rustic is NOT the same as Barbaric. Look up the terms if they confuse you. Please tell me how listening, and working with your player equates to anything goes? Please tell me how giving players banned mechanics, whichever mechanics they are, just because the player will abandon a concept for different fluff to keep their sacrosanct mechanics is a compromise.
Archangel62 08-01-07, 04:54 PM	Please tell me how giving players banned mechanics, whichever mechanics they are, just because the player will abandon a concept for different fluff to keep their sacrosanct mechanics is a compromise. It depends on where the problem was. If a DM doesn't want a rogue because he fears a pickpocket character in the game but someone explains that they intend to be a streetfighter style character who uses the rogues sneak attack as a concept on cheap shots and the like, no plans to rob or pillage just want the sneak attack and a few of the mobility and perception based class skills, not a problem to me. It also assumes that the players concept is what the standard fluff is, a DM states that there are no 'rustic or uncivilized' areas, AKA the planet is on a fairly high level of development. The barbarians flavor might not fit, but the idea of a brawler, a blitzer, someone trained to be a shock trooper might fit the barbarian concept very well. A friend of mine in an Eberron game ran a Barbarian as something similar to a Juicer from Palladium in concept, he was part of an experimental group that was alchemically and magically altered to make them potent shock troops, but the boosts were temporary and could do damage to the body (hence the fatigue). Over time the modifications grew, thickening his skin and giving him greater and greater boosts, his body eventually even managed to avoid the fatigue afterwards. The player had a concept and saw that he could do it with the barbarian, just needed to tweak the flavor and I had no issue with that at all. The monk isn't always in some cloistered monastary or other hidden temple, some of them are self trained martial artists who might pick up little bits and pieces from various masters and texts, others might be people who simply seek to push their bodies and minds to their absolute physical limit. The issue I see here is that if a DM states that a class might not work for flavor reasons and a player offers a concept that reflavors it then technically there shouldn't be an issue, since the DM had a problem with the flavor rather than the mechanics and the players concept didn't use the base fluff at all.
solbergb 08-01-07, 04:58 PM	EXACTLY! The GM is there because the players put him there. Actually, the GM is usually there because he does the work of preparing a campaign and asks "So, who wants to play in it". Without the campaign, even if it is just an unformed seed that grows in the telling, there is no place for player characters. You can't just vote somebody in to GM and expect it to work, unless the person "elected' has an adventure he wants to run and thinks he'll have fun doing it. Even if he buys the stuff off the shelf, he's gotta prep it put it in context and adapt it to the players.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-01-07, 05:32 PM	EXACTLY! The GM is there because the players put him there. A GM without players has no club to rule. But this doesn't all happen in a vacuum like you seem to think. The players already liked his game or he wouldn't be GMing right now. So to, as you put it, 'Demand answers' is poor taste and often seen as rude. If a player wants a swashbuckling game from that GM he can come right out and say 'Hey I like your game. Would you consider running a swashbuckling game later on?'. It's not the GMs responsibility to read the minds of his players who merely might want to try out a variant of a build they saw yesterday on the Opt Boards. If they want a specific game just ask. An informed GM makes better decisions regarding your character than if he has to constantly guess. If the GM doesn't want to run such a game he may still toss you a few cookies later if your nice and not 'demanding'. Yaa know i think we agree on this point. I don't think that a player "demanding" anything is being anything but rude. however they should be aloud to ask politely. And it doesn't even have to be about a campaign later on. "Hey I was thinking about playing a swashbuckling character, as my next one." Now weather that fits, or not is entirely up to the campaign, and if it should there are dozens, if not hundreds of ways to accomplish it. So the players really should work with the DM, and the DM really should work with the players. Actually, the GM is usually there because he does the work of preparing a campaign and asks "So, who wants to play in it". Without the campaign, even if it is just an unformed seed that grows in the telling, there is no place for player characters. You can't just vote somebody in to GM and expect it to work, unless the person "elected' has an adventure he wants to run and thinks he'll have fun doing it. Even if he buys the stuff off the shelf, he's gotta prep it put it in context and adapt it to the players. Well this goes, mostly with out saying. Of course a DM has to be willing to DM. If they aren't then why in hades name are they doing it? A DM forced into the position of DMing, I don't even know how that would even be possible... That does not change the fact that theplayers have to consent for the DM to DM, or the game just wouldn't work. Can you imagine a game where the players refused to accept anything the DM ruled or did. Again just because the DMs authority is there, is not an excuse for the DM to abuse it, or take advantage of it to run their game with out consideration of what the players want. Further because the players will ultimately decide, by giving their consent, or not, if the DM is to continue, or not, the DM is still accountable to the players. To extend the political analogy, good government is accountable to its citizens. In the case of most democracies this done through the electoral process.
Caelic 08-01-07, 05:49 PM	Which at no point in time was proven to be an actual person. Since the person i was responding to pointed to historical information as the basis of the mechanics, i am pointing out that as wrong. Err...Myrddin Wyllt is a pretty well-documented historical personage, actually. I suppose you can claim that he isn't "proven to be an actual person," but you can claim that Alexander the Great isn't "proven to be an actual person" on the same grounds. It's possible that the records of their existence are inaccurate, but it's pretty unlikely.
shadzar 08-01-07, 06:19 PM	Err...Myrddin Wyllt is a pretty well-documented historical personage, actually. I suppose you can claim that he isn't "proven to be an actual person," but you can claim that Alexander the Great isn't "proven to be an actual person" on the same grounds. It's possible that the records of their existence are inaccurate, but it's pretty unlikely. i would suggest giving up because they say ignorance is bliss, and it seems that a few people here are swimming in their bliss. ;) they don't understand where the game or its concepts originated so just leave them to their wild flights of fancy.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-01-07, 06:27 PM	they don't understand where the game or its concepts originated so just leave them to their wild flights of fancy. I find this statement particular ironic given that we are talking about a "fantasy" game. However I'm still lost as to what exactly the history lesson has to do with the price of tea in china? Or further why my game, or anyone else has to to follow an accurate version of history. And just were exactly is Middle earth? Or Mount Doom? And finally arguing that D&D is based on historical cultures, and therefor should model our world is even more reason for allowing the other classes. Couldn't the person have just traveled far, and be from one of the those places that had said culture?
Sundragon 08-01-07, 06:28 PM	Yaa know i think we agree on this point. I don't think that a player "demanding" anything is being anything but rude. however they should be aloud to ask politely. And it doesn't even have to be about a campaign later on. "Hey I was thinking about playing a swashbuckling character, as my next one." Now weather that fits, or not is entirely up to the campaign, and if it should there are dozens, if not hundreds of ways to accomplish it. So the players really should work with the DM, and the DM really should work with the players. True, on this we agree completely. Well this goes, mostly with out saying. Of course a DM has to be willing to DM. If they aren't then why in hades name are they doing it? A DM forced into the position of DMing, I don't even know how that would even be possible... That does not change the fact that theplayers have to consent for the DM to DM, or the game just wouldn't work. Can you imagine a game where the players refused to accept anything the DM ruled or did. Again just because the DMs authority is there, is not an excuse for the DM to abuse it, or take advantage of it to run their game with out consideration of what the players want. Further because the players will ultimately decide, by giving their consent, or not, if the DM is to continue, or not, the DM is still accountable to the players. To extend the political analogy, good government is accountable to its citizens. In the case of most democracies this done through the electoral process. You are right, to a point, that the player's have to consent to the DM being DM. Often however, choice of DM is more along the lines of the guy/gal being DM volunteers because he or she has the temperment for it and the others don't think they can pull it off or would rather just play. I have been on both sides of the screen and being a player is infinitely easier....no prep except being ready to play in character and making sure I have a handle on my character and his motivations.....easy stuff. I can see why some people don't want to be DM. Once consent is given to a given DM, unless he or she is actually unfair (actually fixing things so the PCs fail, planning TPKs, etc.) the players have consented to go along with his or her rulings. They vote with their presence at the table. They have to accept that the DM is the final arbiter of the rules and the setting and will decide as necessary what to include and what not to include based on the SETTING and not on the newest splatbook. As I said before, the writers of the splatbooks DO NOT care about for YOUR campaign, they are working for a company that is trying to sell you a product. WoTC is a corporation is not in the buisness of trying to maintain the integrity of an individual campaign but to meet certain profitability goals. This is how it is supposed to be. DMs have to have the brains and balls they were born with and act like DMs and not expect WoTC to look out for your game, that is your job.....learn to say no. Players are now actively marketed to, this is a 3e phenomenon. Prior to 3e they marketed to DMs with adventures and settings. Smart marketing (in the 3e era) then dictated that WoTC markets to the broader base ie. the players. Does this mean that your game has be beholden to a successful market strategy that makes players feel entitled to new feats, races and prestige classes? No, not unless you are a fool who has been hypnotized into thinking that this is the way things are suppposed to be. Its marketing, good marketing and good corporate policy but not good DMing policy. Starlion
UltimateReality 08-01-07, 06:53 PM	One: I believe "I'm not comfortable including this" may have come up at some point when he was pressing for an explanation.For most people I know, this would be a perfectly acceptable response and taken at face value. Not everyone wants that kind of material in their games, and people who aren't willing to respect that are not people I would want to game with (or probably socialize with, as it likely indicates other areas where courtesy might be lacking). Two: "I'm not comfortable with this" is exactly the sort of reason many people in this thread have rejected as invalid or not good enough. Is there really much difference between "I don't like it" and "I'm uncomfortable with it?"I feel there's a significant difference between "I think fighters are dumb/suck, so you can't play one" and "I feel this material is a misappropriation of the alignment system, in poor taste, and too graphic for my game, so you can't play it". Others may not hold someone else's opinion so dear in the latter case, but I try to respect people's boundaries as to the type of "real world" ideas, subject matter, or issues they prefer not to see in their game. then you have a problem with gaming or your trust of the DM.Or with having a functional brain. A DM forced into the position of DMing, I don't even know how that would even be possible...Sit down, shut up, and keep designing that dungeon. When did I say you got a break, huh? *holds baseball bat* Once you finish this floor you can have some 'Dew...
Caelic 08-01-07, 06:55 PM	However I'm still lost as to what exactly the history lesson has to do with the price of tea in china? Wellll...somebody asked where they could find Merlin in history; I tend to reflexively answer questions like that, even if they're meant to be rhetorical. Teacher reflexes.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-01-07, 07:05 PM	Wellll...somebody asked where they could find Merlin in history; I tend to reflexively answer questions like that, even if they're meant to be rhetorical. Teacher reflexes. Reminds me of a Gr 5 teacher I once had. Best teacher ever.... You aren't Mr. Jones by any chance are you?
shadzar 08-01-07, 07:52 PM	I find this statement particular ironic given that we are talking about a "fantasy" game. However I'm still lost as to what exactly the history lesson has to do with the price of tea in china? Or further why my game, or anyone else has to to follow an accurate version of history. And just were exactly is Middle earth? Or Mount Doom? And finally arguing that D&D is based on historical cultures, and therefor should model our world is even more reason for allowing the other classes. Couldn't the person have just traveled far, and be from one of the those places that had said culture? the point is the class' concept do come from real cultures. the mechanics of the classes are taken from the history of those cultures. when you take away the culture and try to call it something else just to make if fit into a game it jsut doesn't work that way. if a DM has chosen a set of cultures to be in his game then he chose them based on their fluff or mechincs. the ones chose to be left out as done so for the same reason. well i have said all this several times before in this thread so you see where i am going already. but that is what the history has to do with it, and someone was claiming that the mechanics had no basis on real cultures.
shadzar 08-01-07, 07:56 PM	Or with having a functional brain. so people who trust the DM they chose or agreed to don't have a functional brain and only the ones that question the person they themselves chose do have a functional brain? :uh-huh:
Archangel62 08-01-07, 10:25 PM	the point is the class' concept do come from real cultures. the mechanics of the classes are taken from the history of those cultures. when you take away the culture and try to call it something else just to make if fit into a game it jsut doesn't work that way. if a DM has chosen a set of cultures to be in his game then he chose them based on their fluff or mechincs. the ones chose to be left out as done so for the same reason. well i have said all this several times before in this thread so you see where i am going already. but that is what the history has to do with it, and someone was claiming that the mechanics had no basis on real cultures. I notice you didn't respond to my comments on some different classes a few posts earlier and apparently you either ignored them or aren't sure how to respond. In my games I encourage my players to question my rulings if they feel that they are incorrect, if I screw up I should be notified of it. A side result of this is that I work harder to make sure that I'm more familiar with certain rules and spells. I am the same way when it comes to meahanics, if a person wants to play a class I have a rule of needing to make myself at least familiar with it, none of them question that, and if I am unsure about the flavor but am fine with the mechanics we simply work together to modify the concept.
shadzar 08-01-07, 10:40 PM	I notice you didn't respond to my comments on some different classes a few posts earlier and apparently you either ignored them or aren't sure how to respond. In my games I encourage my players to question my rulings if they feel that they are incorrect, if I screw up I should be notified of it. A side result of this is that I work harder to make sure that I'm more familiar with certain rules and spells. I am the same way when it comes to meahanics, if a person wants to play a class I have a rule of needing to make myself at least familiar with it, none of them question that, and if I am unsure about the flavor but am fine with the mechanics we simply work together to modify the concept. and your point is? its possible while commenting on one post yours got skipped on the return trip trying to scroll past some of the longer one. in my games my rulings are never incorrect. i have two rules when i DM and make them known up front. if i haven't posted them here yet then allow me to know. rule #1 : the dm is always right. rule #2 : when the dm is wrong refer to rule #1 i make players aware of this before i am start working on a campaign. if i DM for them then they have already accepted those rules and there is nothing left for them to question. i dont play D&D to socialize with friends. i play D&D with people who are interested in playing D&D. im not stuck up to only play with friends like some others may be. if i want to socialize with friends i'll go out somewhere and do something other than sit around in the house. does this answer any of those comments you might have wanted me to respond to? if not and you have a question to ask me, then ask away. if i see it, and feel like answering it i will do so. this whole thread is getting utterly tiring. i think by now it should be simple. some people like to question their DMs, and some DMs don't like to be questioned. if it works for your group then do it. if you go to another group and the DM doesn't like being questioned then don't do it again or risk not being in that group... which might suit all parties best interests.
Mock26 08-01-07, 10:56 PM	I think that players should disallow the DM power that lets the DM grant the power that lets players think that they have the right to disallow DM power.
loaba 08-01-07, 11:06 PM	in my games my rulings are never incorrect. Must be nice to be that kind of omnipitant. You speak from chair when you DM? What, are you some kinda warped D&D Pope? :rolleyes: Again, this perfectly illustrates the attitude of the Ugly DM. Bravo. i have two rules when i DM and make them known up front. if i haven't posted them here yet then allow me to know. rule #1 : the dm is always right. rule #2 : when the dm is wrong refer to rule #1 Every time I see this sentiment upon these boards, I die a little more. You make me cry. The DM is not infallible. Period. And it is not the player's lot to blindly accept that he is,
High Octane 08-01-07, 11:16 PM	Sit down, shut up, and keep designing that dungeon. When did I say you got a break, huh? *holds baseball bat* Once you finish this floor you can have some 'Dew... Baseball bat? Awwww, Ultimate you know better. These are logical, sensible, intelligent D&D players. They'll have swords. :devil:
Manic Man 08-01-07, 11:26 PM	Err...Myrddin Wyllt is a pretty well-documented historical personage, actually. I suppose you can claim that he isn't "proven to be an actual person," but you can claim that Alexander the Great isn't "proven to be an actual person" on the same grounds. It's possible that the records of their existence are inaccurate, but it's pretty unlikely. You'll have to refer back to the statements made. A person named Merlin with attributed magical poweress has at no time existed, yet was trotted out as a historical figure
Mock26 08-01-07, 11:29 PM	The DM is not infallible. Period. And it is not the player's lot to blindly accept that he is, The person who is infallible and should be blindly followed is the person who pays for the pizza!
High Octane 08-01-07, 11:39 PM	The person who is infallible and should be blindly followed is the person who pays for the pizza! Willing to eat the anchovies? Cause I sure as hell aint.
Caelic 08-01-07, 11:41 PM	Must be nice to be that kind of omnipitant. You speak from chair when you DM? What, are you some kinda warped D&D Pope? I would SO be the D&D Pope. Do I get a big hat?
Mock26 08-02-07, 12:01 AM	I would SO be the D&D Pope. Do I get a big hat? How about this hat for the D&D Pope? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/Mock26/d20hat.jpg
UltimateReality 08-02-07, 01:59 AM	so people who trust the DM they chose or agreed to don't have a functional brain and only the ones that question the person they themselves chose do have a functional brain? :uh-huh:X = someone has a brain Y = someone questions a DM's restriction Z = someone has a problem with trust in gaming If Y, then sometimes X (and sometimes Z, among other things). It does not follow that if not Y, then not X. It also does not follow that if not X, then not Y, just for the record.
Alyri 08-02-07, 12:36 PM	Again, because it seems some missed it before... We all have a different vision on how to play/run D&D. ...Shocking... Telling someone that the way they play D&D is wrong, well, well that is a crass statement. It is an imagionary world we make up to play in. It appears that loaba's imaginary world's sky isn't the same color as shadzar's. ...Shocking... Personally I think a much better discussion would be; The proper table shape to play D&D on.
Mock26 08-02-07, 02:17 PM	Telling someone that the way they play D&D is wrong, well, well that is a crass statement. It is an imagionary world we make up to play in. Well, if someone with a 6th level wizard rolls two cookies, a pencil, a DMG, a PHB, and a can of pepsi for the damage of their fireball they are more than likely playing the game wrong. But, other than such similar examples, you are right. There is no wrong way to play D&D.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-02-07, 02:29 PM	in my games my rulings are never incorrect. i have two rules when i DM and make them known up front. if i haven't posted them here yet then allow me to know. rule #1 : the dm is always right. rule #2 : when the dm is wrong refer to rule #1 If any DM were to tell me this I would laugh at them and walk away. This "I'm right, because I am the DM" mentality is exactly what I'm advocating against. Further it shows many traits, and none of them good. First it stems from a misunderstanding of rule zero, and secondly it shows an unwillingness to admit when one has made a mistake. This implies an ignorance of the rules, at least of rule zero, and further it indicates that said lack of understanding will not be corrected. That indicates that instead of playing with consistent, and fair rules, we will be playing with whatever rules the DM chooses at the time. Which to me is like playing the game of, "I win" with a two year old. They win, because the only consistent rule of the game is that they win. While that is ok when I'm being paid to baby sit said two year old, it is not how I would choose to spend my leisure time. I also find it hard to believe that, serious gamers, who play for the sake of gaming, would accept that. It seems to me that those type of players would be more strict about the RAW, and want more consistent rules for them game instead of a more fast and loose style this, "the DM is always right, even when not" style seems to indicate. On that it would seem to me that players who are there to socialize would cut a restrictive DM more slack then those their for the sake of the game. Basically those there to socialize would have less emphasis on the actually game, and by extension their characters, and more on just being there, then those that are there for their characters and the game itself. Basically I care more about hanging out with my buds, then I do about what goes in the game, so the game itself is secondary. As opposed to those that come with the game in mind as their primary, in which case their characters take a higher priority then just being there to enjoy the company.
shadzar 08-02-07, 02:59 PM	Rule 0 must be something new in the 3.x books, because i have never heard of it.
Alyri 08-02-07, 03:16 PM	If any DM were to tell me this I would laugh at them and walk away. This "I'm right, because I am the DM" mentality is exactly what I'm advocating against. Further it shows many traits, and none of them good. You haven't been advocating against it, you've been saying it is wrong to play that way. This is not true. If his players like playing this way, then more power to them. Perhaps they don't like their time being taken up by people arguing... er discussing which way a ruling/rule should be played. Perhaps they only have a limited time to play. They may even discuss after the session is done, but during the game the Dm is right.
Mock26 08-02-07, 04:59 PM	Rule 0 must be something new in the 3.x books, because i have never heard of it. Actually, Rule 0 has been around since the days of 1st Edition AD&D. It isn't a rule, per se, but rather the "right" of the DM to alter the rules to suit the needs of his game. If you read the DMG of both 1st and 2nd edition (as well as 3.0 and 3.5) you will find a segment that talks about the DM's being allowed to change the rules (along with a section saying that this is not to be done lightly). It is only since the advent of 3.0 that the usage of the term Rule 0 has really gained popularity.
shadzar 08-02-07, 05:53 PM	Actually, Rule 0 has been around since the days of 1st Edition AD&D. It isn't a rule, per se, but rather the "right" of the DM to alter the rules to suit the needs of his game. If you read the DMG of both 1st and 2nd edition (as well as 3.0 and 3.5) you will find a segment that talks about the DM's being allowed to change the rules (along with a section saying that this is not to be done lightly). It is only since the advent of 3.0 that the usage of the term Rule 0 has really gained popularity. ok so the term is something new.
loaba 08-02-07, 08:14 PM	ok so the term is something new. No, not really. Rule 0 has been called thus since the days of 1st edition. You simply have not heard of until now. I find that to be more than a little ironic.
Mock26 08-02-07, 09:20 PM	ok so the term is something new. As the guy upstairs said, and... Not really. I remember it from way back in the old days of crayon-colored dice, but back then you really didn't have as many in depth conversations of the rules as you now have thanks to the internet. Back then you only really discussed the game with your friends who played, and maybe, once in a while, with some people at a convention or at the local book store (back then we didn't have gaming stores, we had book stores that carried gaming stuff). Now, thanks to the internet, we can can carry on conversations with thousands and thousands of people from across the world. So, as I said up above, "It is only since the advent of 3.0 that the usage of the term Rule 0 has really gained popularity."
shadzar 08-02-07, 11:04 PM	As the guy upstairs said, and... Not really. I remember it from way back in the old days of crayon-colored dice, but back then you really didn't have as many in depth conversations of the rules as you now have thanks to the internet. Back then you only really discussed the game with your friends who played, and maybe, once in a while, with some people at a convention or at the local book store (back then we didn't have gaming stores, we had book stores that carried gaming stuff). Now, thanks to the internet, we can can carry on conversations with thousands and thousands of people from across the world. So, as I said up above, "It is only since the advent of 3.0 that the usage of the term Rule 0 has really gained popularity." well when i started it wasn't all the big in the area and only found it because of the cartoon. so the group decided the DM would make rules decisions and everyone else would just go along with it so we could play. i was a player at the time. the books were bought buy a single person in the gorup who knew where to get them. no conventions for me to this day. none close enough to justify the transportation costs. so it was only us. we used the old workplace addage as the main rules to play by. rule #1 the boss is always right rule #2 when the boss is wrong see rule #1 must have been a really good idea if so many people came up iwht it across the nation and the game was played for many years before 3.0. so it must still work for lots of people, eh? an easy way for the players to get down to playing and the DM to do all the work ahead of time so a game session can run more smoothly where time is of the essence. just because more people can communicate now, doesn't mean that the internet will set precedence for everyone to stop using that style of play. just people seem to forget where it came from when they complain about it. ;) and prior to the internets mainstream public access, the FidoNet backbone had plenty of gamers discussing things. never before recently have i heard of the term "rule 0" now matter what connotation it has. and i am not new. so it was not as big a phenomenon as some would make it seem to be. maybe so for those con goers, but many more people don't go to cons than do.
loaba 08-02-07, 11:57 PM	Somewhere, in that rambling post, there is a point. I just know it! Rule-0, or DM's Perogative, is not an old idea, nor is it a bad one. In the old days of 1e it was a necessity. In the not so old days of 2e, after the many poorly written supplements, it was still a necessity. You see, Rule-0 was, and is, there for the times when something wasn't clearly defined within the rules. In todays game, it's just not needed at the same level. Rule-0, in 3.x terms, is something that the average DM really shouldn't have to lean on all that much. This rule set is better written than anything that has gone before.
Mock26 08-03-07, 12:06 AM	Somewhere, in that rambling post, there is a point. I just know it! Rule-0, or DM's Perogative, is not an old idea, nor is it a bad one. In the old days of 1e it was a necessity. In the not so old days of 2e, after the many poorly written supplements, it was still a necessity. You see, Rule-0 was, and is, there for the times when something wasn't clearly defined within the rules. In todays game, it's just not needed at the same level. Rule-0, in 3.x terms, is something that the average DM really shouldn't have to lean on all that much. This rule set is better written than anything that has gone before. In regards to rules that weren't clearly defined, you are absolutely correct. However, the way I always saw it, the rule was also just as much about allowing the DM to alter the rules to suit the needs/desires of his particular campaign.
loaba 08-03-07, 12:15 AM	However, the way I always saw it, the rule was also just as much about allowing the DM to alter the rules to suit the needs/desires of his particular campaign. Fair enough, that too is another function of Rule-0.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-03-07, 12:19 AM	In regards to rules that weren't clearly defined, you are absolutely correct. However, the way I always saw it, the rule was also just as much about allowing the DM to alter the rules to suit the needs/desires of his particular campaign. The DM can, and should, use rule to enhance their game. However this means a purposeful change the existing rules, which would indicate that they have a good understanding of how it normally works, as presented in the RAW. Rule zero should not be used to cover a mistake, or basically to go, "I'm the DM so I'm right nah!" Thats just a DM on a power trip. so the group decided the DM would make rules decisions and everyone else would just go along with it so we could play. i was a player at the time. the books were bought buy a single person in the gorup who knew where to get them. no conventions for me to this day. none close enough to justify the transportation costs. so it was only us. we used the old workplace addage as the main rules to play by. rule #1 the boss is always right rule #2 when the boss is wrong see rule #1 must have been a really good idea if so many people came up iwht it across the nation and the game was played for many years before 3.0. so it must still work for lots of people, eh? I see a number of problems with this. 1) I get paid at work, not at D&D. So useless the DM is paying for my time, s/he is not the "boss". 2) That would a terrible place to work, and I'm not sure about your neck of the woods, but were I'm from we have labour standards. Further is this kind of attitude as being nothing but harmful to the company that encourages it in a number of levels. The least of which being problems with employee retention, and numerouse mistakes made by management going uncorrected. 3) The last couple of lines is the fallacy of false majority. Basically what your saying is that because of a precieved majority believe it to be correct, it must be so. However in a lot of cases the majority is often wrong. Think back to the parents adage, "If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you?"
kalyb 08-03-07, 12:35 AM	This is really a heated argument. From what I gather, there are some people who allow anything into their campaigns. There are others who allow Core only. There are others who ban some things and not others. There are asshat players; there are asshat GM's. There are good players; there are good GM's. Some people want certain mechanics for their characters; some people want certain fluff for their characters. Some GM's want to ban fluff; others want to ban mechanics. Some people believe the GM has the right to ban whatever for whatever reason. Some people believe the GM should explain their reasons to their players, whatever the reason. Some people believe the GM should explain their reasons to their players, and the reason should be based on logic. I hope everyone can agree on this post.
Manic Man 08-03-07, 04:33 AM	However, the way I always saw it, the rule was also just as much about allowing the DM to alter the rules to suit the needs/desires of his particular campaign. "his particular campaign" This phrase is really the heart of the matter. Some people concentrate on the word "his", leading to dictator style DMs. Others concentrate on the word "campaign", which leads to a cooperative style DM. A DM without players has no campaign Players without a DM has no campaign This is why dictator style DMs more often than not fail
Lethanic 08-03-07, 09:30 AM	"his particular campaign" This phrase is really the heart of the matter. Some people concentrate on the word "his", leading to dictator style DMs. Others concentrate on the word "campaign", which leads to a cooperative style DM. A DM without players has no campaign Players without a DM has no campaign This is why dictator style DMs more often than not fail ANd players who are so obstinate and uncreative as to not be able to have fun if some small subsection of the classes or races in the game are not permitted into a campaign are probably doomed to fail as well. You seem to think(This is a generic you, applying to many on this thread) that instead of a DM dictator you should have player dictators.
SirTodd 08-03-07, 09:34 AM	rule #1: The GM is always right. rule #2: If the GM is wrong see rule #1. I am an old timer. I have been playing since 1st edition was new. I have only seen two types of GMs use that phrase. The first type are the megalomaniacal GM who knows ahead of time he is going to shake up the rules a bit either through an incomplete understanding of them or because he thinks his own ruling will be better. The second type are the ones who state that up front to make it clear to rules lawyer types that he will not accept disruptions of his game for rules arguments. Let me make it clear before I go on. They are right. The GM is the game when you play under him. He is free to shut down rule fights before the game starts. This IS the whole point to such a phrase. He IS the boss of this little game and the players as a whole made him such. Trust me when I say, if his games are SO bad, then soon he will have no players anyway. And your issues are now solved. In this age of CRPGs, if a GM can't GM any better than a computer his players will simply go do something else. Let me address the second type first. They often know the rules very well. Often (but not always) even better than the rule lawyers that try to drag down the game. If I know I am joining this type of GMs game. Then I can relax knowing he will keep the game moving and the players immersed and I can expect fair and consistent rulings as we play. These are some of the best GMs out there. If you have one, you can feel lucky. The first type is a bit of a problem. They are often 'way' wrong on rulings. And you can't expect consistency at all. But if you have no better GMs in your group of friends. Then it's still a potentially fun (if wildly unpredictable) ride. And as they GM they learn. And as they learn they get better. If a group of players is helpful instead of 'in your face' with this type of GM, then they can grow up into the second type. And you will have found one of those rare and wonderful GMs many only dream about. After all, once all that creativity and excitement that made them want to GM in the first is matured into a solid understanding of the rules. Then a rare jewel is created. Just remember to be helpful! Otherwise they will often end up a very bad GM. As the bad attitudes of their players will rub off and they won't even try to learn.
SirTodd 08-03-07, 09:39 AM	I worry about anyone who attacks the GM as often as some of you seem to want to. NO ONE IS PERFECT. Not even you! If your going to challenge the GM on every little ruling, please don't play. The rest of the players want to game not argue. And you've already showed that you are unwilling to 'suspend disbelief'. Suspension of Disbelief is core to having fun in a game. So you've already come to the table with an attitude that will prevent you from having fun. Why then ruin the experience for the others?
Optimized_Commoner 08-03-07, 09:41 AM	This is really a heated argument. From what I gather, there are some people who allow anything into their campaigns. There are others who allow Core only. There are others who ban some things and not others. There are asshat players; there are asshat GM's. There are good players; there are good GM's. Some people want certain mechanics for their characters; some people want certain fluff for their characters. Some GM's want to ban fluff; others want to ban mechanics. Some people believe the GM has the right to ban whatever for whatever reason. Some people believe the GM should explain their reasons to their players, whatever the reason. Some people believe the GM should explain their reasons to their players, and the reason should be based on logic. I hope everyone can agree on this post. Yeah, that pretty much covers it. For the record my stance: "Some people believe the GM should explain their reasons to their players, and the reason should be based on logic." Though I'd adjust it slightly to "The GM should be able to explain their reasons to their players if required and the reason should be based on logic, however the players should rarely need to ask the GM since they have gained a lot of trust in the GM's abilities due to the GM consistently making fair and impartial rulings."
High Octane 08-03-07, 10:55 AM	Yeah, that pretty much covers it. For the record my stance: "Some people believe the GM should explain their reasons to their players, and the reason should be based on logic." Though I'd adjust it slightly to "The GM should be able to explain their reasons to their players if required and the reason should be based on logic, however the players should rarely need to ask the GM since they have gained a lot of trust in the GM's abilities due to the GM consistently making fair and impartial rulings." True, but I find that explanations tend to stem from certain situations: When the DM is inconsistent or suddenly becomes so. ("What? A dragonslayer? You can't be a dragonslayer!" "You said I could play one last month" "Well you can't play one now!) When the DM seems to be playing favorites or overall not fair between players ("You can't have lightning bolt or fireball, these spells could cause harm to your fellow players." "You let Barbie play a frenzied berserker!") When the DMs ruling will change the fundamentals of the game or break it in some fashion ("Okay, all spellcasting now hurts characters so you will take ability damage randomly when casting spells from a randomly rolled stat. Also elves have all good saves and 1/1 base attack bonus and are immune to all detrimental mind affecting effects regardless of class.") When the DMs decision seems arbitrary and may slow the game down ("From now on arcane casters have to keep track of material components. Also druids power will shift based on phases of the moon and seasons as seen on this chart...") And finally when a certain character concept portion is not allowed that the player feels necessary for their character ("What do you mean I can't play a permanently ethereal half-golem beholder? It's essential for my character concept!") Generally, situations like this and similar lead to the DM being questioned. A DM should be able to answer these questions set forth and the player has a right to know. But the player needs to know better than to badger the DM and accept his decisions. As friends they should be able to talk it out at a later date and time or even better before the issue becomes any sort of problem (before the game starts) Edit: By the way, the guy with the d20 hat was just silly for me, but he shifted to "Scary" when I look at his fingernails. Long with red nail polish....
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-03-07, 11:37 AM	ANd players who are so obstinate and uncreative as to not be able to have fun if some small subsection of the classes or races in the game are not permitted into a campaign are probably doomed to fail as well. You seem to think(This is a generic you, applying to many on this thread) that instead of a DM dictator you should have player dictators. This isn't it at all. You must have misread, or not read the thread. We're advocating that DM and players work together to create a better game. That doesn't work when either is being a dictator. I worry about anyone who attacks the GM as often as some of you seem to want to. NO ONE IS PERFECT. Not even you! This is exactly why i feel the decision should take place. Because DMs ARE human, and thus subject to human error. Maybe the reason they said no is based, in part or in whole, on a misunderstanding of a given mechanic.
OravennasBrother 08-03-07, 11:44 AM	DMs have to have the brains and balls they were born with and act like DMs and not expect WoTC to look out for your game, that is your job.....learn to say no. "Just Say No" - I love it. I've never heard D&D splatbooks compared to drugs more effectively. Yet they function exactly the same; you try the basic stuff, the core rules. Then you need more to get the same "feeling" of newness to you D&D experience, so you experiment with a Complete Book or two. Pretty soon you're a D&D splatbook addict with a $300 a month habit.
Optimized_Commoner 08-03-07, 11:53 AM	True, but I find that explanations tend to stem from certain situations: When the DM is inconsistent or suddenly becomes so. When the DM seems to be playing favorites or overall not fair between players. When the DMs ruling will change the fundamentals of the game or break it in some fashion. When the DMs decision seems arbitrary and may slow the game down. And finally when a certain character concept portion is not allowed that the player feels necessary for their character. Very true. Also druids power will shift based on phases of the moon and seasons as seen on this chart... I know that this is meant to be an example of a bad ruling, but you've got to admit, that adds a certain amount of style to the druid. I think that could be pretty cool if you worked out a way to do it neatly and simply. Maybe as a prestige class or other optional, "you chose to use these rules", kind of set up. Yeah, I like overly complex things. I know. Edit: By the way, the guy with the d20 hat was just silly for me, but he shifted to "Scary" when I look at his fingernails. Long with red nail polish.... I am convinced now more than ever, that this is some form of bugbear masquerading (rather poorly) as a human and that he will rip out your heart if you give him a chance.
High Octane 08-03-07, 12:14 PM	I know that this is meant to be an example of a bad ruling, but you've got to admit, that adds a certain amount of style to the druid. I think that could be pretty cool if you worked out a way to do it neatly and simply. Maybe as a prestige class or other optional, "you chose to use these rules", kind of set up. Yeah, I like overly complex things. I know. Yeah actually after writing it, I found the idea to actually be a pretty cool concept. But I feel lazy now and will probably forget later. Here is to hoping someone picks that variant up.
Manic Man 08-03-07, 12:43 PM	ANd players who are so obstinate and uncreative as to not be able to have fun if some small subsection of the classes or races in the game are not permitted into a campaign are probably doomed to fail as well. You seem to think(This is a generic you, applying to many on this thread) that instead of a DM dictator you should have player dictators. You must have missed something Player(s) - plural Do you think you will not be shot down by the other players if they find you are wasting time? D&D is a social game, there are group mechanics involved. If they DM and 3 out of 4 players are cooperative with each other, guess what will happen to the 4th player sooner or later? A campaign can survive loss of some players but it cannot survive the loss of all players
Caelic 08-03-07, 12:45 PM	Rule-0, in 3.x terms, is something that the average DM really shouldn't have to lean on all that much. This rule set is better written than anything that has gone before. We'll have to agree to disagree there. "More rules" does not equal "better rules system." I think most of the problems that were inherent in first and second edition are, in fact, exacerbated by 3.0 and 3.5. Certainly, in addition to there being more rules, there are more poorly worded rules; furthermore, more of those rules, when taken out of context, result in ludicrously degenerate results. First edition attempted to leave a large amount to the judgement and common sense of the DM, and that's sensible game design; no rules system can be all-encompassing, nor should it attempt to be.
Optimized_Commoner 08-03-07, 12:49 PM	You could just do something very simple and thematic along these lines. The season speaker is a druid who use different spells from the druid list depending on the current season. Summer Heat Metal, Fire Trap, Flame Blade, Resist energy (Fire), etc. Autumn Gust of wind, Reduce Animal, Diminish Plants, Pass without trace, etc. Winter Chill metal, Purify food and water, fog cloud, Resist energy (Cold), etc. Spring Bear's endurance, Bull's strength, Cat's grace, etc. Etc. You could do it as a druid nerf and give them nothing in exchange (seems a little harsh to me). Add to those seasonal spell lists with additional appropriate spells from the wizard and cleric lists. Or grant a special ability of some kind in exchange for giving up your spell versatility. Also I'd add a metamagic feat called "Out of Season spell" which lets you cast a spell from a different season at +1 or +2 levels (depending on if it's an adjacent or opposite season).
Caelic 08-03-07, 12:52 PM	" This is why dictator style DMs more often than not fail I'm curious--can you, in fact, back up this claim? What percentage of the D&D campaigns running, now and historically, have you witnessed? I, for one, can't help but notice, based on your posts, that you consider most of the gameplay that went on back in the 1970's and 1980's to be "dictator style." Do you believe most of those campaigns failed? It seems odd that the game survived, if so.
Optimized_Commoner 08-03-07, 01:07 PM	I'm curious--can you, in fact, back up this claim? What percentage of the D&D campaigns running, now and historically, have you witnessed? Remind me to search my gaming room for covert video surveillance. ;)
SirTodd 08-03-07, 01:32 PM	A GM doesn't have to answer your questions and he doesn't have to give satisfactory answers. Presumably there are people waiting to play his game. As long as they are happy there will still be a game. If a player came up to me as we were starting a new campaign and said 'here is my sheet. BTW I used the parry rules in the dragon magazine.' I would probably say 'Tough luck, make a new character I won't be using those rules.' If he then 'Demanded' to know why. I would probably say something along the lines of 'I just don't plan on using them. period. end of discussion.' He would then have to sit down and come up with something new fairly quick because we are about to start. Now if he had come to me a week before the game started and said "hey I wanted to try out the parry rules from dragon". Then I would have had a few days to consider them before hand and I might just say yes. Or would likely be able to give him a better reason why I don't wish to use them. But thats just me. In fact the very fact that a player understands a new mechanic better than his GM would be a VERY GOOD reason for the GM not to include it. Odds are the player has some alternative reason for wanting those new mechanics he isn't telling you. So if you don't have a firm grasp of them better to say no.
Mock26 08-03-07, 02:39 PM	"his particular campaign" This phrase is really the heart of the matter. Some people concentrate on the word "his", leading to dictator style DMs. Others concentrate on the word "campaign", which leads to a cooperative style DM. A DM without players has no campaign Players without a DM has no campaign This is why dictator style DMs more often than not fail It matters not what word you concentrate on. The DM is responsible for providing a world/campaign setting in which to set the game. A good DM will listen to the desires of the players. A bad DM will not. However, in the end, it is still the ultimate responsibility of the DM to create the setting, and part of this is altering the rules. And, sadly, there are quite a few players who feel that if the DM doesn't cater to their every desire that they DM is being unfair. ======================================== ===== In my opinion, there are quite a few people who play the game who seem to be of the opinion that any DM who changes the rules of the game cannot do so in an intelligent and/or fair and impartial manner. A large number of people who play the game seem to be of the opinion that any DM who changes the rules is doing so for the express purpose of screwing over the players. Those people are probably too immature to be playing the game and would be better off playing in one of those "we don't keep score because everyone is a winner" type sports leagues. Now, don't get me wrong, there are DM's who change the rules for the express purpose of screwing over the players. Of that there can be no doubt. But, there are a lot of DM's who change the rules to create a certain feel to there game or to "fix" some aspect that they don't like or may find confusing. I am of the opinion that most DM's who change the rules are not of the "screw the players" ilk, but are rather DM's trying to improve their game.
shadzar 08-03-07, 03:12 PM	i wonder how many people here feel that a DM should be omniscient? knowing everything the players have and want to do. or have done. it made me wonder about the "screw the players" comment. i for one would like to know what the players are doing at all times because that way i can readily prepare anything that may not already be covered by some existing ruling. in one game i had a couple player that felt it was none of my business to know where they buried their excess treasure. i told them bluntly that i should know because: i would be able to tell them if its a good idea to bury it there. in case they were unable to retrieve it i might have a good wy for it to find its way to them etc the player them proceeded to tell me i didn't need ot know. well i knew pretty much where they were probably burying it, but they didn't tell me. i also knew that if this place was where i think it was i would have suggested them to move it somewhere else by having an NPC inform them that they shouldn't be digging around in his next crop planting area. well the events took place in proper order. the farm i was thinking they were burying it had its scheduled destruction. nothing was left that would even resemble a farm had ever been there. as the party returned to the town the were to pass the farm on the way back into it. the player who had buried the treasure exclaimed "**** he screwed us over." other players were asking how and it turned out that inded the treasure had been buried in that farm. well the other players laughed and said, well he asked where it was buried and you wouldn't tell him so how could he have screwed you over. you wre the only one that knew where the treasure was. but even after the other players explained it it was still a matter of argueing that i had used the knowledge of where the treasure was stowed in order to screw the players over. yet i didn't have the knowledge of its location, only the fact i wanted to destroy that specific farm in order to fulfill my next plot hook. so where do people here draw the line at? it is a type of thing the DM would disallow for those thinking it may be off topic. DM disallowing the players from having secrets about their characters that the DM doesn't know. granted again some DMs might use this to screw over the players, but i don't think i did in that case.
Manic Man 08-03-07, 03:33 PM	I'm curious--can you, in fact, back up this claim? What percentage of the D&D campaigns running, now and historically, have you witnessed? If you are saying the percentage of *all* D&D campaigns in the world, sorry, i am not all knowing. Though i would like to know if you can prove the reverse. But if you are asking what percentage of *all* D&D campaigns i have seen, played or DMed before since 1983, all of the ones that lasted beyond 10 sessions were ones where the DMed was not a dictator. I, for one, can't help but notice, based on your posts, that you consider most of the gameplay that went on back in the 1970's and 1980's to be "dictator style." I cannot speak for the 70s but do you really think that in the 80s that game play consisted of a DM that did not accept complains or questions from his players? Seriously?
Manic Man 08-03-07, 03:44 PM	Of that there can be no doubt. But, there are a lot of DM's who change the rules to create a certain feel to there game or to "fix" some aspect that they don't like or may find confusing. I am of the opinion that most DM's who change the rules are not of the "screw the players" ilk, but are rather DM's trying to improve their game. However therein lies the problem. DMs who are confused on some matters or rules and who try to "fix" them more often than not screws the players. This is probably not on intention but the end result is the same. For example, because the DM thinks that sorcerers are overpowered (take a look at "Classes and Prestige Classes" to see people to actually think so), all arcane magic tops off at 3rd level. The campaign starts at 12th level. "But the players would have been told!" some will say. Sure, but is the reason sound? Or is it simply the DM really has no actual idea on what is overpowered and what is not?
Mock26 08-03-07, 04:02 PM	However therein lies the problem. DMs who are confused on some matters or rules and who try to "fix" them more often than not screws the players. This is probably not on intention but the end result is the same. For example, because the DM thinks that sorcerers are overpowered (take a look at "Classes and Prestige Classes" to see people to actually think so), all arcane magic tops off at 3rd level. The campaign starts at 12th level. "But the players would have been told!" some will say. Sure, but is the reason sound? Or is it simply the DM really has no actual idea on what is overpowered and what is not? I guess it all depends on how people look at it. I like to give DM's the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are doing and know why they are doing it. Others would rather assume the opposite. Yes, DM's can and do mess it up. But, in your example of the sorceror, so long as they knew before creating their characters, the DM has the right to make that adjustment to game, whehter or not the result is good or bad. No player can be "hurt" by such a restriction unless he actually chooses to take that classes. Even though a player may really, really want to play a sorceror, no player ever HAS to play a particular class. Yes, the player's desires should be considered, but so should those of the DM. If the DM feels sorcerors are too powerful, then he should change them. It matters not sorcerors are or are not too powerful. What matters is that the DM feels that they will be. I personally think it would be better to think sorcerors overpowered and "gimp" them than to allow them despite my misgivings and later have those misgivins proved right. It is easier, and possibly better, to not deal with the class than to have to tell a player his character is overpowered and needs to be "gimped."
shadzar 08-03-07, 04:05 PM	I cannot speak for the 70s but do you really think that in the 80s that game play consisted of a DM that did not accept complains or questions from his players? Seriously? have you heard of EGG and his view on how to play AD&D 1E? PHB -1978 DMG - 1979 oh goodness at the letters in the Dragon Magazine on why people should not diverge frm the printed rules. because if they did "they weren't playing AD&D". so i would think that there was a very popular DM that didn't accept complaints or questions.
Manic Man 08-03-07, 04:14 PM	What matters is that the DM feels that they will be. I personally think it would be better to think sorcerors overpowered and "gimp" them than to allow them despite my misgivings and later have those misgivins proved right. It is easier, and possibly better, to not deal with the class than to have to tell a player his character is overpowered and needs to be "gimped." Yet the same DM did not anticipate the roll down effects. For example, how does anyone make those items that depend on arcane spells? Push those spells into the divine list? Whats the effect of that? How about monsters? How do you make a golem? PrCs? All PrCs based on having 4th or higher level arcane spells are out unless you want to tweak each PrC Sure you could push everything to DM fiat "its lost magic", "you don't know how he did it and you can't know", blah blah. Whats the effect if doing that? PS: Would it not have been simpler and better to have given the player the okay with the ceveat that the class may be revoked if found overpowered but with the player given the ability to rebuild his character if the class is revoked?
solbergb 08-03-07, 04:38 PM	If you are saying the percentage of *all* D&D campaigns in the world, sorry, i am not all knowing. Though i would like to know if you can prove the reverse. But if you are asking what percentage of *all* D&D campaigns i have seen, played or DMed before since 1983, all of the ones that lasted beyond 10 sessions were ones where the DMed was not a dictator. All depends on what you mean by Dictator. TPK's definition isn't that of most of us. 100% of successful D&D campaigns I've been in since 1979 have had the DM stating what is allowed, what is not, and the players working within those restraints. If a player wanted something new, he could ask for it but he usually didn't get it. Indeed the most wide-open campaign I've ever played is the very successful Living Greyhawk campaign, but while that allows the "complete" books and some of the "Races" books as open access, it absolutely disallows anything not on it (and a shortlist of stuff is banned entirely, even core stuff) unless you happen to encoutner it in an adventure (find an item, get a favor that gets you trained, encounter a spell in a way that you can learn it, etc). The majority of other successful campaigns in other game systems were also run by a GM who understood the system, drew boundaries and added his houserules designed to set the tone/flavor of the campaign. I did however play in a very successful Champions gameworld that was open ended and shared between multiple GM's, that one lasted over a decade before real life scattered all the college buddies (it had about an 8 year run...senior recruited freshmen and alums visited in the later years) and really only ended when we collectively ran out of superhero stores to tell. That experience I think is closest to what TPK advocates. Hero Systems was relatively easy though. It was a "building block" system, not a "list of powers" system like D&D is. You wouldn't have a fireball, you'd have a "ranged energy attack" concept that you could pay points to give it various advantages, including long range and big area. The "fire" part was a special effect, only relevant to an enemy that was unusually resistant to or vulnerable to the special effect "fire". So there wasn't the infinite suppliment thing to deal with, just various editions of the rules. I think version 2 had two rules expansions, all of which were incorporated in version 3, etc. Even that campaign though, eventually got a list of houserules and clarifications, from GM consensus that limited certian power combinations and even character concepts. (there were way too many alternate plane adventures in the early days, so we did a plot where the reason for that ended and the dimensional barriers got much stronger. After that, players were discouraged from extradimensional character concepts unless they were "stranded" by the closure, and extradimensional plots required most of the GM's to agree to it informally, and it had to be a big deal, on the order of building a world-destroying machine, so prevention usually was what happened rather than dealing with an incursion)
loaba 08-03-07, 08:14 PM	We'll have to agree to disagree there. Fair enough; I much prefer something written, that everyone has equal access to, as opposed to someone's list of houserulings (which was quite necessary in previous editions). "More rules" does not equal "better rules system." No, but it does mean that a foundation has been laid, by a 3rd party, for all to see. I think most of the problems that were inherent in first and second edition are, in fact, exacerbated by 3.0 and 3.5. I'm genuinly curious, could you explain further? Certainly, in addition to there being more rules, there are more poorly worded rules; furthermore, more of those rules, when taken out of context, result in ludicrously degenerate results. Now here I disagree wholeheartedly; what are some poorly written rules in 3.5? While I do think that there are any number of rules that players can deliberately twist around, to do things that were not originally intended (Pun-Pun being a prime example), that doesn't mean those rules were necessarily poorly written. As long as you adhere to the spirit of the rules and despite my love of THAC-0, I'd say 3.5 is quite clear and much easier for new players to grasp. First edition attempted to leave a large amount to the judgement and common sense of the DM Which is at the heart of the current problem that is known as DM's Perogative, or Rule-0, or whatever you want to call it.
loaba 08-03-07, 08:18 PM	In fact the very fact that a player understands a new mechanic better than his GM would be a VERY GOOD reason for the GM not to include it. Odds are the player has some alternative reason for wanting those new mechanics he isn't telling you. So if you don't have a firm grasp of them better to say no. Wait a second here, I though the whole premise behind DM's Peragative was trust in said DM. Are you saying that trust doesn't go both way? Are you, in fact, saying that players are cheaters and that DM's Perogative is a way to control that?
Caelic 08-03-07, 08:36 PM	Fair enough; I much prefer something written, that everyone has equal access to, as opposed to someone's list of houserulings (which was quite necessary in previous editions). I don't, simply because it's Quixotic. As soon as someone says "We're going to create a comprehensive set of rules," they've doomed themselves to failure. No, but it does mean that a foundation has been laid, by a 3rd party, for all to see. That third party, of course, may or may not be better at laying a foundation than those directly involved in the campaign; of a certainty, he is ignorant of the specific conditions and circumstances of the campaign. When the "foundation" is being laid by dozens of people, and not all of them are aware of the work being done by others...well, it's not all that solid a foundation. I'm genuinly curious, could you explain further? Certainly. First edition had certain problems that were decried even at the time by proponents of other systems--the pigeonholing of characters into ever-more-specialized "classes," the tendency for certain classes to be more powerful at certain levels, the almost-comical amounts of punishment necessary to damage a high-level character, and the awkwardness of the Vancian magic system, to name a few. Third edition has not solved any of these problems, and has in fact made them worse. By placing all classes on the same experience chart, an important balancing factor has been removed; it used to be that a thief at least had the advantage of advancing more quickly than, say, a wizard. Massively-expanded spell lists have widened the gap still further. Obviously, third edition has not moved away from the class mechanism, but has instead taken it to new levels. The Vancian magic system is still awkward, and must now be juggled with a number of other, equally-awkward systems. Now here I disagree wholeheartedly; what are some poorly written rules in 3.5? I think that there are any number of rules that players can twist around to do things that were not intended (Pun-Pun being a prime example). Any rule that permits a reading giving birth to Pun-Pun is, by definition, poorly written. Have you read the Sarrukh's Manipulate Form ability? I sincerely can't think of a single first edition rule as vague and poorly-defined. How much damage does a Leap Attacking Frenzied Berzerker with Battle Jump do? What are the correct caster levels for a Bard 8/Ur-Priest 2/Sublime Chord 10? What, precisely, constitutes a "spellcasting class?" As long as you adhere to the spirit of the rules, I'd say 3.5 is quite clear (and despite my love of THAC-0) and much easier for new players to grasp. ...of course, different people have very different impressions of the "spirit of the rules." Which is at the heart of the problem that is known as DM's Perogative, or Rule-0, or whatever you want to call it. I wouldn't exactly call DM judgement and common sense a "problem." That may be where we differ.
Caelic 08-03-07, 08:41 PM	If you are saying the percentage of *all* D&D campaigns in the world, sorry, i am not all knowing. Though i would like to know if you can prove the reverse. Why should I need to? I'm not the one making a claim I can't support. You'll notice that I never say things like "Most anything goes campaigns fail." At most, I'll say something like, "In my experience, anything goes campaigns don't tend to last as long as I prefer a campaign to last." But if you are asking what percentage of *all* D&D campaigns i have seen, played or DMed before since 1983, all of the ones that lasted beyond 10 sessions were ones where the DMed was not a dictator. ...and to the contrary, of all of the campaigns I have seen, played, or DMed since 1980, the ones that lasted the longest and were the most successful were the ones where the DM had restrictions in place, clearly communicated the specific restrictions and unique features of the campaign to the players, and then adhered to them fairly and impartially. I cannot speak for the 70s but do you really think that in the 80s that game play consisted of a DM that did not accept complains or questions from his players? Seriously? I know for a fact that most of the DMs I played with during that time exercised a degree of control you seem to want to pigeonhole as "dictatorial." And, heck, we were the liberal ones. There was a substantial percentage of AD&D players who believed that any deviation from the rulebooks was bad. Heck, man, go back and reread the Dragon letters pages from that time period. In particular, take a look at the lengthy discussion that raged on over whether a player who started as a fighter and quickly dual-classed into mage should be punished for creating an overpowered character.
Caelic 08-03-07, 08:50 PM	However therein lies the problem. DMs who are confused on some matters or rules and who try to "fix" them more often than not screws the players. This is probably not on intention but the end result is the same. Ah! It seems you're close kin to the players and DMs who were arguing that any deviation from the written rulebooks was bad back in the 80's. For example, because the DM thinks that sorcerers are overpowered (take a look at "Classes and Prestige Classes" to see people to actually think so), all arcane magic tops off at 3rd level. The campaign starts at 12th level. How about "Magic is overpowered relative to melee, and I'd like to give the melee classes a chance to shine, ergo no full caster classes will be permitted in this campaign?" Done it. It was generally considered a very good, very enjoyable campaign. Oddly enough, the players didn't seem to feel "screwed" at all. "But the players would have been told!" some will say. Sure, but is the reason sound? Or is it simply the DM really has no actual idea on what is overpowered and what is not? "Overpowered" is subjective. Who should decide what's overpowered? The player who wants the class?
Optimized_Commoner 08-03-07, 09:34 PM	A GM doesn't have to answer your questions and he doesn't have to give satisfactory answers. He doesn't have to describe the game world or arbitrate the rules either, he could just sit at the front of the group and burp the star-spangled banner. Doing so wouldn't make him a good GM though. Presumably there are people waiting to play his game. Yes, but most of them are not as high quality players as I am. As long as they are happy there will still be a game. Yet a game isn't necessarily a good game. I would probably say something along the lines of 'I just don't plan on using them. period. end of discussion.' Right. And I would then say. Have fun. Toodles. and leave your game in search for a GM who wasn't a jerk. In fact the very fact that a player understands a new mechanic better than his GM would be a VERY GOOD reason for the GM not to include it. See. You have a very good reason, so why insist on being a jerk? Why not just say, "We're gaming in 5 minutes, you haven't mentioned this to me before, I don't know these rules well enough to aprove or disapprove them. Next time bring it up earlier and for now you'll have to change your character to not use them."
Lethanic 08-03-07, 10:08 PM	You must have missed something Player(s) - plural Do you think you will not be shot down by the other players if they find you are wasting time? D&D is a social game, there are group mechanics involved. If they DM and 3 out of 4 players are cooperative with each other, guess what will happen to the 4th player sooner or later? A campaign can survive loss of some players but it cannot survive the loss of all players And most of the example s given seem to think that EVERY SINGLE PLAYER's wishes and whims shoudl be obeyed. Not the "Sense of the group" but that if even one player wants to pout, throw a tantrum and be a rebel, he should be mollycoddled.
Manic Man 08-04-07, 12:03 AM	All depends on what you mean by Dictator. TPK's definition isn't that of most of us. My definition of dictator DMs are those DMs who love to say that the DM is always right even when he's wrong.
Manic Man 08-04-07, 12:13 AM	Why should I need to? I'm not the one making a claim I can't support. You'll notice that I never say things like "Most anything goes campaigns fail." At most, I'll say something like, "In my experience, anything goes campaigns don't tend to last as long as I prefer a campaign to last." Hmm, if you say i cannot support my argument, yet you cannot refute it, what is the result? ...and to the contrary, of all of the campaigns I have seen, played, or DMed since 1980, the ones that lasted the longest and were the most successful were the ones where the DM had restrictions in place, clearly communicated the specific restrictions and unique features of the campaign to the players, and then adhered to them fairly and impartially. And never allowed the players to complain or question? Really? I know for a fact that most of the DMs I played with during that time exercised a degree of control you seem to want to pigeonhole as "dictatorial." Interesting isn't it. I seriously don't know how you enjoy playing a game who's DM's attitude is "my way or the highway, full stop". Did i see such DMs? Yes. Did these campaigns last long? No.
Manic Man 08-04-07, 12:28 AM	Ah! It seems you're close kin to the players and DMs who were arguing that any deviation from the written rulebooks was back back in the 80's. Wait, how did you read "DMs who do not have a good grasp of the rules should not try to "fix them" into "DMs should never change from the rules" Especially since i have said before if the DM clarifies some rules to block off exploits, its good. How about "Magic is overpowered relative to melee, and I'd like to give the melee classes a chance to shine, ergo no full caster classes will be permitted in this campaign?" So i assume your magic items will not be easily available? Combat level healing such as Heal will not be available (especially fun when you are up against monsters with Sp Heal abilities)? Somehow spiked chain fighters and hook hammer users will have nice weapons picked up from their opponents consistently? The party should find DR 15/evil, lawful, chaotic and whatnot to be not a problem? There's lots more So little thought given to the effects just because of the concept "Magic is overpowered". This is precisely the type of DM "fixes" that i find to be screwing the players Done it. It was generally considered a very good, very enjoyable campaign. Oddly enough, the players didn't seem to feel "screwed" at all. So i'll assume that the DM removed DR or somehow the party consistently had weapons that bypass it or had some special feat/ability/whatever to go well beyond 15 damage? "Overpowered" is subjective. Who should decide what's overpowered? The player who wants the class? The group as a whole. If the DM feels something is overpowered, the players should be consulted. If they do not feel that the thing is overpowered, you should look at what the players are actually looking for in a campaign. If for example the DM wants to tell a story he has written, no ifs, no buts and does this with railroading but the players want to go on an ego trip with overpowered characters, either both sides must reconcile or they should go their seperate ways.
Manic Man 08-04-07, 12:40 AM	And most of the example s given seem to think that EVERY SINGLE PLAYER's wishes and whims shoudl be obeyed. Not the "Sense of the group" but that if even one player wants to pout, throw a tantrum and be a rebel, he should be mollycoddled. My opinion is that not coddling every player but working with them. The DM who does not work with his players alienates them. A player who throws tantrums alienates the rest of the group. However the DM who alienates his players destorys his campaign. A player who alienates the rest of the group doesn't. This is why dictator DMs are much more harmful than a problematic player.
SirTodd 08-04-07, 02:05 AM	Wait a second here, I though the whole premise behind DM's Peragative was trust in said DM. Are you saying that trust doesn't go both way? Are you, in fact, saying that players are cheaters and that DM's Perogative is a way to control that? Where did I say cheaters or no trust? Your putting words into my mouth. I have played a long time and I know players like to push the limits of what they can do. This is natural and isn't bad. But often a player will simply present the mechanics he wants to use without explaining why. If as a GM your familiar with those rules by all means consider them fairly. But if your not familiar then at best you will be frequently surprised by what that character can now do. At worst it will ruin many of the challenges you prepared for your game. That isn't fun for anyone except the guy who is ruining them. This isn't a matter of player trust. Its a matter of the GM knowing better than the player what sort of challenges lay ahead and keeping everything balanced for the players facing them. Obviously that doesn't work if the GM has no idea what a certain character is capable of doing (either now or in the long run).
SirTodd 08-04-07, 02:28 AM	He doesn't have to describe the game world or arbitrate the rules either, he could just sit at the front of the group and burp the star-spangled banner. Doing so wouldn't make him a good GM though. Yes, but most of them are not as high quality players as I am. Yet a game isn't necessarily a good game. Right. And I would then say. Have fun. Toodles. and leave your game in search for a GM who wasn't a jerk. See. You have a very good reason, so why insist on being a jerk? Why not just say, "We're gaming in 5 minutes, you haven't mentioned this to me before, I don't know these rules well enough to aprove or disapprove them. Next time bring it up earlier and for now you'll have to change your character to not use them." This isn't a discussion of 'good' games only. But rather the powers of all GMs good or bad to limit their games. High quality players don't walk out on games. Thats a sign of immaturity. I have in the past had a waiting list to join my games. By walking out you just cost some better player one session they could have been enjoying the game. And of course it gets you banned from the list altogether. Why should I waste time developing detailed campaign tie ins for a player who is just going to throw a tantrum and leave every time he doesn't get his way? Did I have to be short with the player... nope. But if I try to give a reasoned response then he will argue about it. I have decades of GMing experience. If your honest with yourself you would even realize this is human nature. You want something so your going to try and argue your point, regardless of the reasons just given to say no. However if I am short and say sorry no, end of discussion. Then it cuts the arguments off. And 5 minutes before the game is NOT the time for an argument. You want to surprise me with something last minute, be prepared to be denied flat, no explanation required. Now I am fairly reasonable if given plenty of notice. But even then I have said no. Psionics are a good example of mechanics I often disapprove even with advanced notice on the requests. Although I usually give a reasoned argument when I get time to consider requests. But thats just me. Even then if my games are fun enough I wouldn't ever have to give a reason. My players would just learn to accept that as a quirk and simply have fun playing.
Mock26 08-04-07, 02:33 AM	Don't you just love it when someone pats themself on the back and brags about how good they are at something?
Lethanic 08-04-07, 06:22 AM	My opinion is that not coddling every player but working with them. The DM who does not work with his players alienates them. A player who throws tantrums alienates the rest of the group. However the DM who alienates his players destorys his campaign. A player who alienates the rest of the group doesn't. This is why dictator DMs are much more harmful than a problematic player. The problem is, the definition of 'dictator DM" seems to be "Has any standards whatsoever outside of absolutely anything in any WOTC supplement is allowed, always."
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 07:03 AM	Don't you just love it when someone pats themself on the back and brags about how good they are at something? If you're talking about my "high quality" point, that was tongue in cheek. I know it's hard to spot on the interwebs and my sense of humour is a bit weird. If we were seriously rating ourselves as players for some reason, I'd actually rate myself rather lowly as I know I brought up in a discussion a short while ago (I'm a lousy player, better DM. I've simply had more experience at the latter). I can try to explain the joke if you like, but nothing is less funny than an explained joke, so I think for now I'll just leave it be as long as you realise that wasn't meant to be taken seriously. This isn't a discussion of 'good' games only. But rather the powers of all GMs good or bad to limit their games. GMs have no power, they rely on the delicately crafted illusion of power wielded through social contracts and conventions amongst the gaming group. I have in the past had a waiting list to join my games. How coldly impersonal. I find that a strange thing to do. Not that I haven't done that before myself, but that was only to conform to the rules and regulations of the club I was GMing at to get free membership (long story). Why should I waste time So I should waste my time, sitting through a session with a jerk as the GM, but it's inexcusable to expect you to waste your time. I don't care much for double standards no matter how big your 'waiting list' is. But if I try to give a reasoned response then he will argue about it. As well he should if your reason is wrong. I have decades of GMing experience. Good for you. Everyone should have something nice. You want something so your going to try and argue your point, regardless of the reasons just given to say no. Not if your reason convinces me. I want the game to work out well too, so if you tell me, 'No, your idea will make this game suck', then naturally I'm not going to want to play it... unless I think you're wrong. Even then if my games are fun enough I wouldn't ever have to give a reason. My players would just learn to accept that as a quirk and simply have fun playing. Therein lies the difference between minimal and optimal.
Caelic 08-04-07, 08:30 AM	Hmm, if you say i cannot support my argument, yet you cannot refute it, what is the result? The result is that you have failed to prove your assertion, which supports my assertion--namely, that it was a wildly hyperbolic and unsustainable generalization. "This is so unless you can disprove it" is without merit. "There are little invisible men living in your closet." Prove that I'm wrong. You can't, you say? Well, if I can't support my argument, yet you cannot refute it, what is the result? The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. And never allowed the players to complain or question? Really? Not to the extent that you seem to believe is the "right" of the player. Then again, most of the players I've played with didn't have this notion that complaining was a "right," and certainly not one they should exercise on a regular basis. Interesting isn't it. I seriously don't know how you enjoy playing a game who's DM's attitude is "my way or the highway, full stop". I seriously don't know how you manage to carry around the notion that your style of playing is the right and proper one, and that it's impossible to have fun any other way. Did i see such DMs? Yes. Did these campaigns last long? No. Sounds like you have fairly limited experience...which is, of course, fine.
Caelic 08-04-07, 08:45 AM	So i assume your magic items will not be easily available? Nope. In fact, crafting magic items was a lost art. Combat level healing such as Heal will not be available (especially fun when you are up against monsters with Sp Heal abilities)? Correct. What healing there was was limited. Somehow spiked chain fighters and hook hammer users will have nice weapons picked up from their opponents consistently? Well, no, because most of the people in my group actually know something about weapons, and prefer a campaign that doesn't involve totally unrealistic weapons. But if your shock and horror is over the fact that you couldn't just trot down to McMagic and pick up a +3 Holy Flaming Hook Hammer, you'd be correct. The party should find DR 15/evil, lawful, chaotic and whatnot to be not a problem? Err...no, they should find it to be a considerable problem. Believe it or not, against a monster with massive DR, they might actually have to resort to intelligent tactics and clever play. There's lots more It's very amusing that you're "revealing" all of this as if any marginally-competent DM wouldn't have thought of it. Good heavens...a low-magic world means the players will have less access to healing!? *Gasp*...why, I...I never thought of that! Oh, wait: I did. Any DM with half a brain would. If you live in a world where DMs don't think of things like that, no wonder you don't trust them to do anything without you looking over their shoulder. So little thought given to the effects just because of the concept "Magic is overpowered". This is precisely the type of DM "fixes" that i find to be screwing the players ...and how very arrogant of you to assume that, simply because you can't conceive of playing in a campaign without easily-available magic, it means the DM of such a campaign has given "so little thought to the effects." We're right back to what you denied at the start of the post: if someone changes the rules, you reflexively assume that it's "bad" and "screwing the players." So i'll assume that the DM removed DR or somehow the party consistently had weapons that bypass it or had some special feat/ability/whatever to go well beyond 15 damage? ...or...and I know this may be difficult to imagine...actually used their brains and didn't just wade in hacking at monsters with high DR when they encountered them. I don't know how you and your players respond when they don't have the tools to easily defeat every enemy at their immediate disposal; mine rise to the challenge. The group as a whole. If the DM feels something is overpowered, the players should be consulted. If they do not feel that the thing is overpowered, you should look at what the players are actually looking for in a campaign. So every single rules change should be put to a majority vote? (Peers at his campaign notes) Well, okay. We won't actually be gaming for about six months, but if you say so... If for example the DM wants to tell a story he has written, no ifs, no buts and does this with railroading but the players want to go on an ego trip with overpowered characters, either both sides must reconcile or they should go their seperate ways. My goodness. You really do seem to have encountered a lot of terrible players and DMs. Around here, it's typically more along the lines of "John has come up with a new campaign, it's a little bit different, and that's cool; we'll all make characters that fit, play under those rules, and have fun, after which it'll be somebody else's turn." We don't fight over the rules. We don't get upset and storm out because this particular campaign doesn't include our favorite prestige class. We don't demand a majority vote over whether to include the splatbook d'jour.
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 09:02 AM	Nope. In fact, crafting magic items was a lost art. On an unrelated note. Why are there never any settings where crafting magic items is a recently developed art? Fantasy always has cultures that are in decline from some mystical 'first age', 'golden age' or 'age of legends' type thing. You could keep much the same rareness in magical items by having the technique of crafting them having just been discovered and known to only a rare few as you could with a lost technique from the past. Anyway, just a bit of a trend I've noticed and wanted to comment on. Sorry for the interruption.
High Octane 08-04-07, 09:12 AM	On an unrelated note. Why are there never any settings where crafting magic items is a recently developed art? Fantasy always has cultures that are in decline from some mystical 'first age', 'golden age' or 'age of legends' type thing. You could keep much the same rareness in magical items by having the technique of crafting them having just been discovered and known to only a rare few as you could with a lost technique from the past. Anyway, just a bit of a trend I've noticed and wanted to comment on. Sorry for the interruption. Best way to have a bunch of crap laying around for no reason is to have lost civilizations whose ruins you can loot and pillage. And if they weren't more advanced or at least more wealthy then ours, the crap they left behind wouldnt be worth looting.
SirTodd 08-04-07, 09:58 AM	GMs have no power, they rely on the delicately crafted illusion of power wielded through social contracts and conventions amongst the gaming group. How coldly impersonal. So I should waste my time, sitting through a session with a jerk as the GM, but it's inexcusable to expect you to waste your time. I don't care much for double standards no matter how big your 'waiting list' is. As well he should if your reason is wrong. Not if your reason convinces me. I want the game to work out well too, so if you tell me, 'No, your idea will make this game suck', then naturally I'm not going to want to play it... unless I think you're wrong. Perhaps your unclear on the meaning of power. But social contracts ARE a source of power. Coldly impersonal would be rejecting all but 6 of those people without ever getting to know them. This way I can meet them all and see how they play. If your going to a game with the attitude 'I want my way or I walk' then the only one wasting your time is you. Everyone else is there with the attitude 'I want to have fun playing in this new game.' And they seem to do just that, 'have fun'. No double standard. Clearly your not a student of human nature. Just look at these long threads as a perfect example. Once someone starts arguing for or against something it's nearly impossible to get them to stop.
shadzar 08-04-07, 10:52 AM	On an unrelated note. Why are there never any settings where crafting magic items is a recently developed art? Fantasy always has cultures that are in decline from some mystical 'first age', 'golden age' or 'age of legends' type thing. You could keep much the same rareness in magical items by having the technique of crafting them having just been discovered and known to only a rare few as you could with a lost technique from the past. Anyway, just a bit of a trend I've noticed and wanted to comment on. Sorry for the interruption. it is obscurly on topic. the DM power to disallow must take into consideration what he allows and why. looking at crafting new magic items as a new art vs as it is presented an ancient art could be viewed in several ways. take FR, Dragonlance, etc. these settings were created from the novels whose purpose was to tell a story. likewise the settings automatically took the background of the worlds in those stories. since the stories have magic going back as far as can be then the printed settings do as well. this has been going on for years and has become the norm. magic items freely become a character in the game world and the game itself. Dark Sun is unacceptable for some because of its lack of metal armor and weaponry. likewise for some a low-magic world doesn't seem to belong as part of the game. there could be much fun had, and many ways to implement a world at the early stages of magical development. i would love to play in that game world for a change. others may not readily be able to accept this seperation fromt he norm. did the world as mention have crafting as a lost art that is only being learned? did said world never have magic items before? with the second you would have to determine many things that would change so many of the rules. do spellbooks even exist? do spell scrolls exist? taking from Greeks, Prometheus stole fire formt he gods and gave it to mortals. is this how magic item creation began? did the gods themselves bestow the knowledge to do so upon a select few. it may make so many things disallowed by default that some just couldn't handle.
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 12:42 PM	I tried really hard to resist this sort of comment, but after the third time I just have to say, It's spelled "You're". "You're unclear"... "You're going to a game"... "You're not a student of human nature"... etc. Your is the possessive used to indicate ownership. If your going to a game with the attitude 'I want my way or I walk' then the only one wasting your time is you. If you're not enjoying a TV show, do you sit there with your remote in your hand and continue watching until the show is over? If you discover you're not enjoying the book that you read, do you stop reading or go out and buy the rest of the series to suffer through? Yes. I expect my games to be something I will like... watch me be unreasonable. :rolleyes: For what possible reason, should I spend my free-time doing something I don't like? Everyone else is there with the attitude 'I want to have fun playing in this new game.' And they seem to do just that, 'have fun'. No double standard. Read my last post. Read your post. How are these two things connected? What you say isn't a reply at all to what I said. Clearly your not a student of human nature. Just look at these long threads as a perfect example. Once someone starts arguing for or against something it's nearly impossible to get them to stop. The word you're looking for is 'cynic'. Student of human nature is a psychologist, which ironically enough I have actually studied a little (very little), though I'm far from a qualified professional in that field. And oddly enough, despite my first post on this thread being many days ago, it didn't prevent me getting to the game I'm currently playing in on time. I also managed to get to work. So oddly, arguing here doesn't seem to impede my ability to perform other tasks... perhaps this is not a "perfect example". People argue on here, because we are bored opinionated people who are passing a bit of time listening to ourselves speak (figuratively of course). I have no intention of getting you to agree with me or changing your mind. Judging by the quality of your arguments so far you have no chance of getting me to agree with you or changing my mind. Yet we continue here because we have nothing better to do at the moment and this is something to gasbag about.
Alyri 08-04-07, 12:53 PM	I tried really hard to resist this sort of comment, but after the third time I just have to say, It's spelled "You're". "You're unclear"... "You're going to a game"... "You're not a student of human nature"... etc. Your is the possessive used to indicate ownership. I never worry about spelling/etc.. I giggle behind the screen if something is really bad, but mine isn't perfect either. I just put it up to the person typing in accent and leave it at that.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-04-07, 12:57 PM	I guess it all depends on how people look at it. I like to give DM's the benefit of the doubt that they know what they are doing and know why they are doing it. Others would rather assume the opposite. Yes, DM's can and do mess it up. But, in your example of the sorceror, so long as they knew before creating their characters, the DM has the right to make that adjustment to game, whehter or not the result is good or bad. No player can be "hurt" by such a restriction unless he actually chooses to take that classes. Even though a player may really, really want to play a sorceror, no player ever HAS to play a particular class. Yes, the player's desires should be considered, but so should those of the DM. If the DM feels sorcerors are too powerful, then he should change them. It matters not sorcerors are or are not too powerful. What matters is that the DM feels that they will be. I personally think it would be better to think sorcerors overpowered and "gimp" them than to allow them despite my misgivings and later have those misgivins proved right. It is easier, and possibly better, to not deal with the class than to have to tell a player his character is overpowered and needs to be "gimped." See and this is where discussion comes in. A player should ask the DM why they feel the sorcerer is over/under powered. The DM would give their reasons, and then the player would have a chance to respond. Now if the DM was concerned about the sorcerers spontaneous ability to cast spells, then the player could point out that they know less spells because of it. if it was the many spells per day, then the player could point out that because they only know one or two spells of a given level, and they get them slower then the wizard, this isn't a problem because varied situations well limit the usefulness of the spells they know. However if the sorcerer is overpowered because the setting is low, or no magic. Then the player is hooped, and should play something else. How about "Magic is overpowered relative to melee, and I'd like to give the melee classes a chance to shine, ergo no full caster classes will be permitted in this campaign?" Done it. It was generally considered a very good, very enjoyable campaign. Oddly enough, the players didn't seem to feel "screwed" at all. That is a very simple, and effect solution. Further when asked why full progression casters are over powered, then one only has only has to point to the 100% mark of that game. In this probably a something like barbarian, or paladin. And from there they can eqasily demonstrate that any full progression caster is more powerfull then the most power thing in the game. Question: Would this limit on full progression casters apply to Bards as well? I see them going the way of the dinosaur in a no, or even a low magic game. But if the goal is make melee non-caster good, then they would work, as they aren't that powerful combat wise. Also their boosts, such as inspire courage, could help the fighters do better. Another solution to the meleer being weeker then spell casters is the Tome of Battle. Now poeple may have other issues with that particular book, so I'm just going to put the idea out there, and leave it at that. "Overpowered" is subjective. Who should decide what's overpowered? The player who wants the class? Ultimately it would be the DM, because they are presenting the setting. I would hope choosing of said setting would have occurred with consultation of the players. But as you have demonstrated, that is not always the case, nor bad thing. For example; it could Fred's turn to DM, and he wants to run a low-magic world. However that being said, if every player loves high magic worlds, then Fred will have some issues ahead of him. But if everyone is ok with low magic, then Fred should have smooth sailing. Back on to what I was talking about. Overpowered, and under powered are subjective to the campaign, and for the most part the one who sets the tone of campaign will also be setting the power level. In most cases this is the DM. What I suggested for dealing with the overpowered banning is simply to find the strongest class/feat/spell/etc that is allowed in the game, and then compare the whatever in question to that. If the whatever is stronger then it, then it is overpowered. If not hen it should be ok. Now this does assume that the only objections to the whatever are for balance reasons. there could be others, and they will need to be over come before it is usable for the game. weather they are, or are not, depends on what those objections are, and what is the item in question. So i assume your magic items will not be easily available? I would think that would be obvious. Combat level healing such as Heal will not be available (especially fun when you are up against monsters with Sp Heal abilities)? depends on if the bard is viable or not. But for the most part, no magic healing would not be available in a low/no magic game. Again duhhh. Somehow spiked chain fighters and hook hammer users will have nice weapons picked up from their opponents consistently? One of the draw backs too choosing an exotic weapon, is that it is well exotic. And as such rare. But I see no reason why you couldn't have an adamantine chain, or hooked hammer crafted for you. Heck you could even take ranks in craft arms,and armour. Then only problem would be finding material for your weapons. And of course you aren't going to have any +5 doom spiked chains, or hammers. But then those that wield other weapons will lack +5 doom versions of their weapons too. Thats kind of the nature of such campaigns. Magic is rare, if not nonexistent. That would include magic items as well. But again that really should be obvious. The party should find DR 15/evil, lawful, chaotic and whatnot to be not a problem? they would. And a "good" DM will recognize that, and use such monsters sparingly. Trolls also become a whole lot scarier. However a "good" isn't out to screw the party, and thus such monster will be rare. Actually in terms of fair play, such magic monster should be just as rare as magic. I think the easiest solution to this would be to use NPCs made up of class levels. Instead on an evil Demon, you could have an Evil paladin/black guard with ties to the occult. So little thought given to the effects just because of the concept "Magic is overpowered". This is precisely the type of DM "fixes" that i find to be screwing the players Magic is overpowered. And because a DM attempts to "fix" does not mean they they did not take into account that alot of monsters require magic, or they become a lot harder. It just means that when they "fix" the magic system, they have to "fix" those other issues that arise with it as well. Now how good of a job they do will depend largerly on the individual DM. So i'll assume that the DM removed DR or somehow the party consistently had weapons that bypass it or had some special feat/ability/whatever to go well beyond 15 damage? Like power attack maybe? This isn't a discussion of 'good' games only. But rather the powers of all GMs good or bad to limit their games. High quality players don't walk out on games. Thats a sign of immaturity. I have in the past had a waiting list to join my games. By walking out you just cost some better player one session they could have been enjoying the game. And of course it gets you banned from the list altogether. Why should I waste time developing detailed campaign tie ins for a player who is just going to throw a tantrum and leave every time he doesn't get his way? Did I have to be short with the player... nope. But if I try to give a reasoned response then he will argue about it. I have decades of GMing experience. If your honest with yourself you would even realize this is human nature. You want something so your going to try and argue your point, regardless of the reasons just given to say no. However if I am short and say sorry no, end of discussion. Then it cuts the arguments off. And 5 minutes before the game is NOT the time for an argument. You want to surprise me with something last minute, be prepared to be denied flat, no explanation required. Now I am fairly reasonable if given plenty of notice. But even then I have said no. Psionics are a good example of mechanics I often disapprove even with advanced notice on the requests. Although I usually give a reasoned argument when I get time to consider requests. But thats just me. Even then if my games are fun enough I wouldn't ever have to give a reason. My players would just learn to accept that as a quirk and simply have fun playing. I still don't see why you have to be a jerk about it though. Honestly why can't you say to the player. I'm sorry I'm not familiar with those rules, and the game is starting. Well, no, because most of the people in my group actually know something about weapons, and prefer a campaign that doesn't involve totally unrealistic weapons. Actually a chain with a bunch of pad locks on the end of it can be quiet a potent weapon...But yaa for the most part I prefer my swords, and bows. Say does it irk you as well that the weapons in the PHB weigh so much as to be way to cumbersome? But if your shock and horror is over the fact that you couldn't just trot down to McMagic and pick up a +3 Holy Flaming Hook Hammer, you'd be correct. "Would you like +1 arrows with that?" I don't think it is so much a problem as a DM who knows the RAW, and changes them to better suit the game. Or even when they use rule 0 to cover a grey area, of which there are many. What I find to the the "abuses" of rule zero are when A) The DM uses it to cover from a lack of knowledge about the RAW. B) Does use it to screw the players. I'm not saying that every DM uses rule 0 for those reasons, and I'd like to hope that the majority do not. But those that do, and not using their ability to change, superceede, or general DM authority in the spirit in which it was intended, and further are abusing it. Example of A and B. A) Suppose that A DM did not understand how power attack worked. Suppose they honestly thought that you could only use with 2 handed weapons. And a player makes a sword and board paladin that uses it. Normally a quick search in the PHB would prve the player right, the DM would take responciblity for the error. Sorry, my bad. and the game goes on. However the abuse would be in the DM saying something to the effect of, I'm right becuase I am the DM, and I don't care what they book says. Now bare in mind that this is stemming from a DMs lack of understanding of how power attack works. It would be different entirely if they knew that you could power attack with a long, but decided to change that because they felt it was cheesy or something. And in that case the player should have been told in advance, and there would have been at least some discussion. Even it was just the DM taking the players opinion under consideration, the discussion would have been there, instead of the DM saying my way or the highway. B) The easiest example of this I can think of is a low/no magic game. But every NPC, or BBEG that the party runs into is a full progression caster. Best way to have a bunch of crap laying around for no reason is to have lost civilizations whose ruins you can loot and pillage. And if they weren't more advanced or at least more wealthy then ours, the crap they left behind wouldnt be worth looting. the best way to have a bunch of +X crap lying around is t play in FR...but I digress. If your going to a game with the attitude 'I want my way or I walk' then the only one wasting your time is you. Everyone else is there with the attitude 'I want to have fun playing in this new game.' And they seem to do just that, 'have fun'. No double standard. Why is it that when the players have the attitude of my way or the high way it is a bad thing. But a DM has every right to come into the game with my way or the highway? And yes that is by definition a double standard.
Manic Man 08-04-07, 01:20 PM	I seriously don't know how you manage to carry around the notion that your style of playing is the right and proper one, and that it's impossible to have fun any other way. Hmm, something just occured to me. A DM that does the "my way or the highway" shick would of course never find anything wrong with it. Well, no, because most of the people in my group actually know something about weapons, and prefer a campaign that doesn't involve totally unrealistic weapons. Ah so the truth tumbles out, not only magic was limited. I dunno, maybe you'll find a halberd to be unrealistic as well? Pike? Ranseur? Err...no, they should find it to be a considerable problem. Believe it or not, against a monster with massive DR, they might actually have to resort to intelligent tactics and clever play. So you seem to find the CR system to be not your taste as well? It is implied. It's very amusing that you're "revealing" all of this as if any marginally-competent DM wouldn't have thought of it. Good heavens...a low-magic world means the players will have less access to healing!? *Gasp*...why, I...I never thought of that! Of course one could conceivably say that one did think of all this after i raised it up. This is afterall the internet Could a DM think of all this? Sure, but would said DM have problems with magic being overpowered? Unlikely since said DM would have demostrated the ability think of something in multiple angles, no? Do keep in mind that the context was in reference to a point someone raised on "Magic is overpowered relative to melee, and I'd like to give the melee classes a chance to shine, ergo no full caster classes will be permitted in this campaign?" Oh, wait: I did. Any DM with half a brain would. If you live in a world where DMs don't think of things like that, no wonder you don't trust them to do anything without you looking over their shoulder. Oh don't worry. The good DMs i've seen have no problems with the "magic is overpowered" shick. And they don't rely on stuff like AMFs. ...and how very arrogant of you to assume that, simply because you can't conceive of playing in a campaign without easily-available magic, it means the DM of such a campaign has given "so little thought to the effects." Well you did not show any recognition of roll down effects in yourpost did you? All that was trotted out was that you played in a campaign that seemed to have removed magic due to its overpoweredness. I dunno, maybe i should pick up a level of psion (telepath) We're right back to what you denied at the start of the post: if someone changes the rules, you reflexively assume that it's "bad" and "screwing the players." Sure, if the change is for a stupid reason, i feel no remorse is assuming it is "bad" and "screwing the players." Heck if i meet a DM who tells me that all weapons are banned except the longsword and the shortsword because the other weapons are overpowered, i would laugh in his face. Would you feel its bad or screwing the players? ...or...and I know this may be difficult to imagine...actually used their brains and didn't just wade in hacking at monsters with high DR when they encountered them. I don't know how you and your players respond when they don't have the tools to easily defeat every enemy at their immediate disposal; mine rise to the challenge. Wow great, no magic, a few points per round of damage vs an intelligent enemy (DR law/chaos/evil are intelligent enemies more often than not). I'm sure the enemy is played up to its intelligence and not dumb enough to fall for stuff like being crushed, lured into traps, blah blah My goodness. You really do seem to have encountered a lot of terrible players and DMs. Around here, it's typically more along the lines of "John has come up with a new campaign, it's a little bit different, and that's cool; we'll all make characters that fit, play under those rules, and have fun, after which it'll be somebody else's turn." We don't fight over the rules. We don't get upset and storm out because this particular campaign doesn't include our favorite prestige class. We don't demand a majority vote over whether to include the splatbook d'jour. Sadly your experience with people outside your small group (i assume its very long time) is very limited. For starters, you can try out a session with people from meetup.com. It helps understanding if you can move out of your little comfort zone.
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 01:28 PM	I never worry about spelling/etc.. I giggle behind the screen if something is really bad, but mine isn't perfect either. I just put it up to the person typing in accent and leave it at that. Yeah. Unfortunately I'm a pedant, I try not to be but I feel a burning urge to correct mistakes that I see. Normally I surpress it, but every now and then it bursts out. In that case it was one 'your' too many. I will probably die sad and alone. ;)
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 01:32 PM	I still don't see why you have to be a jerk about it though. Honestly why can't you say to the player. I'm sorry I'm not familiar with those rules, and the game is starting.Why is it that when the players have the attitude of my way or the high way it is a bad thing. But a DM has every right to come into the game with my way or the highway? And yes that is by definition a double standard. Thankyou for putting what I was trying to say so clearly. I should hire you as a translator. ;)
Manic Man 08-04-07, 01:46 PM	I would think that would be obvious. You would be surprised. I had a DM who restricted spells available but magic items were plentiful due to the previous world war (apocalyse style). The DM promised the magic users that they wouldn't be screwed. It worked except that everyone had to treat spell research as not doable. depends on if the bard is viable or not. But for the most part, no magic healing would not be available in a low/no magic game. Again duhhh. After combat healing and combat healing (those that give you a large percentage of a fighter type character's hp back) is very different. The impact to the expected results of a combat is also very big if the monster has combat style healing. This is excaberated if the monster has a large hp pool Eg a 70 hp monster uses heal when at 10 hp vs a 300 hp monster that uses heal when at 50 hp. This was most easily seen in 3.0 and 2e One of the draw backs too choosing an exotic weapon, is that it is well exotic. And as such rare. But I see no reason why you couldn't have an adamantine chain, or hooked hammer crafted for you. Heck you could even take ranks in craft arms,and armour. Then only problem would be finding material for your weapons. And of course you aren't going to have any +5 doom spiked chains, or hammers. But then those that wield other weapons will lack +5 doom versions of their weapons too. Thats kind of the nature of such campaigns. Magic is rare, if not nonexistent. That would include magic items as well. But again that really should be obvious. The material types are not the problem. The problem is the lawful/chaos/good/evil/whatever strange stuff DR. they would. And a "good" DM will recognize that, and use such monsters sparingly. Trolls also become a whole lot scarier. However a "good" isn't out to screw the party, and thus such monster will be rare. Actually in terms of fair play, such magic monster should be just as rare as magic. I think the easiest solution to this would be to use NPCs made up of class levels. Instead on an evil Demon, you could have an Evil paladin/black guard with ties to the occult. If you're aware that the expected combat results will be very different, then sure, go ahead. If magic is screwed, DR is screwed and you see a Balor, well good luck and hope its not a TPK. Magic is overpowered. And because a DM attempts to "fix" does not mean they they did not take into account that alot of monsters require magic, or they become a lot harder. It just means that when they "fix" the magic system, they have to "fix" those other issues that arise with it as well. Now how good of a job they do will depend largerly on the individual DM. Nope magic is not overpowered. Some spells are overpowered, some spell combos are overpowered but magic itself is fine until you reach epic levels. for example, I have yet to see anyone say Bigby's crushing hand is overpowered. Like power attack maybe? Yes, i expect they would except for a few points. The melee guys basically *have* to take power attack. You don't hit very well since your to hit bonuses from magic (weapons, attribute boosters, inherent, etc) just dived. Power attacking only makes it worse. Those extra attacks? Well they pretty much miss with power attack, so your full attack sucks Yes i know you can take shock trooper to negate the to hit, but then again every tom dick and harry melee guy will have power attack and shock trooper. Its actually humorous when you think about it. They could form a guild or faction.
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 01:58 PM	I'm not just saying this to be disagreeable... I have yet to see anyone say Bigby's crushing hand is overpowered. Bigby's crushing hand is overpowered... in a certain way. It's one of a set of spells which bugs me because they invalidate the fighter. A fighter can work really hard over the course of twenty levels of advancement to be a really good grappler. A mage finds BCH in a spell-book and all of a sudden they get CL + Prime Requisite + 16 grapple checks. It's hard to get +16 to grapple checks for your fighter. That's gotta sting to see a mage get this as just one of their spells along with a bunch of other neat abilities that they can pick and chose. Tenser's Transformation is of course the worst offender in this class of spells.
SirTodd 08-04-07, 02:07 PM	I tried really hard to resist this sort of comment, but after the third time I just have to say, It's spelled "You're". If you're not enjoying a TV show, do you sit there with your remote in your hand and continue watching until the show is over? If you discover you're not enjoying the book that you read, do you stop reading or go out and buy the rest of the series to suffer through? Yes. I expect my games to be something I will like... watch me be unreasonable. :rolleyes: For what possible reason, should I spend my free-time doing something I don't like? Read my last post. Read your post. How are these two things connected? What you say isn't a reply at all to what I said. The word you're looking for is 'cynic'. perhaps this is not a "perfect example". LOL so I used a word incorrectly. I think it was still very readable. I will try to remember to use the proper word in that instance. But I do find it amusing that someone else on the boards said 'They attack your spelling or grammar when their other arguments have failed'. How true it seems to be. If I am watching a TV show I am hardly being immature by turning it off. Considering the approach you've taken I am surprised you can't see this. If you don't like the limits on a game to the extent that you won't have fun. Then I agree you shouldn't be there. Why you would show up and argue just to storm out seems like an immature response. Doesn't everyone agree on that at least? A proper way would be to tell the GM in advance you're not interested so he can find someone else to fill your spot. Hmmm... upon a reread you have one point at least. I did jump to an incorrect assumption logically with that argument. Let me elaborate so it's clear. The post I made showed there is no double standard with regard to the players. But you're trying to assert that the GM should be held under the same standards as the players. The GM has a completely different level of involvement in the game than the players do. He is held to a completely different standard as a result. It's one of his JOBS to set limits. Lets flip this around so you understand better. It's a player's job to play in character following his listed alignment, personality, and background. If a GM constantly argued with you about how you play your character incorrectly. And if he then folds up his game and walks out if you don't start playing the way he wants you to. Wouldn't you think he was immature? Cynical though it might be. It still is correct in most cases. I would make exceptions if I knew the player well enough to know he would back down from arguing if I made my stance clear. As I said before no one is perfect. And no example is either. But I still think it illustrates my point well enough. The only better example would be to allow you to watch one of my games where I specifically allow arguments then try to close them down. Unfortunately this isn't an option.
SirTodd 08-04-07, 02:35 PM	I still don't see why you have to be a jerk about it though. Honestly why can't you say to the player. I'm sorry I'm not familiar with those rules, and the game is starting. Why is it that when the players have the attitude of my way or the high way it is a bad thing. But a DM has every right to come into the game with my way or the highway? And yes that is by definition a double standard. First off am I being a jerk? I admit to being short but really, if my players like it then it isn't hurting anything. Sure I may **** off one or two people who are overly attached to arguing. But my players seem to appreciate that this is to help keep the game moving. So I end up with a better group and loose one or two problem players. Sounds good to me. Again I am sorry for the error in my initial reading. But read the above, there isn't a double standard. There is a different standard. There is a difference. To use the term double standard suggests that you're both intended to have an equal say. But a GMs responsibilities are different he comes up with all the challenges and as a result it's his responsibility to say no if he feels a request is problematic for any reason. The correct saying would be the player saying 'it's my way or I walk'. The GM is saying 'sorry rebuild your character'... not 'get out'.
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 02:45 PM	I think it was still very readable. It is. Your spelling is quite good, most likely as good as mine. But after making the exact same mistake three times in a row, it seemed necessary to point out. But I do find it amusing that someone else on the boards said 'They attack your spelling or grammar when their other arguments have failed'. How true it seems to be. Well if someone on the boards said it, it must be true. Oh, and Hitler. Nazis. Stormwind Fallacy. Occam's razor. Anime Fanboy. Become An Hero. Hackers on Steroids. Do not want. Is made of fail. I am detecting much Win in this sector. We done with stupid board sayings now or should we conclude that because you can make a spelling mistake and quote some forumism that you're logically correct and DMs can be jerks to players. Because that doesn't strike me as a cogent argument. Why you would show up and argue just to storm out seems like an immature response. What? A proper way would be to tell the GM in advance you're not interested so he can find someone else to fill your spot. What? ... You're not making any sense. Scenario Player asks "Can I play X." DM says "No, you may not play X." Player asks "Why not?" DM says "DO NOT QUESTION ME! YOU ARE UNWORTHY TO QUESTION MY GENIUS FOR I HAVE PUT MUCH WORK INTO THIS GAME!" Player says "I'm just asking why I can't play X. Is there a particular reason?" DM says "STOP! BE SILENT! YOU HAVE TWENTY SECONDS TO FINISH SHEET BEFORE WE START! FIX IT NOW!" Player thinks 'I'm fine with not playing X but I'm not going to game with this Jerk.' Player says "Okay... thanks but I just remembered I have to floss the cat. See you later." (yes, it's exaggerated for humour). This is the scenario we're discussing... right? What on Earth are you talking about? How was I supposed to know you were a jerk before I got there? If I don't know that how am I going to warn you in advance that I won't be there? Hmmm... upon a reread you have one point at least. I suggest rereading again. Subsequent rereads may prove equally profitable. If a GM constantly argued with you about how you play your character incorrectly. And if he then folds up his game and walks out if you don't start playing the way he wants you to. Wouldn't you think he was immature? No. It's quite reasonable for a GM to quit running a game because the players are making it unenjoyable through their actions. For example if the party was constantly performing PVP and ignored the GM's requests not to. If for some reason the GM lacked the authority in the situation to expel the trouble-making player from the group or if the entire group was participating in the behaviour, it is an entirely mature decision to cease running the game.
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 02:48 PM	The correct saying would be the player saying 'it's my way or I walk'. The GM is saying 'sorry rebuild your character'... not 'get out'. And what would the GM say if the player said "no"?
maharai23 08-04-07, 03:33 PM	I find it funny that the people who are defending allowing everything are referring to role-playing and fundamentals of a campaign world as "fluff". Trivializing these things does indicate a predication towards Roll-playing. All well and good, but it hardly makes one qualified to talk about the concerns of role-players.
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 03:51 PM	I find it funny that the people who are defending allowing everything are referring to role-playing and fundamentals of a campaign world as "fluff". Trivializing these things does indicate a predication towards Roll-playing. All well and good, but it hardly makes one qualified to talk about the concerns of role-players. Because Crunch is a respectful and serious term.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-04-07, 04:03 PM	You would be surprised. I had a DM who restricted spells available but magic items were plentiful due to the previous world war (apocalyse style). The DM promised the magic users that they wouldn't be screwed. It worked except that everyone had to treat spell research as not doable. That seems a little inconsistent to me. Such a thing probably be a strain my sense of verisimilitude. Is there lots of magic, or is there not? And as for spell casters, I can see how they would not be screwed in a low/no magic setting, but thats kind of the point isn't it? To run a setting with little to no magic...why are there casters running around? After combat healing and combat healing (those that give you a large percentage of a fighter type character's hp back) is very different. The impact to the expected results of a combat is also very big if the monster has combat style healing. This is excaberated if the monster has a large hp pool Eg a 70 hp monster uses heal when at 10 hp vs a 300 hp monster that uses heal when at 50 hp. This was most easily seen in 3.0 and 2e You would want to make characters that did not rely on magic healing. barbarians come to mind. Good HP, and DR. Further their feats that give fast healing to help witht he out of combat stuff. But for the most part the game would become more gritty, with combat being more lethal, and take longer to recover from. Which is what some people want. And I can see their point, it is kind of cartoonish the way high level character can get. You can drop them off 200foot cliffs and their fine. They have s good chance of surviving a CDG, fighters can drink buckets of poison, and shower in lava. Mages are no longer governed by the laws of physics, it just keeps going. I myself perfer lower powered games. But I also enjoy lots of options, and a very diverse setting with ninjas, and barbarians, and sword sages, and wizards, etc. I solve the problem by mostly playing at lower levels. Druids not so bad when they can't wild shape yet, and the wizard has maybe 15 spells tops. The material types are not the problem. The problem is the lawful/chaos/good/evil/whatever strange stuff DR. Play a monk? If you're aware that the expected combat results will be very different, then sure, go ahead. If magic is screwed, DR is screwed and you see a Balor, well good luck and hope its not a TPK. Balors should be scary. And if the DM, in a low magic game were using them as random encounters, then they probably would be out to screw the party. But I doubt that game would last long. Now a Balour as a BBEG for 18-20th level party in a low magic game would probably be a very climatic, and exciting ending to what probably a long, and enjoyable game. Nope magic is not overpowered. Some spells are overpowered, some spell combos are overpowered but magic itself is fine until you reach epic levels. for example, I have yet to see anyone say Bigby's crushing hand is overpowered. Point for point a magic user is more powerful then a non-magic user. They have more options, and their spells have a greater effect on the game. Yes, i expect they would except for a few points. The melee guys basically *have* to take power attack. You don't hit very well since your to hit bonuses from magic (weapons, attribute boosters, inherent, etc) just dived. Power attacking only makes it worse. Those extra attacks? Well they pretty much miss with power attack, so your full attack sucks But spell casters *have* to have their primary casters ability the highest. This is just the nature of the game. You build your character to over come the challenges of the world. Its just how you make effective characters. Linda like if you know your fighting vampires, you pick up silver weapons, and if you know your going to fight a white dragon you load up on the fire. If you know that you can't rely on magic items to boost you, you lean on your class abilities. Monks, rangers, paladins, and barbarians start looking a lot better. Yes i know you can take shock trooper to negate the to hit, but then again every tom dick and harry melee guy will have power attack and shock trooper. Its actually humorous when you think about it. They could form a guild or faction. Not necessarily. You could take favoured enemy outsider, or use things like poison. But again for the most part a low magic game is not a standard one, so the Dm can't just pick monsters out of the monster manual willy-nilly. They should be taking their party into consideration, and if they can't over come DR 15/evil then they auto choose a different monster, or lower it to something more reasonable. That said sometimes you get to a fight were you just have to run like a *****.
Alyri 08-04-07, 04:08 PM	Because Crunch is a respectful and serious term. And people say you have no sense of humor.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-04-07, 04:09 PM	I find it funny that the people who are defending allowing everything are referring to role-playing and fundamentals of a campaign world as "fluff". Trivializing these things does indicate a predication towards Roll-playing. All well and good, but it hardly makes one qualified to talk about the concerns of role-players. 1) Because "fluff" is easier to say (and type) then " the non mechanical flavor, and role-playing aspects of a concept. 2) You'll note that I use the terms flavor, and fluff interchangeably, and am not trivializing either the fluff or the mechanics. In fact you need both, and neither is more important then the other. 3) Having Dm with the attitude of my way or the high niether enhances, nor harms the role-playing merit of the game. In fact I'd say the two are separate issues. Further since mechanics, and role-playing are not mutually exclusive I would argue that restricting one has no effect on the other.
Lethanic 08-04-07, 04:51 PM	And what would the GM say if the player said "no"? "I'm sorry you feel that way, perhaps the next campaign will suit you better then."
SirTodd 08-04-07, 04:54 PM	And what would the GM say if the player said "no"? I will respond to this first because it's easy. If he said 'no, I will not make a character' but didn't actually leave in a huff. Then I would allow him to stay. I encourage lurkers in my games. I was once a lurker trying to learn as I watched others play. It's a lot better than trying and failing on my own. In fact that would impress me that he was willing to stay and learn. In fact if he saw the fun others were having and had a character ready by the end of the session I would allow him to keep his seat and join in next session. If not, then he is always welcome to show up to lurk. But I would then give the player seat to someone who wanted to play.
UltimateReality 08-04-07, 05:05 PM	So you seem to find the CR system to be not your taste as well? It is implied.Dude (or chick, but it seems less likely given your username), I'm a pretty much anything-goes DM and I find the CR system to be "not to my taste". What you think of the CR system has little to do with how much mechanical stuff you allow into your campaign. Oh, and Hitler. Nazis. Stormwind Fallacy. Occam's razor. Anime Fanboy. Become An Hero. Hackers on Steroids. Do not want. Is made of fail. I am detecting much Win in this sector. We done with stupid board sayings nowNo. All your thread are belong to us. :)
SirTodd 08-04-07, 05:29 PM	Well if someone on the boards said it, it must be true. Oh, and Hitler. Nazis. Stormwind Fallacy. Occam's razor. Anime Fanboy. Become An Hero. Hackers on Steroids. Do not want. Is made of fail. I am detecting much Win in this sector. We done with stupid board sayings now or should we conclude that because you can make a spelling mistake and quote some forumism that you're logically correct and DMs can be jerks to players. Because that doesn't strike me as a cogent argument. What? What? ... You're not making any sense. Scenario Player asks "Can I play X." DM says "No, you may not play X." Player asks "Why not?" DM says "DO NOT QUESTION ME! YOU ARE UNWORTHY TO QUESTION MY GENIUS FOR I HAVE PUT MUCH WORK INTO THIS GAME!" Player says "I'm just asking why I can't play X. Is there a particular reason?" DM says "STOP! BE SILENT! YOU HAVE TWENTY SECONDS TO FINISH SHEET BEFORE WE START! FIX IT NOW!" Player thinks 'I'm fine with not playing X but I'm not going to game with this Jerk.' Player says "Okay... thanks but I just remembered I have to floss the cat. See you later." (yes, it's exaggerated for humour). This is the scenario we're discussing... right? What on Earth are you talking about? How was I supposed to know you were a jerk before I got there? If I don't know that how am I going to warn you in advance that I won't be there? No. It's quite reasonable for a GM to quit running a game because the players are making it unenjoyable through their actions. For example if the party was constantly performing PVP and ignored the GM's requests not to. If for some reason the GM lacked the authority in the situation to expel the trouble-making player from the group or if the entire group was participating in the behaviour, it is an entirely mature decision to cease running the game. As far as the board saying goes. I only pointed it out because it seemed amusing to note. It was never intended to stand as a validation for any viewpoint. If my players suddenly went PvP I would trust they had a good reason. Barring that, I would suspect some sort of prank. I would probably call the session to a close. But I would leave it in the players hands how to run their characters. I would ask them why. And hopefully they would tell me. If it ruined the whole game... then I guess we would have to work on a new game. Maybe with some different players depending on whether the incident was truly character inspired or just a case of a problem player. In case you are having trouble following the thread: you said you would leave the game and not play with that jerk. This after he told you you couldn't use a new mechanic you surprised him with moments before a game. He wasn't using any of the ridiculous language you seem to remember (in jest or not). He wasn't being rude he just refused to debate the issue. If you had got into the game far enough to have a character concept ready for play. Then obviously you would have had to have met with the GM and been told about the game ahead of time. Otherwise you wouldn't even know when to show up or where. Let alone know what sort of character to make. Use your head please. If you think not debating an issue right before a game is starting is being a jerk, then I guess you're entitled to your opinions. But it doesn't change the fact that a GM can do just that. And most of his players will likely thank him for it.
Mock26 08-04-07, 05:48 PM	On an unrelated note. Why are there never any settings where crafting magic items is a recently developed art? Fantasy always has cultures that are in decline from some mystical 'first age', 'golden age' or 'age of legends' type thing. You could keep much the same rareness in magical items by having the technique of crafting them having just been discovered and known to only a rare few as you could with a lost technique from the past. Anyway, just a bit of a trend I've noticed and wanted to comment on. Sorry for the interruption. Why? Because cats don't eat earthquakes. On a serious not, though, that is a great idea. I may have to explore that for a future campaign.
Caelic 08-04-07, 07:53 PM	On an unrelated note. Why are there never any settings where crafting magic items is a recently developed art? Fantasy always has cultures that are in decline from some mystical 'first age', 'golden age' or 'age of legends' type thing. You could keep much the same rareness in magical items by having the technique of crafting them having just been discovered and known to only a rare few as you could with a lost technique from the past. I can only speak to this particular campaign; we have a lot of Gamma World enthusiasts in the group. Shattered Moon was my attempt at a post-apocalypse fantasy setting. Like I said, it worked fairly well.
Caelic 08-04-07, 08:08 PM	Question: Would this limit on full progression casters apply to Bards as well? I see them going the way of the dinosaur in a no, or even a low magic game. But if the goal is make melee non-caster good, then they would work, as they aren't that powerful combat wise. Also their boosts, such as inspire courage, could help the fighters do better. Bard was one of the specific classes I wanted to have a chance to shine, and I did want to have some healing in the game--they stayed, and were a popular choice (though not one that outshone the other classes.) Another solution to the meleer being weeker then spell casters is the Tome of Battle. Now poeple may have other issues with that particular book, so I'm just going to put the idea out there, and leave it at that. The campaign in question predated the Tome of Battle; same basic idea, different execution. depends on if the bard is viable or not. But for the most part, no magic healing would not be available in a low/no magic game. As I said, he was; Bards, Paladins, and Adepts took up the burden of providing magical healing (and, yes, there were players who chose to play Adepts.) But I see no reason why you couldn't have an adamantine chain, or hooked hammer crafted for you. Heck you could even take ranks in craft arms,and armour. Then only problem would be finding material for your weapons. In fact, the lack of magic led to considerable advances in non-magical arts such as metallurgy; necessity is the mother of invention! they would. And a "good" DM will recognize that, and use such monsters sparingly. Trolls also become a whole lot scarier. However a "good" isn't out to screw the party, and thus such monster will be rare. Actually in terms of fair play, such magic monster should be just as rare as magic. Both in terms of fair play and verisimilitude; if magic has been disrupted to such an extent that most spellcasting is gone, how would profoundly magical creatures continue to survive? Yes, highly-magical monsters were highly rare. I think the easiest solution to this would be to use NPCs made up of class levels. Instead on an evil Demon, you could have an Evil paladin/black guard with ties to the occult. Quite a lot; most of my campaigns tend to feature more humanoid opponents with class levels than monsters, and this one was no exception. Actually a chain with a bunch of pad locks on the end of it can be quiet a potent weapon...But yaa for the most part I prefer my swords, and bows. Say does it irk you as well that the weapons in the PHB weigh so much as to be way to cumbersome? The spiked chain is actually the least irritating of the mentioned weapons, though I would've preferred to see just a simple "chain" in the core book and save the funky spiked stuff for an expansion. But a Dire Flail? C'mon...it would be physically impossible to wield the thing. You'd be more likely to damage yourself than the enemy. And, yeah, some of the weapons in the PHB are pretty darned heavy. Why is it that when the players have the attitude of my way or the high way it is a bad thing. But a DM has every right to come into the game with my way or the highway? And yes that is by definition a double standard. It's not so much a question of good or bad, as a question of "realistically possible." If the DM comes in and says "Here's how the campaign's going to work, take it or leave it," he can realistically make that stick. That doesn't mean it's a good attitude to have or particularly productive, but he can deliver that ultimatum with force behind it. The players can either take it, or they can leave it. If a PLAYER says "Here's how the campaign is going to work, take it or leave it," that has much less force to it. Unless he can get all the other players supporting him, he has no chance to make it stick; even if he does, it doesn't necessarily mean that the choice will stick. After all, the DM could always simply go find a new group of players. Again, I'm not arguing that this is how it should be; I'm simply arguing that the DM, by nature of his role, is in the stronger position when it comes to "Take it or leave it."
Caelic 08-04-07, 08:36 PM	Hmm, something just occured to me. A DM that does the "my way or the highway" shick would of course never find anything wrong with it. ...and a DM who's so arrogant as to believe that his playstyle is the epitome of correct play and any deviation from it is a mistake would, of course, make reflexive use of "wrong" when describing the playstyles of others. Ah so the truth tumbles out, not only magic was limited. I dunno, maybe you'll find a halberd to be unrealistic as well? Pike? Ranseur? Work on that reading comprehension; it needs some polishing. My group finds weapons like the Dire Flail and Hooked Hammer unrealistic, and so doesn't use them. No restriction is needed there; most of them would probably bust my chops if I included one of the stupid things. And, no, I wouldn't find a halberd to be unrealistic. You see, a halberd has a very advantages over a dire flail or hooked hammer: A. Something at least reasonably like it existed in the real world at one time, and B. The use of such a weapon would be physically possible in the real world. But hey, don't take my word for it. Stick a ball and chain on each end of a pole. Go out in your backyard and try swinging it around. C'mon back when you're done and let us know how that worked out for you. So you seem to find the CR system to be not your taste as well? It is implied. I'm not particularly impressed by it, no. Any system which considers a 14th level fighter with no stat above 10 and a Warlock 5/Ur-Priest 9 with straight 18's to be equivalent in terms of rating isn't all that useful or well-conceived. Any half decent DM knows that some encounters have disproportionately high CRs ("Ooo, look! It has about thirty non-combat SLAs!") and other encounters have disproportionately low CRs. ("Gee, so a Paragon Pseudonatural skeleton has...the same challenge rating as a normal skeleton?") Of course one could conceivably say that one did think of all this after i raised it up. This is afterall the internet Of course one could. One could also be foolish enough to assume that one is somehow special in seeing glaringly obvious consequences, despite the fact that multiple posters who don't entirely agree with each other have pointed out that they are, in fact, glaringly obvious. One could further pompously speak in the third person when suggesting that one is extra-specially perceptive and other DMs couldn't possibly be expected to anticipate that "low magic" means "less magical healing." I don't think I will, though. It would take a real goofball to do something like that. Could a DM think of all this? Sure, but would said DM have problems with magic being overpowered? Unlikely since said DM would have demostrated the ability think of something in multiple angles, no? Wow. Where to start with the flawed assumptions there? First: recognizing that magic is overpowered simply means you have a rudimentary understanding of the game; it has nothing to do with the "ability to think of something in multiple angles." In fact, I would go so far as to say that a DM who hasn't noticed that magic is overpowered is severely, severely limited in the number of "angles" from which they have examined the game. Do keep in mind that the context was in reference to a point someone raised on "Magic is overpowered relative to melee, and I'd like to give the melee classes a chance to shine, ergo no full caster classes will be permitted in this campaign?" Err...that was me. Try to keep track of who says what; it's sort of crucial to context. Oh don't worry. The good DMs i've seen have no problems with the "magic is overpowered" shick. And they don't rely on stuff like AMFs. Ask any of those good DMs whether magic is overpowered, and they'll say "Yes." A good DM won't have a particular problem compensating for that, but he will recognize that it's overpowered. Well you did not show any recognition of roll down effects in yourpost did you? Excuse me, I didn't realize that you had to have the glaringly obvious spelled out to you. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Just for starters: the sky is blue. Water is wet. I wouldn't want you to think that I didn't know those things and go on a long-winded rant about them. All that was trotted out was that you played in a campaign that seemed to have removed magic due to its overpoweredness. I dunno, maybe i should pick up a level of psion (telepath) Uhh...no, what was trotted out was that I ran a campaign where I removed full-caster classes. Again, you really need to read more carefully, because comprehension seems to be a recurrent problem. Sure, if the change is for a stupid reason, i feel no remorse is assuming it is "bad" and "screwing the players." Your choice of vocabulary in discussing this is fascinating. Most of the rest of us are discussing things in terms of "appropriate to the campaign and group." You? "That's stupid! You're a bad DM who screws his players!" You do realize you're coming across as the quintessential stereotypical immature player, right? The one who's the counterpoint to the stereotypical immature DM who says "I'm banning that 'cuz I want to, and you can't stop me?" Heck if i meet a DM who tells me that all weapons are banned except the longsword and the shortsword because the other weapons are overpowered, i would laugh in his face. Would you feel its bad or screwing the players? Tell you what: if I ever encounter that DM, I'll worry about it then. I don't think I will, though; the problem with ridiculous examples is that they're, well...ridiculous. I doubt I'd laugh in his face in any event; I'm a bit more mature than that. Wow great, no magic, a few points per round of damage vs an intelligent enemy (DR law/chaos/evil are intelligent enemies more often than not). I'm sure the enemy is played up to its intelligence and not dumb enough to fall for stuff like being crushed, lured into traps, blah blah Yep. You certainly seem to have thought of all the possibilities. I mean, apart from: 1. The DM just doesn't use a lot of critters with DR; he's creative enough to challenge players without flipping open the Monster Manual to tbe biggest monster he can find. 2. The players are smart enough to research especially formidable opponents and equip themselves with appropriate weapons. 3. The players are smart enough to make use of low-level spells that overcome DR. 4. Et cetera... Hmm. Well, y'know, come to think of it, there are a lot of possibilities beyond a party sitting there mindlessly and ineffectually hammering on a high-DR opponent. I wonder why a fella who thinks in so many multiple angles, like yourself, didn't think of these? Sadly your experience with people outside your small group (i assume its very long time) is very limited. For starters, you can try out a session with people from meetup.com. It helps understanding if you can move out of your little comfort zone. One more friendly pointer: don't try to be condescending. There's an art to it, and you're really not very good at it. In particular, attempting to imitate someone who's talking down to you is seldom effective, though it's good for a chuckle.
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 09:51 PM	In case you are having trouble following the threadUse your head please. :heehee ... and, we're done.
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 10:14 PM	But hey, don't take my word for it. Stick a ball and chain on each end of a pole. Go out in your backyard and try swinging it around. C'mon back when you're done and let us know how that worked out for you. Yes I prefer a weapon that doesn't have an end to swing around and hit you every time its momentum is blocked by hitting your opponent. Perhaps though it is a weapon built for sadomasochists? ("Gee, so a Paragon Pseudonatural skeleton has...the same challenge rating as a normal skeleton?") This sounds wrong to me... from memory doesn't it have a CR 14 levels higher? Which Paragon and which Pseudonatural templates are you referring to? In fact, I would go so far as to say that a DM who hasn't noticed that magic is overpowered is severely, severely limited in the number of "angles" from which they have examined the game. By which you mean they've never played the game before? I didn't think it was possible to not notice. I bet if you interview some random blind deafmute person on the street (interviewing them clearly with some great difficulty), they'd be able to you that the druid was broken. Tell you what: if I ever encounter that DM, I'll worry about it then. I don't think I will, though; the problem with ridiculous examples is that they're, well...ridiculous. It's not that ridiculous. I've seen a simplified rule set which only included one weapon because the author felt that a person's choice of weapon should be cosmetic and has no need to influence combat. Then again the entire game was simplified to make the same degree, I believe it was about ten pages long. One more friendly pointer: don't try to be condescending. There's an art to it, and you're really not very good at it. In particular, attempting to imitate someone who's talking down to you is seldom effective, though it's good for a chuckle. Being condescending isn't something you do when it suits you, it's a way of life. ;)
Caelic 08-04-07, 11:08 PM	Yes I prefer a weapon that doesn't have an end to swing around and hit you every time its momentum is blocked by hitting your opponent. Perhaps though it is a weapon built for sadomasochists? Heh. I suppose I could see an order of flagellants who invented it as a means of self-punishment. This sounds wrong to me... from memory doesn't it have a CR 14 levels higher? Which Paragon and which Pseudonatural templates are you referring to? The ELH ones. You'll notice, though, that the Skeleton template simply overwrites the creature's CR with a new one based strictly on hit dice...and Skeleton is, by definition, the last template applied. This is one of the sillier outcomes of adhering literally to the CR system. By which you mean they've never played the game before? I didn't think it was possible to not notice. I bet if you interview some random blind deafmute person on the street (interviewing them clearly with some great difficulty), they'd be able to you that the druid was broken. I'd've thought that too, but Manic insists that magic isn't broken. *shrug* It's not that ridiculous. I've seen a simplified rule set which only included one weapon because the author felt that a person's choice of weapon should be cosmetic and has no need to influence combat. Then again the entire game was simplified to make the same degree, I believe it was about ten pages long. Well, yeah, but there's a difference between "All weapons have the same stats" (heck, that rule existed in older editions of D&D) and "There are no weapons other than longswords and shortswords." Being condescending isn't something you do when it suits you, it's a way of life. ;) ...and don't I know it! MY superiority complex is better than YOUR superiority complex! ;)
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 11:23 PM	...and Skeleton is, by definition, the last template applied. This is one of the sillier outcomes of adhering literally to the CR system. Oh yes. Much like the advancing creatures CR rules. I do wish they'd built monsters to run on ECL instead of CR and ignored the old hit dice = power paradigm of 2nd ed. But that's another rant. I'd've thought that too, but Manic insists that magic isn't broken. *shrug* Compared to what? Magic is very nicely balanced... against itself. (Well, except for the mage vs the cleric and druid) Against non-mages though? Well, yeah, but there's a difference between "All weapons have the same stats" (heck, that rule existed in older editions of D&D) and "There are no weapons other than longswords and shortswords." Fair point. ...and don't I know it! MY superiority complex is better than YOUR superiority complex! ;) My superiority is better than your superiority complex :P
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-04-07, 11:29 PM	It's not that ridiculous. I've seen a simplified rule set which only included one weapon because the author felt that a person's choice of weapon should be cosmetic and has no need to influence combat. Then again the entire game was simplified to make the same degree, I believe it was about ten pages long. Have you checked out risus?
Caelic 08-04-07, 11:29 PM	Have you checked out risus? Have you checked out TWERPS? :)
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 11:30 PM	Have you checked out risus? My DM is a fan, it's not quite my cup of tea though. When it comes to the simple systems it's Fudge that won over my heart.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-04-07, 11:33 PM	Compared to what? Magic is very nicely balanced... against itself. (Well, except for the mage vs the cleric and druid) Against non-mages though? Its not even balanced with in the arcane divine split. Summon nature's alley is better then summon monster. Wizards are just plain better the sorcers, and druids are better the clerics. Then you look at the spells themselves and some are clearly better then others. And if you want to look at the arcane classes, conjuration can do everything every other school, except that conj isn't effected by SR. And divination is so under powered your not allowed to give it up as a prohibited school, and if you take it as a specialist you need only give up one other school. And it really is that bad.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-04-07, 11:34 PM	My DM is a fan, it's not quite my cup of tea though. When it comes to the simple systems it's Fudge that won over my heart. Ultimate was looking at it. It looked interesting, as well. I'm just a little lazy when it comes to learning new systems.
UltimateReality 08-04-07, 11:35 PM	My DM is a fan, it's not quite my cup of tea though. When it comes to the simple systems it's Fudge that won over my heart.Fudge has so much of my love. Risus is interesting, but I'm not sure I'm to the point where I could GM it. And Fate...Fate seems an interesting idea, but kind of lacking in implementation to me. (At least, Fate 2.0; I don't know about the new edition.) Fudge is like the perfectly customizable game for me. Because I already love homebrewing. :P
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-04-07, 11:35 PM	Have you checked out TWERPS? :) never heard of it. :(
Optimized_Commoner 08-04-07, 11:47 PM	Its not even balanced with in the arcane divine split. Summon nature's alley is better then summon monster. Wizards are just plain better the sorcers, and druids are better the clerics. Then you look at the spells themselves and some are clearly better then others. And if you want to look at the arcane classes, conjuration can do everything every other school, except that conj isn't effected by SR. And divination is so under powered your not allowed to give it up as a prohibited school, and if you take it as a specialist you need only give up one other school. And it really is that bad. All very true. Also necromancy is shafted, because all of the things it's supposed to be good at are given to the cleric to do.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-05-07, 01:07 AM	All very true. Also necromancy is shafted, because all of the things it's supposed to be good at are given to the cleric to do. I find necro to be not too bad. Your right though, if you want to raise undead a cleric is a better choice. But then a cleric is better choice then most things, except the druid. However with things like enervation, and cause fear. Its not bad school. Its no Transmutation or conjuration, but its about on par with evocation, and enchantment.
Manic Man 08-05-07, 12:18 PM	*snip* My group finds weapons like the Dire Flail and Hooked Hammer unrealistic, and so doesn't use them. No restriction is needed there; most of them would probably bust my chops if I included one of the stupid things. Seems you missed the point. You do actually realise that consistently finding magical halberds, pikes, ransuers is pretty ridiculous. They are uncommon weapons.... I'm not particularly impressed by it, no. So CR system changes as well. Of course one could. One could also be foolish enough to assume that one is somehow special in seeing glaringly obvious consequences, despite the fact that multiple posters who don't entirely agree with each other have pointed out that they are, in fact, glaringly obvious. Its ok. Having things a good DM would have known, pointed out you doesn't mean you need to be ashamed First: recognizing that magic is overpowered simply means you have a rudimentary understanding of the game; it has nothing to do with the "ability to think of something in multiple angles." In fact, I would go so far as to say that a DM who hasn't noticed that magic is overpowered is severely, severely limited in the number of "angles" from which they have examined the game. Here's something you can go think about. The sorcerer, bard, healer do not rank high among the class poweredness. In fact i think the healer is ranked among the worst classes power wise. Perhaps you should try harder understanding the game instead. Excuse me, I didn't realize that you had to have the glaringly obvious spelled out to you. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Just for starters: the sky is blue. Water is wet. I wouldn't want you to think that I didn't know those things and go on a long-winded rant about them. Oh i would have thought since you're so careful in adding stuff like "in my experience" and whatnot, you would have added in a simple thing like "and the associated rules". *snip*You do realize you're coming across as the quintessential stereotypical immature player, right? The one who's the counterpoint to the stereotypical immature DM who says "I'm banning that 'cuz I want to, and you can't stop me?" Oh my bad. I thought that if the DM was banning things for stupid reasons, it was bad. Since you claim to be a DM who knows the game well, i guess you never find any stupid reasons for banning stuff Tell you what: if I ever encounter that DM, I'll worry about it then. I don't think I will, though; the problem with ridiculous examples is that they're, well...ridiculous. Ah so its not stupid, merely ridiculous. You find the example ridiculous yet find no problems with banning exotic weapons for "realism". Here, let me help modify my previous statement. "Heck if i meet a DM who tells me that all weapons are banned except for a bunch of weapons he found realistic, i would laugh in his face." You probably find this unrealistic as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusari_gama Yep. You certainly seem to have thought of all the possibilities. I mean, apart from: 1. The DM just doesn't use a lot of critters with DR; he's creative enough to challenge players without flipping open the Monster Manual to tbe biggest monster he can find. 2. The players are smart enough to research especially formidable opponents and equip themselves with appropriate weapons. 3. The players are smart enough to make use of low-level spells that overcome DR. 4. Et cetera... You do remember you killed the full caster classes (or you're pasting "align weapon" onto any sub caster)? Your magic items are restricted (love how you say they equip themselves with apporiate weapons) You're ability to see "glaringly obvious" stuff seems to have failed you there. The only one that even works at all is 1, where the DM has to compensate One more friendly pointer: don't try to be condescending. There's an art to it, and you're really not very good at it. In particular, attempting to imitate someone who's talking down to you is seldom effective, though it's good for a chuckle. It just seems ironic someone who says he's "more mature than that" is saying all this stuff. Fortunately i didn't paint myself as the epitome of maturity :heehee
Caelic 08-05-07, 12:49 PM	Seems you missed the point. You do actually realise that consistently finding magical halberds, pikes, ransuers is pretty ridiculous. They are uncommon weapons.... Well, no. First, you suggested that I would find them "unrealistic," which has nothing at all to do with whether they're common or not. If you were trying to make a point about their rareness, or the likelihood of encountering magical versions of same, you did a pretty incompetent job of it. Second, even a modicum of knowledge about historical warfare would tell you that polearms were the common man's weapon throughout much of the Middle Ages. They were not only NOT uncommon; they were common as dirt. So CR system changes as well. In the sense of "I can judge what's an appropriate encounter a heck of a lot better than this joke of a system?" Yes. I recognize that the notion of using judgement rather than Following The Almighty Rules seems foreign to you, but it happens more often than you'd think. Its ok. Having things a good DM would have known, pointed out you doesn't mean you need to be ashamed When it's done by someone who's clearly not all that knowledgeable about the game, and still clearly considers himself the expert on the subject? You're right. It means I need to be amused. Here's something you can go think about. The sorcerer, bard, healer do not rank high among the class poweredness. In fact i think the healer is ranked among the worst classes power wise. Frankly, if you can't find ways to make a sorceror or bard more powerful than a non-spellcaster, you're in worse shape than I thought. The healer's lacking in power simply because he's restricted to doing one thing. It's not so much that he's bad; it's just that the Cleric is so much better that there's no point to taking a healer. So...that's it? That's the best you can do? "Oooo, look, some magic-using classes are more powerful than others! That proves magic isn't overpowered!"? Perhaps you should try harder understanding the game instead. Perhaps you should try harder not to sound like Yoda when you write. Oh i would have thought since you're so careful in adding stuff like "in my experience" and whatnot, you would have added in a simple thing like "and the associated rules". It was unnecessary to do so; my point was clear. Oh my bad. I thought that if the DM was banning things for stupid reasons, it was bad. The problem, of course, is that you apparently define "stupid" as "anything I don't like." Since you claim to be a DM who knows the game well, i guess you never find any stupid reasons for banning stuff I'm quite sure, given your responses thus far, that you'd find most of my reasons "stupid." Ah so its not stupid, merely ridiculous. You find the example ridiculous yet find no problems with banning exotic weapons for "realism". Here, let me help modify my previous statement. "Heck if i meet a DM who tells me that all weapons are banned except for a bunch of weapons he found realistic, i would laugh in his face." *Tsk* It's been explained to you twice now, and you're still having trouble comprehending. Clearly, I need to use much smaller words. My. Group. Chose. Not. To. Use. These. I. Didn't. Make. That. Choice. Simple enough for you? You probably find this unrealistic as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kusari_gama Wrong again. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? I own a kusari-gama; I know how a kusari-gama is used. I wouldn't want to use one in a real life-or-death fight; I'm not all that good with it. You really seem to have difficulty differentiating between weapons that exist and are usable in real life, and ones that are totally made up and unusable. You do remember you killed the full caster classes Yep. Believe it or not, I do. I also remember that the sky is blue. (or you're pasting "align weapon" onto any sub caster)? Tell you what: go refamiliarize yourself with the spell lists for the sub casters. Then come back and we'll talk. Your magic items are restricted (love how you say they equip themselves with apporiate weapons) Yep; I recognize that you can't conceive of players being able to come up with appropriate weapons if they can't run out and buy them from the magic shop. Suffice to say that, again, my players are clearly a bit more creative. You're ability to see "glaringly obvious" stuff seems to have failed you there. Well, no; your knowledge of the options available in the rules and your creativity have failed you. The only one that even works at all is 1, where the DM has to compensate I ask again: do you ever get tired of being wrong? YOU aren't skilled enough to come up with any way to overcome DR given the campaign restrictions; many other players (I daresay most) are. It just seems ironic someone who says he's "more mature than that" is saying all this stuff. Context, son, context. It's not just for breakfast anymore. I am too mature to laugh in someone's face--particularly in the context of a game and a friendly setting--simply because I don't like a ruling they made and didn't get my way. That's the act of a spoiled child. I am not too mature to tell someone who's being a fool that they're being a fool, or to let the air out of their balloon verbally. I don't suffer fools gladly; what can I say? Now, granted, that's the act of an arrogant, cynical, and fairly elitist person, but I freely admit to being all of those things. Fortunately i didn't paint myself as the epitome of maturity :heehee Thank heaven for that. Now: we can continue this game all day, if you like: you'll make some pronouncement, I'll demonstrate why you're wrong, et cetera, ad nauseam. I don't mind; I'm starting to feel vaguely like a bully, but I'm sure that'll pass. Or, we can get back to the subject at hand, and you can try to make some relevant points. Let's start here, since you're so big on "stupid reasons." Define "stupid." What, in your opinion, constitutes a "stupid reason" for disallowing something? What's the acid test?
Mock26 08-05-07, 01:44 PM	Seems you missed the point. You do actually realise that consistently finding magical halberds, pikes, ransuers is pretty ridiculous. They are uncommon weapons.... I know that we're talking fantasy here, but in the real world a lot of experts say that there were more polearms than swords. After all, all those thousands of medieval peasants weren't marching to war with swords. They were marching with polearms.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-05-07, 02:45 PM	I know that we're talking fantasy here, but in the real world a lot of experts say that there were more polearms than swords. After all, all those thousands of medieval peasants weren't marching to war with swords. They were marching with polearms. Well a sword usually cost more than a peasant would have seen in his entire existence. However a long pointy stick was easier to come by, and usually cheaper. /off topic I'm not going to use the term "stupid" but I will say that "bad" rulings do happen. I find they most often spring of a misinterpretation of the RAW, or a lack of understanding of how different rules interact. Or even forgetting about certain feats. I find the best way to find this out is to just ask your DM, why they ruled the way they did. For the longest time I used to think you got your base attack bonus with trip checks. I was wrong, and we play it according to the RAW now. It not that the player who pointed it out was not my friend or anything, just that I had made a mistake. Going back to the car analogy. Suppose the drive is about to make a wrong turn. Is it wrong to say, "uh dude my house is that way"? Sometimes banning can stem from this kind of mistake as well. Say a DM finds psionics too over powered because s/he doesn't understand how augmenting them works. Suppose the DM thinks that a character can augment a power for as many power points as they have without any restrictions. Hey, an energy missile dealing 35ish d6 at level 5 would be unbalancing. Even if after shooting it off they were a commoner with a good will save for the rest of the day. Now the DM may change their mind when they learn that you can only augment up to a maximum of your manifester level (ML). And if you wanted to you could take a feat to increase that to ML +1, more at higher levels, but a max of + 3 at 15th level. Further you take a d8 points of damage/ augmented above your ML, unless you burn another feat, which only covers powers of 3rd level or lower.
SirTodd 08-05-07, 03:33 PM	All this argument about setting specific detail seems fairly off topic. Everyone is going to have a different idea about what a stupid reason is or not. In the end a GM can do whatever he wants. And if he can keep his players while doing so, it's fair game. If he can't keep his players, then thats probably a good indicator he has stepped over the line and should rethink his ruling. PS (off topic): I don't think Psionics are overpowered, just unfair. There are spells a mage casts that can't ever improve past a certain point. 5d4+5 for a magic missle or +4 from mage armor for example. A psion can always pump it up all the way up to his level without difficulty. So that level 1 effect can do up to 20d6 or more depending on level limits. So all the wizards low level spells sit there largely unused while the psion can use them at full power (with some extra points spent) or use the points to simply manifest extra 9th level effects. At the top levels magic and psionics are very similar. Its the extra versitility for your lower level stuff that makes it unfair. I think there should be a warning to use one or the other (magic vs psi) not both.
Caelic 08-05-07, 04:12 PM	I'm not going to use the term "stupid" but I will say that "bad" rulings do happen. I find they most often spring of a misinterpretation of the RAW, or a lack of understanding of how different rules interact. Or even forgetting about certain feats. It seems to me, though, that there's a world of difference between simply making a bad rules call and saying at the start of the game, "Look, we're going to do things a little differently this time around." Bad rules calls can absolutely be made, and I don't particularly have a problem with a player questioning that. What I do have a problem with is a player arguing the call during the game. Bring it to the DM's attention. If he corrects it, great; if not, it's probably best to save further discussion for the end of the game. It may be that there are factors of which you're unaware (perhaps the item which you're positive you did enough damage to sunder is made of a material with which you're unfamiliar) or simply that the DM is making a judgement call along the lines of "Nobody died, and backing up and redoing this to fix the mistake would be more trouble than it's worth." Either way, listening to a two-hour argument between one player and the DM is no fun for anyone else. Sometimes banning can stem from this kind of mistake as well. I actually very seldom encounter that. Can you think of any real-life examples, in your experience, where someone has banned something because they misunderstood the rules? Keep in mind, there's a difference between that and understanding the rules, but disagreeing over whether something is overpowered.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-05-07, 06:50 PM	It seems to me, though, that there's a world of difference between simply making a bad rules call and saying at the start of the game, "Look, we're going to do things a little differently this time around." Bad rules calls can absolutely be made, and I don't particularly have a problem with a player questioning that.Well yaa, one is a house rule. The other is a mistake. However some house rules can be born out of mistakes. I'm not saying all are, just that it is possible to make a mistake with something, and then house rule it "fix" it. When 3.5 came out I made a house rule that fighters got intimidate as a class skill. I'd had that one since 3.0, and missed that they picked it up when the change over occurred. I find though that most house rules are made from DMs who understand how it normally works, but change it to address a perceived problem. Except on the boards, all kinds of crazy stuff happens here. What I do have a problem with is a player arguing the call during the game. Bring it to the DM's attention. If he corrects it, great; if not, it's probably best to save further discussion for the end of the game. It may be that there are factors of which you're unaware (perhaps the item which you're positive you did enough damage to sunder is made of a material with which you're unfamiliar) or simply that the DM is making a judgment call along the lines of "Nobody died, and backing up and redoing this to fix the mistake would be more trouble than it's worth." I totally agree. There is a time and a place, and during the game is neither the time, nor the place to argue rules calls. I would have a problem if the DM refused to discuss it during an appropriate time, such as after the game, or over an email in between games. Somethings you just agree to let slide and do it the right way next time, some things need to be retro fixed. Say a DM was confused about something that lead to the character being killed. I'd say that could be worth a retro fix. I forgot once that shape breath added 1 to the number of rounds before a dragon can breath again. The dragon had 1 hp left when it breathed a turn early, it fried all of the party. After words someone asked me about it, and my response oh :censored: your right! I'm sorry about that. Uh hmm you all life, and the dragon actually dies...heres it hoards..sorry. I actually very seldom encounter that. Can you think of any real-life examples, in your experience, where someone has banned something because they misunderstood the rules? Keep in mind, there's a difference between that and understanding the rules, but disagreeing over whether something is overpowered. Yaa know, now that you mention it I can't. I've seen lots of house rules addressing forbidding things that couldn't be done in the first place. Oh-wait I had a DM once ban the OBI because he was afraid you could combine its precise shot + greater multi shot. But it is rare.
Manic Man 08-06-07, 03:11 AM	Well, no. First, you suggested that I would find them "unrealistic," which has nothing at all to do with whether they're common or not. If you were trying to make a point about their rareness, or the likelihood of encountering magical versions of same, you did a pretty incompetent job of it. My bad, somehow i thought you would have more than a 1 page memory. Here is what i said "Somehow spiked chain fighters and hook hammer users will have nice weapons picked up from their opponents consistently?" You said "Well, no, because most of the people in my group actually know something about weapons, and prefer a campaign that doesn't involve totally unrealistic weapons." I said "Ah so the truth tumbles out, not only magic was limited. I dunno, maybe you'll find a halberd to be unrealistic as well? Pike? Ranseur?" Now, i thought it was after all glaringly obvious i was as i quote "trying to make a point about their rareness, or the likelihood of encountering magical versions of same" Oh and i do hope you're not thinking that magic equivalents of "common as dirt" weapons are common? Unless you find that master smiths are plenty willing to make masterwork versions of such weapons and mages would find it worthwhile to enchant "common as dirt" weapons? In the sense of "I can judge what's an appropriate encounter a heck of a lot better than this joke of a system?" Yes. I recognize that the notion of using judgement rather than Following The Almighty Rules seems foreign to you, but it happens more often than you'd think. Its just funny that you did not understand that as more rule changes are made, more loopholes and inconsistencies open up. 3.5 already has enough loopholes and inconsistencies but those said flaws have been shown on the boards, so you at least you know a large number of them Yet you change the system based on nothing more than "judgement". Would it have less flaws then 3.5? Sure, anything is possible, except that it did not go through rigrious usage by thousands of groups. So...that's it? That's the best you can do? "Oooo, look, some magic-using classes are more powerful than others! That proves magic isn't overpowered!"? Its almost to the point that while you say that you can spot glaringly obvious stuff you contradict yourself with statements such as these. The Magic system is not overpowered simply because the Healer sucks worse than the fighter. Here let me help you think through i) The healer cannot use magic? ii) Is the healer overpowered? iii) If all spells were removed except the healer's spell list is magic overpowered? If the answer is no to all, it means magic is not overpowered. Yes, some spells are overpowered. Some spells with feats and items are overpowered (persist/DMM/nightsticks), some spell combos are over powered, but magic itself is not overpowered. And while the druid is regularly trotted out as being overpowered, i'm surprised that if you're as experienced as you say, you do not recognise the overpoweredness of the class does not come from its spellcasting. *Tsk* It's been explained to you twice now, and you're still having trouble comprehending. Clearly, I need to use much smaller words. My. Group. Chose. Not. To. Use. These. I. Didn't. Make. That. Choice. Simple enough for you? So let me set this straight so there's no more evasion. If your group used the spiked chain and what not, they would find plenty of magical equivalents? Tell you what: go refamiliarize yourself with the spell lists for the sub casters. Then come back and we'll talk. You should look at the description of the spell that you think will solve your DR problem. Look at who can cast it. Think a bit more. It will come to you in time. *snip worthless stuff* Sure, sure. Giving evasive vague statements as counter points is a great way to show you know anything at all. Sure that the D&D game needs more people who are arrogant and elitist, more "my way or the highway" DMs then eh? *edited for post shortening*
Lethanic 08-06-07, 06:13 AM	There is a pretty easy distinction. Magic, bearing its own rules, is only generally expected to be consistent with itself. A weapon is expected to obey certain physical properties and at least even recognize that the laws of physics exist. They are completely different categories.
SirTodd 08-06-07, 07:45 AM	Sure that the D&D game needs more people who are arrogant and elitist, more "my way or the highway" DMs then eh? Where you see arrogant and elitist, I see much needed GMs with the Authority and Stones to stand up to argumentative problem players. Because like it or not the problem player is far more likely to cause disruptions in a game than any GM good or bad.
Roog 08-06-07, 08:44 AM	Its almost to the point that while you say that you can spot glaringly obvious stuff you contradict yourself with statements such as these. The Magic system is not overpowered simply because the Healer sucks worse than the fighter. Here let me help you think through i) The healer cannot use magic? ii) Is the healer overpowered? iii) If all spells were removed except the healer's spell list is magic overpowered? If the answer is no to all, it means magic is not overpowered. Yes, some spells are overpowered. Some spells with feats and items are overpowered (persist/DMM/nightsticks), some spell combos are over powered, but magic itself is not overpowered. Could you explain what you mean in this section. If I am parsing your three questions correctly (and I doubt that I am, because I find this section so difficult to understand), they are equivalent to: "If the healer was the only magic user, would the healer be overpowered?" I find it difficult to conclude (like you seem to have done) that: (A) If the answer to that question is NO, then magic is not overpowered and (B) If magic is overpowered then the answer to that question is yes.
Roog 08-06-07, 08:47 AM	Sure that the D&D game needs more people who are arrogant and elitist, more "my way or the highway" DMs then eh? They are not the same thing.
High Octane 08-06-07, 09:04 AM	Perhaps you should try harder not to sound like Yoda when you write. Below the belt you are hitting.
Caelic 08-06-07, 11:10 AM	My bad, somehow i thought you would have more than a 1 page memory. Here is what i said "Somehow spiked chain fighters and hook hammer users will have nice weapons picked up from their opponents consistently?" You said "Well, no, because most of the people in my group actually know something about weapons, and prefer a campaign that doesn't involve totally unrealistic weapons." I said "Ah so the truth tumbles out, not only magic was limited. I dunno, maybe you'll find a halberd to be unrealistic as well? Pike? Ranseur?" Now, i thought it was after all glaringly obvious i was as i quote "trying to make a point about their rareness, or the likelihood of encountering magical versions of same" Well, no. It wasn't. You're a fairly incoherent writer, and frankly, your stream-of-consciousness style isn't particularly structured. So let's break it down and follow the steps of your "argument" : You say "Hooked hammers and spiked chains are rare and hard to find." I respond with "My group prefers not to use unrealistic weapons." You respond with "I suppose you find halberds unrealistic too!" I respond with "No, I don't." And THEN you responded with "Seems you missed the point. You do actually realise that consistently finding magical halberds, pikes, ransuers is pretty ridiculous. They are uncommon weapons...." Nope; sorry. You jumped tracks. Up to that point in the debate, there was no discussion whatsoever of the rarity of halberds. The only issue on the table was whether I'd find them "unrealistic." This is classic non-sequitur. It seems to be a hallmark of your arguments, the moreso as you get agitated. I'm sorry that your ability to construct a good argument is lacking, but please don't try to blame the rest of us for that. Oh and i do hope you're not thinking that magic equivalents of "common as dirt" weapons are common? Unless you find that master smiths are plenty willing to make masterwork versions of such weapons and mages would find it worthwhile to enchant "common as dirt" weapons? Uhm...arrows? Spears? Nice try at backpedalling. Just fess up; you didn't know enough about weapons to know that halberds weren't "uncommon weapons." Its just funny that you did not understand that as more rule changes are made, more loopholes and inconsistencies open up. It's actually rather sad that you don't understand that a good DM is capable of implementing rules changes that take that into account and compensate for it. 3.5 already has enough loopholes and inconsistencies but those said flaws have been shown on the boards, so you at least you know a large number of them You have it backwards. You may need to come to the boards to discover those flaws; many of us discovered those flaws and then came to the boards to discuss them. After, of course, correcting them for our own campaigns. Yet you change the system based on nothing more than "judgement". Well, that, and about 20 years of experience as a game designer. Would it have less flaws then 3.5? Sure, anything is possible, except that it did not go through rigrious usage by thousands of groups. Nor did most of the 3.5 material go through "rigorous usage by thousands of groups" prior to release. Are you sure you were being honest when you said you've been gaming since 1983? I usually don't expect to see this kind of wide-eyed adulation for the written rules in gamers that old. Its almost to the point that while you say that you can spot glaringly obvious stuff you contradict yourself with statements such as these. The Magic system is not overpowered simply because the Healer sucks worse than the fighter. Here let me help you think through i) The healer cannot use magic? ii) Is the healer overpowered? iii) If all spells were removed except the healer's spell list is magic overpowered? If the answer is no to all, it means magic is not overpowered. Soo...the glaringly obvious point here is that you have a very shaky grasp of logic? "Guns are dangerous. They're dangerous because they shoot people. An unloaded gun cannot shoot people. Therefore, guns are not dangerous." Are you seriously arguing that magic is not overpowered because if we removed ninety-five percent of it from the system entirely it wouldn't be overpowered? Well, heck, by THAT logic, fighters are overpowered! If we remove every other class, fighters will dominate every adventuring party! And while the druid is regularly trotted out as being overpowered, i'm surprised that if you're as experienced as you say, you do not recognise the overpoweredness of the class does not come from its spellcasting. Nope. It comes from the (magical) spellcasting plus the (magical) ability to assume multiple forms on a regular basis and continue to cast the (magical) spells while in the (magically-assumed) form. Now, the CLERIC doesn't get the magical form-shifting ability; his overpoweredness comes entirely from his spells, as does the wizard's. So let me set this straight so there's no more evasion. If your group used the spiked chain and what not, they would find plenty of magical equivalents? Again, please don't blame your issues with reading comprehension on the rest of us. Now: it seems like, in your excitement, you've basically forgotten what we were talking about--again--so let me remind you: This is a campaign where magic items were rare. NO, in this campaign, they wouldn't "find plenty of magical equivalents." They also wouldn't "find plenty of magical equivalents" of longswords, daggers, or spears. They'd have about as good a chance of finding a magical spiked chain as any other weapon, though. In a campaign world where magic was more plentiful, and where the spiked chain was in play, there would logically be a good number of them, given the mechanics of the weapon, and I would proceed from that logic. Yes, I realize that that means I would have to tamper with the sacred random magic item tables. I hope you won't find it too shocking that I actually have the temerity to do that. You should look at the description of the spell that you think will solve your DR problem. Look at who can cast it. Think a bit more. It will come to you in time. You really haven't read a lot of books other than the PHB, have you? Poke around. There are quite a lot of methods of bypassing DR; some of them don't require spells at all. And...again, I know this will be shocking for you...it's possible to create new spells, and new feats, and use them. Sure, sure. Giving evasive vague statements as counter points is a great way to show you know anything at all. ...and deleting points you don't want to respond to and then claiming they were "vague" certainly reflects well on YOUR debating skills. Sure that the D&D game needs more people who are arrogant and elitist, more "my way or the highway" DMs then eh? Well, there's a difference between the two. A "my way or the highway" DM doesn't need to be arrogant and elitist; an arrogant elitist doesn't need to be a "my way or the highway" DM. That said: no, I don't really think the game needs more arrogant elitists. I think there are about enough of us already, and we're more than qualified to mind the shop. :)
Caelic 08-06-07, 11:11 AM	Below the belt you are hitting. A big jerk, I am! ;)
Manic Man 08-06-07, 11:22 AM	I find it difficult to conclude (like you seem to have done) that: (A) If the answer to that question is NO, then magic is not overpowered and (B) If magic is overpowered then the answer to that question is yes. Yes you are correct. If the base premise is that magic if is overpowered, the system would be overpowered regardless. If instead you say that in the case of the healer, it is not overpowered, then it has shown that the system is not overpowered unconditionally. Consider then the addition of spells outside of that list. As you add spells, you may at some point say that the list is now overpowered because of its flexibility. Now up to that point, is magic overpowered? Then consider the war mage and the beguiler spell lists.
Manic Man 08-06-07, 11:24 AM	They are not the same thing. The qualities of the former is found in the latter. Not always but often enough
Roog 08-06-07, 11:57 AM	Yes you are correct. If the base premise is that magic if is overpowered, the system would be overpowered regardless. Thats just bad logic. As bad as 3 > 2 1 is part of 2 => 1 > 2 If the magic system is overpowered, that does not mean that every single part of the magic system is overpowered. If instead you say that in the case of the healer, it is not overpowered, then it has shown that the system is not overpowered unconditionally. "Overpowered unconditionally" is meaningless phrase. If magic "overpowered unconditionally" then it would be overpowered even under the condition that "magic does not exist in the game". All games that are played are played in specific conditions. If we want to discuss overpoweredness, then we can specify generic conditions, and work from there. Consider then the addition of spells outside of that list. As you add spells, you may at some point say that the list is now overpowered because of its flexibility. Now up to that point, is magic overpowered? That just contradicts what you said before. You can't claim that adding things to the magic system will make it overpowered and also claim that removing enough things will not stop it from being overpowered.
Manic Man 08-06-07, 12:26 PM	So let's break it down and follow the steps of your "argument" : You say "Hooked hammers and spiked chains are rare and hard to find." I respond with "My group prefers not to use unrealistic weapons." You respond with "I suppose you find halberds unrealistic too!" I respond with "No, I don't." And THEN you responded with "Seems you missed the point. You do actually realise that consistently finding magical halberds, pikes, ransuers is pretty ridiculous. They are uncommon weapons...." As i said, i mistook that you would have more than a 1 page memory. Interestingly, it seems you missed the first point completely. It was the magical versions of less used weapons are hard to find. No wonder you cannot keep track Nope; sorry. You jumped tracks. Up to that point in the debate, there was no discussion whatsoever of the rarity of halberds. The only issue on the table was whether I'd find them "unrealistic." You evaded the first point of magic versions of rarely seen weapons consistently being found, by simply saying those weapons are not "realistic". I pointed out weapons that are "realistic". You continued to evade the question. Uhm...arrows? Spears? Nice try at backpedalling. Just fess up; you didn't know enough about weapons to know that halberds weren't "uncommon weapons." My bad, i assumed you understood the initial point on magical versions of uncommon weapons. I will spell it out clearer for people like you next time. It's funnier that you don't understand that a good DM is capable of implementing rules changes that take that into account and compensate for it. And the evasion continues You have it backwards. You may need to come to the boards to discover those flaws; I discovered those flaws, and then came to the boards to discuss them. After, of course, correcting them for my own campaign. Self praise is like no other praise eh? Did i know all the flaws of 3.0 before i came to these boards? Nope. Did i know some of them? Sure. Do i know all of them even now? Unlikely I applaud your ability to know all the flaws in the game Well, that, and about 20 years of experience as a game designer. Oh wait, you're a teacher of history and now a professional game designer? Hmm. Fascinating. A lot of the long time DMs i know, including myself have done designing games, so unless you're a professional and published, where the market will judge its merits, your statement there means nothing Nor did most of the 3.5 material go through "rigorous usage by thousands of groups" prior to release. Please point out where i said it was "rigorous usage by thousands of groups prior to release"? Hmm? Soo...the glaringly obvious point here is that you have the logical thinking skills of a caterpillar? "Guns are dangerous. They're dangerous because they shoot people. An unloaded gun cannot shoot people. Therefore, guns are not dangerous." Are you seriously arguing that magic is not overpowered because if we removed ninety-five percent of it from the system entirely it wouldn't be overpowered? Well, heck, by THAT logic, fighters are overpowered! If we remove every other class, fighters will dominate every adventuring party! Remarkable. Here let me try to simplify my explaination. You make a statement that container X overflows regardless I say, empty the container, pour in a small amount of water. Does it overflow? If it does not, pour more in until it does. Now is it obvious enough that your initial statement is wrong? As for your guns example, here is the correct flow You say "Guns are dangerous. They're dangerous because they shoot people" I say, split the gun into its component parts. Hold the casing. Can it shoot people? No? Add in the cocking handle. Can it shoot people? No? Add in the firing mechanism. Can it shoot people? No? Add in the full magazine, **** and release safety. Can it shoot people? Yes? Then remove the magazine, clear the bullet chamber. Put to safety Is it dangerous now because the gun "can shoot people"? No Nope. It comes from the (magical) spellcasting plus the (magical) ability to assume multiple forms on a regular basis and continue to cast the (magical) spells while in the (magically-assumed) form. Now, the CLERIC doesn't get the magical form-shifting ability; his overpoweredness comes entirely from his spells, as does the wizard's. You missed out the animal companion of the druid The cleric's overpoweredness comes from its d8 HD, cleric BAB, 2 good saves of the important kind, use of DMM, while being able to cast spells. Go to the optimization boards and learn something. This is a campaign where magic items were rare. NO, in this campaign, they wouldn't "find plenty of magical equivalents." They also wouldn't "find plenty of magical equivalents" of longswords, daggers, or spears. They'd have about as good a chance of finding a magical spiked chain as any other weapon, though. Now wasn't that easy? Since all weapons have a equal chance of being found, the chance of finding a usable weapon for anyone is at best ~1 in 68. Since you seem to be using supplements, depending on what you use, that could easily jack up available weapon possibilities to double that or more. Lets just double it and round down to 1 in 130. Since you admit to not using the CR rules but there is no other yardstick unless you have something more objective than ad hoc assignments, we will have to use 13 encounters per level. At level 10, 100% 1 weapon At level 20, 100% 1 weapon. So a level 20 character has 2 weapons over his entire play time, assuming this is started at level 1, not counting story awards, no treasure encounters, etc which would reduce the number of weapons. The chance of it have DR bypass capabilities is low, unless the DM places it there to compensate. And assuming the XP rules are even in play. Edit: Added because the post was updated after i posted And...again, I know this will be shocking for you...it's possible to create new spells, and new feats, and use them. From your edited part here, you seem to have understood what i was saying when i told you to look at the spell descriptions and casters. Good. I just find it funny you're trying to bring up spell research as a point to counter DR problems, because you might as well paste align weapon to everyone's spell list ...and deleting points you don't want to respond to and then claiming they were "vague" certainly reflects well on YOUR debating skills. Actually you should reread what you posted. It was more evasion and empty insults. Pretty much like the rest of the post i am answering now.
Roog 08-06-07, 12:32 PM	Since all weapons have a equal chance of being found, the chance of finding a usable weapon for anyone is at best ~1 in 68. Since you seem to be using supplements, depending on what you use, that could easily jack up available weapon possibilities to double that or more. Lets just double it and round down to 1 in 130. So by your logic each character is only capable of using one type of weapon? Since you admit to not using the CR rules but there is no other yardstick unless you have something more objective than ad hoc assignments, we will have to use 13 encounters per level. At level 10, 100% 1 weapon At level 20, 100% 1 weapon. So a level 20 character has 2 weapons over his entire play time, assuming this is started at level 1, not counting story awards, no treasure encounters, etc which would reduce the number of weapons. The chance of it have DR bypass capabilities is low, unless the DM places it there to compensate. That logic only holds if 1: The only way to acquire items is through combat. 2: Every combat leaves behind exactly one magic weapon. 3: The PCs are unable to influence what weapons they are likely to encounter. 4: Each character is only capable of using one type of weapon I suspect that in Caelic's game (as in mine, and many other peoples), those three assumptions are all false.
UltimateReality 08-06-07, 12:37 PM	Where you see arrogant and elitist, I see much needed GMs with the Authority and StonesI think they're the same thing but fall along a continuum. Something like so: [-----------------------|-----------------------] pushover authority and stones arrogant elitist Where exactly "Authority & Stones" lie on that continuum will change based each circumstance and each group. the problem player is far more likely to cause disruptions in a game than any GM good or bad.There's also going to be more problem players than DMs by sheer dint of the fact that the former outnumber the latter by 4:1. At least in raw numbers. If you're looking at proportional representation, I'm not sure. You'd have to do some kind of statistical analysis on that, which means surveys to determine if people are bad DMs and players, and we all know how easy it is to agree on that...
Manic Man 08-06-07, 12:41 PM	As bad as 3 > 2 1 is part of 2 => 1 > 2 The correct sequence would be If 3 > 2 1+1+1 > 2 Does it mean 1+1 > 2? If the magic system is overpowered, that does not mean that every single part of the magic system is overpowered. Yup, you're right. So take out the overpowered parts. Why take out the whole thing? "Overpowered unconditionally" is meaningless phrase. If magic "overpowered unconditionally" then it would be overpowered even under the condition that "magic does not exist in the game". Nope, it means the system in question (magic) is overpowered regardless of conditions applied, with regards to the external system (the D&D system as a whole) That just contradicts what you said before. You can't claim that adding things to the magic system will make it overpowered and also claim that removing enough things will not stop it from being overpowered. Ok lets use maths. Its easiest to understand Now lets say Lets say someone says "3 > 2" regardless I say "sure but the components of 3 are not all > 2" I say "1>2" is false correct? I say "1+1> 2" is false correct? Now what i did was to break it into easily seen components and add it to the point that its still not > 2. I started with the healer list "1>2" Then i suggested you add in stuff until its nearly over hence "1+1>2" Did you understand that?
Manic Man 08-06-07, 12:48 PM	So by your logic each character is only capable of using one type of weapon? Using well, yes Give a shortsword to a fighter who has put all his feats into a weapon like lets say a halberd. How well does he fare? Remember already he has problems with DR That logic only holds if 1: The only way to acquire items is through combat. 2: Every combat leaves behind exactly one magic weapon. 3: The PCs are unable to influence what weapons they are likely to encounter. 4: Each character is only capable of using one type of weapon I suspect that in Caelic's game (as in mine, and many other peoples), those three assumptions are all false. 1. This is true, the DM could bestow specific PC usable weapons as rewards or give them away free. 2. Well if you didn't bother with the wealth by level rules, sure maybe combat would yield more than 1 significant weapon. 3. Influencing the weapons they are likely to encounter? You mean going only for enemies armed with weapon X? 4. Your fourth point is answered above
Roog 08-06-07, 12:49 PM	Now what i did was to break it into easily seen components and add it to the point that its still not > 2. I started with the healer list "1>2" Then i suggested you add in stuff until its nearly over hence "1+1>2" Did you understand that? I understand your post, but it is not consistent with what you said before. "If the healer was the only magic user, would the healer be overpowered?" I find it difficult to conclude (like you seem to have done) that: (A) If the answer to that question is NO, then magic is not overpowered and (B) If magic is overpowered then the answer to that question is yes. Yes you are correct. If the base premise is that magic if is overpowered, the system would be overpowered regardless. So if magic is overpowered (B), then the by what you said the healer is also overpowered - even if all other magic is removed.
shadzar 08-06-07, 12:54 PM	Are you sure you were being honest when you said you've been gaming since 1983? I usually don't expect to see this kind of wide-eyed adulation for the written rules in gamers that old. :thinks: do you mean older gamers as in their age, or length of time gaming? 53 year old that has been playing for a year or two. 23 year old that has been playing 8 years. which is more close to what you mean by "gamers that old"?
solbergb 08-06-07, 12:58 PM	On an unrelated note. Why are there never any settings where crafting magic items is a recently developed art? There is. My wife's campaign idea had writing as a recent invention, which lead to the concept of scrolls and wizardry being recent inventions. Older forms of magic needed ancestry from dragons or other magical critters and often involved tattoos or potions based on the blood of such creatures. Magic item creation thus was recently taken out of the divine and "inherited" spheres and made available to the "masses" - anyone smart enough to learn wizardry. This caused a big disruption in the world and it's still ongoing.
Manic Man 08-06-07, 01:00 PM	So if magic is overpowered (B), then the by what you said the healer is also overpowered - even if all other magic is removed. I was not the one saying magic is overpowered. I was saying magic is fine. Some spells and combinations are overpowered but the system as a whole is fine. Which lead to me pointing out the healer's spell list.
Roog 08-06-07, 01:09 PM	Using well, yes Give a shortsword to a fighter who has put all his feats into a weapon like lets say a halberd. How well does he fare? Remember already he has problems with DR Thats irrelevant unless the PC is a fighter; and even if he is, then he would be better off with other feats. Weapon specific feats tend to not be high-powered feats. (Or he could take a Warblade etc and use weapon aptitude) That logic only holds if 1: The only way to acquire items is through combat. 2: Every combat leaves behind exactly one magic weapon. 3: The PCs are unable to influence what weapons they are likely to encounter. 4: Each character is only capable of using one type of weapon I suspect that in Caelic's game (as in mine, and many other peoples), those three assumptions are all false. 1. This is true, the DM could bestow specific PC usable weapons as rewards or give them away free. 2. Well if you didn't bother with the wealth by level rules, sure maybe combat would yield more than 1 significant weapon. 3. Influencing the weapons they are likely to encounter? You mean going only for enemies armed with weapon X? 4. Your fourth point is answered above 1. They could buy them / make them / quest for them 2. Matching wealth by level does not require the treasure from every fight to be exactly the recommended number. As the party fights more and less dangerous opponents, they will have encounters with a range of yields. (If your assumption about weapons were correct the party could still acquire larger numbers of weapons of lesser value be fighting larger numbers of low CR opponents - and they would desire those lesser weapon if they normally only ran into two usable weapons by level 20) 3. If weapons are that rare, they will be well known. The PCs can target NPCs with specific weapons, or they could travel to somewhere known for its use of that weapon, or they could choose their dungeoneering adventures based on knowledge of what weapons they may find. 4. or not.
Roog 08-06-07, 01:12 PM	I was not the one saying magic is overpowered. I was saying magic is fine. Some spells and combinations are overpowered but the system as a whole is fine. Which lead to me pointing out the healer's spell list. Thats still bad logic. Its equivalent to saying that because the Warrior (on even the Commoner) is not overpowered, all melee is not overpowered.
SirTodd 08-06-07, 01:52 PM	I think they're the same thing but fall along a continuum. Something like so: [-----------------------|-----------------------] pushover authority and stones arrogant elitist Where exactly "Authority & Stones" lie on that continuum will change based each circumstance and each group. There's also going to be more problem players than DMs by sheer dint of the fact that the former outnumber the latter by 4:1. At least in raw numbers. If you're looking at proportional representation, I'm not sure. You'd have to do some kind of statistical analysis on that, which means surveys to determine if people are bad DMs and players, and we all know how easy it is to agree on that... I am not sure I agree with the continuum idea. But you may be onto something. I will have to think about it. Actually I was basing the later statement on the fact that a GM has a vested interest in keeping his game going where as a problem player doesn't care how many games he ruins. He just wants to get his way. But the weight of how dramatically outnumbered GMs are vs players also is valid support. I am certain you're just joking about setting up a survey, unless you have a lot more free time than I do. Also if you were going to run such a survey better questions would be: How much disruption do problem players cause in your games? And how much disruption is caused by a bad GM?
Ongorth 08-06-07, 02:11 PM	Thats still bad logic. Its equivalent to saying that because the Warrior (on even the Commoner) is not overpowered, all melee is not overpowered. Missing the point a little? Let's all not read what people type because it makes arguing easier! Can you explain how "magic" is overpowered without citing any spells, spell lists or class features that might go with a spellcasting class? Manic Man is saying that magic isn't the problem, its certain spells, combinations of spells and combintions of spellcasting class features that are the problem. You don't have to scrap the mechanical paradigm of magic, because it isn't broken. You have to scrap or modifiy specific instances within the system because they are broken. The problem is with magic, there are a lot of problematic instances, to the point where it is very reasonable to say, "you know, it'd just be easier to start over." Personally, I don't agree and it seems silly to say that you can't fix overpowered spellcasting classes by changing the spell lists or class features, since that really is the source of the problem, not the mechanics of magic itself.
Alyri 08-06-07, 02:36 PM	Magic is overpowered. The whole game revolves around spellcasting. Ever count how many spells there are compared to how many feats there are?
Comus 08-06-07, 03:04 PM	Magic is overpowered. The whole game revolves around spellcasting. Yes. It does revolve around spellcasting. It's only overpowered at high levels, and even then most of the 'overpowered' feeling is just that players have instant answers to certain problems (like teleport as an answer to travel time, speak with dead as a solution to most murder mysteries, etc) instead of having to muddle through them like they did at low levels. Yes, spellcasters can defeat an encounter in one round, and they can make themselves nearly impossible to kill, and they can replace every other party member with animal companions/golems/summoned creatures, and they can do all of that at the same time. This is still mostly a problem of a limited number of spells and the design intent of the Druid and Cleric (to make them more powerful than other classes because no one wanted to play them). Fireball has rarely ruined a game, for example. Ever count how many spells there are compared to how many feats there are? What does this have to do with anything at all? While feats are weaker and fewer in number than spells, feats can be taken by anyone who meets the prerequisites, while spells are class-specific. Feats are generally always-on, spells are usually one-use. Most importantly, feats and spells are not supposed to share the same design space. They're different entities.
UltimateReality 08-06-07, 04:44 PM	I am not sure I agree with the continuum idea. But you may be onto something. I will have to think about it.I'm not normally a fan of easy polar opposites, but I do believe in moderation. I'm flattered you find my idea worth considering. Actually I was basing the later statement on the fact that a GM has a vested interest in keeping his game going where as a problem player doesn't care how many games he ruins. He just wants to get his way.This is very true. Of course, sometimes the GM wants to keep his game going in such a way that actually drives away most players. Thankfully there are lots of GMs and players out there for every style, so a GM who I'd find abhorrently restrictive (or way too permissive) is almost assured of finding likeminded individuals who will enjoy his or her game. This frees me up to find GMs and players who I agree with. :) Also if you were going to run such a survey better questions would be: How much disruption do problem players cause in your games? And how much disruption is caused by a bad GM?That's where you get into the shades of grey. How do you measure the severity of a disruption? I can think of numerous metrics: amount of time it took up that could have been spent gaming or gaming in a more productive manner, strength of emotions on the particular disagreement, impact on the group's game "style" (what changed, how much, and for how long). I think the best you could hope for is to ask people to label it using a mild/moderate/severe type scale. I also believe the results you would get would depend more upon the individual than their position in the group. Disruption is disruption, regardless of which side of the screen you're on. Disruptions tend to affect the whole group, whether the problem is the player or the GM, regardless of how many people are "in" on the conflict first-hand. Even if Player McWhiny Complains-A-Lot is only harassing the GM, the GM has to expend energy into dealing with him, prepare contingency STFU-that's-how-it-works speeches when planning her adventures, and vent about the Player somewhere. If, instead, Player Teamkill and Player Grudge-Match are constantly PVPing each other, the rest of the group is going to get annoyed at having to wait for them to make characters, or having to constantly introduce them and mesh them into the party. And GM Put-Upon, who is quietly dissatisfied with her group's hack 'n slash mentality but doesn't tell them about it, is still affecting the entire group when she enforces houserules or adventure styles that strongly reward roleplaying and punish combat.
OravennasBrother 08-06-07, 05:08 PM	I'm seeing a lot of "DM's have to permit" blah blah blah, but I'm going to now look at the problem from the other side. I join a new campaign and the DM states "I've decided the society will be indistinguishable from a modern democracy, with all the little niceties. Juries, rules of evidence, no nobility or caste distinctions etc." I don't enjoy such anachronism and before I begin play I ALWAYS ask the DM about the society of his setting. For D&D I desire a medieval setting, by which I mean Feudalism with alls its inequalities - even if my character is one of the lower class men-at-arms. SO if a DM changes (and I have had that happen) I'll remind them that they told me we were playing in a medieval/feudal setting. If they are adamant I'll leave because I won't waste time with a campaign I won't enjoy. Now lets say I run into a DM whose campaign is based on the premise "Fighter Type Classes are retarded and underpowered so everyone has to play a full progression caster." I won't bother trying to get them to allow me a Fighter character because I can almost guarantee that EVERY time a question comes up about the power of magic, that the ruling will be the "high powered magic" ruling (for example - what happens to an invisible character who gets coated with flour or talcum powder? - answer DM's discretion) - so again I won't question the DM's right to run the campaign the way he sees fit, I just won't play. When I DM there are only two times characters get created; the start of the campaign and the middle of the campaign. At the start of the campaign the ENTIRE Group has agreed to the limitations on character creation so no one has any excuse to go outside those limits. In the middle, an established player (who lost a character or decided to retire one) has never been a problem - they stick with what is allowed. Only a new player ever questions things, and I talk to players before they arrive to play (phones are wonderful things) and tell them the campaign constraints. If they come in with a disallowed class/race, I'll remind them of the campaign constraints. If they INSIST they somehow have the inalienable right to play any class/race they want I show them the door. They agreed on the phone to the limitations and while miscommunication can occur, that is why I remind them of the limitations when there is a problem. I am not going to allow some whiny punk to disrupt the game for a debate about how they think I should run things. If they're so good, let them DM the game and I play. Oh wait they don't have anything prepared, or it's back at their place, or... The end result is that they play the game being played or they LEAVE. I refuse to ruin an evening for all the other players to accommodate some little brat.
High Octane 08-06-07, 05:51 PM	Now lets say I run into a DM whose campaign is based on the premise "Fighter Type Classes are retarded and underpowered so everyone has to play a full progression caster." I won't bother trying to get them to allow me a Fighter character because I can almost guarantee that EVERY time a question comes up about the power of magic, that the ruling will be the "high powered magic" ruling (for example - what happens to an invisible character who gets coated with flour or talcum powder? - answer DM's discretion) - so again I won't question the DM's right to run the campaign the way he sees fit, I just won't play. Ever considered maybe this guy does not realize what he is doing and could stand a player talking to him about his experience in D&D and how fighters contribute especially at lower levels? They won't learn otherwise. As for "Ruining a game to accomodate some brat", that is not what was suggested since that screws over the other players as well as you. What is suggested is allowing the other players to know why a decision was made. A player may not put as much overall work into a character as a DM does, but that does not mean he does not put work and his heart into it. When something adversely affects the character, or even uncharacteristically helps the character, the person is going to want to know why, and they have some right since they did invest something into their character. If they didn't, they wouldn't be concerned. As a DM, imagine you planned on having the LG fighter be given a holy sword as part of the plotline, then halfway up the mountain to get it, for no reason, the fighter says "I've decided to be evil." Well you invested a lot of time and thought to the upcoming story, wouldn't you say the player owes you an explanation? Don't you think that should go both ways?
Lethanic 08-06-07, 06:01 PM	Ever considered maybe this guy does not realize what he is doing and could stand a player talking to him about his experience in D&D and how fighters contribute especially at lower levels? They won't learn otherwise. As for "Ruining a game to accomodate some brat", that is not what was suggested since that screws over the other players as well as you. What is suggested is allowing the other players to know why a decision was made. A player may not put as much overall work into a character as a DM does, but that does not mean he does not put work and his heart into it. When something adversely affects the character, or even uncharacteristically helps the character, the person is going to want to know why, and they have some right since they did invest something into their character. If they didn't, they wouldn't be concerned. As a DM, imagine you planned on having the LG fighter be given a holy sword as part of the plotline, then halfway up the mountain to get it, for no reason, the fighter says "I've decided to be evil." Well you invested a lot of time and thought to the upcoming story, wouldn't you say the player owes you an explanation? Don't you think that should go both ways? There is a problem: As part of describing the setting, the DM should say what the limitations are> I generally woudl not make a character for a setting until I knew what the setting WAS - if you know what the setting is, then you won't wast time making forbidden characters. If you decide not to wait. . .then its your own damn fault, really.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-06-07, 07:39 PM	There is a problem: As part of describing the setting, the DM should say what the limitations are> I generally woudl not make a character for a setting until I knew what the setting WAS - if you know what the setting is, then you won't wast time making forbidden characters. If you decide not to wait. . .then its your own damn fault, really. This begs the question as to why the mechanics are not allowed. Are they disallowed becuase the flavour does not fit the camapign? If that is the case, then could be the flavour be changed so that they do? Sometimes they could be changable so that it does work, say like changing a barbarian from a savage to a bar room brwawler, or flavouring the ninja mechanics to fit a geek setting. However sometimes the mechanics just don't fit, like a wizard in a low magic setting designed to make meleers shine. Or are the mechanics disallowed for a different reason. IN the case of all noncaster are banned becuase they suck, well in that case the 0% or back door out is set at probally the sorcerer, or similiar. In that it is easy to demonstrate that something that like the fighter is too weak for the camapign. I wouldn't allow an NPC warroir class for the same reason. However I'd be able to explain and demonstrate that when asked about it. And I never enter into the discussion with the attitude that as DM I'm automatically right. But I do want to thank OravennasBrother for demonstrating that the my way or the highway attitude can exist on both sides of the screen. I find it just as disgreeable coming from a player as from a DM. Now there is nothing wrong with knowing what you like, and refusing to play anything else, but I just think you'll have better results with social interactions if the other members enter into the equation more then, "If you like what I do great, if not Bu-by."
Lethanic 08-06-07, 07:47 PM	I have invented an entire new city to allow Paladins when I was going to disallow them - because someone came up with a good reason to have them in a homebrew world that fit - nonetheless, I come down firmly on the side of the DM in this case three to one. There is a near infinite world of options to chose from. Why does someone HAVE to have the thing the DM forbids?
Optimized_Commoner 08-06-07, 07:53 PM	There is. My wife's campaign idea had writing as a recent invention, which lead to the concept of scrolls and wizardry being recent inventions. That sounds absolutely awesome. Your wife sounds like a good world-designer.
Optimized_Commoner 08-06-07, 08:09 PM	PS (off topic): I don't think Psionics are overpowered, just unfair. There are spells a mage casts that can't ever improve past a certain point. 5d4+5 for a magic missle or +4 from mage armor for example. A psion can always pump it up all the way up to his level without difficulty. So that level 1 effect can do up to 20d6 or more depending on level limits. So all the wizards low level spells sit there largely unused while the psion can use them at full power (with some extra points spent) or use the points to simply manifest extra 9th level effects. At the top levels magic and psionics are very similar. Its the extra versitility for your lower level stuff that makes it unfair. I think there should be a warning to use one or the other (magic vs psi) not both. Which is opposed by the mage's abilities which automatically increase as their level gets higher, without requiring the mage to expend a higher slot. A 10th level wizard's fireball does 5d6 more damage than a 5th level wizard who just learned the spell. A psion would have to expend the equivalent of a higher level spell slot to achieve the same effect. Finally, PSIONS are TOO VERSATILE?! They know 36 powers exactly at 20th level. You'd better hope they're still getting some benefit from their low level ones. ... you've never played a psion, have you?
Ongorth 08-07-07, 12:25 AM	Which is opposed by the mage's abilities which automatically increase as their level gets higher, without requiring the mage to expend a higher slot. A 10th level wizard's fireball does 5d6 more damage than a 5th level wizard who just learned the spell. A psion would have to expend the equivalent of a higher level spell slot to achieve the same effect. Finally, PSIONS are TOO VERSATILE?! They know 36 powers exactly at 20th level. You'd better hope they're still getting some benefit from their low level ones. ... you've never played a psion, have you? Long story short: People who like psionics overrate the advantages of magic and underrate the advanatages of psionics. People who like magic overrate the advantages of magic and underrate the advantages of psionics. The arguement won't end because different people play in different groups that accentuate the strengths and weaknesses of each class/system differently. PS: I always find it hillarious, thought, that people list autoscaling damage as an advantage for wizards and yet also argue that direct damage is useless at high levels. Which is it? An advantage or useless! Are they disallowed becuase the flavour does not fit the camapign? If that is the case, then could be the flavour be changed so that they do? Not everyone plays in a game where flavor is freely mutable. Some people like for the mechanics to concretely mean something about the game world. The Barbarian and his class features might represent the unparalelled toughness and tenacity of the Zelphidin Spirit Warriors. If some "Bar Room Brawler" can just do the act same things, well, the Zelphidin Spirit Warriors aren't really that special and uncertainly aren't unparalelled any more.
Comus 08-07-07, 01:16 AM	PS: I always find it hillarious, thought, that people list autoscaling damage as an advantage for wizards and yet also argue that direct damage is useless at high levels. Which is it? An advantage or useless! It's like this - let's say that every year on your birthday you got money. For psionics, you would get exactly one dollar a year. For magic, you would get an amount equal to your age. The older you are, the bigger the difference between the two... but even if you live to be over a hundred years old, it is never a lot of money. Not everyone plays in a game where flavor is freely mutable. Some people like for the mechanics to concretely mean something about the game world. The Barbarian and his class features might represent the unparalelled toughness and tenacity of the Zelphidin Spirit Warriors. If some "Bar Room Brawler" can just do the act same things, well, the Zelphidin Spirit Warriors aren't really that special and uncertainly aren't unparalelled any more. Here's my argument, though - because I do understand what you're saying, I just want to state my side. Power attack. For most characters, it means that you swing for the fences and hope to put one out of the park. You either miss big or hit big. I took the feat for a precision-type fighter. For him, it represented called shots - it was easier for the opponent to defend those areas, but if he got a hit in... Both are able to coexist. Both represent totally different types of training, though mechanically they're expressed the same way. For the Spirit Warriors vs Bar Room Brawler example, the spirit warriors are still the only ones who can call up the mighty spirit of the jaguar and let it guide them in combat - but by golly, that drunk over there is sure hard to put down when he's had a few drinks in him. Totally different, and it's not like they'll know in game that his thick skin is the same as their ritualized scarring (DR) or that his fancy footwork is mechanically identical to their catlike speed (fast movement) - that's the metagame.
Ongorth 08-07-07, 01:35 AM	Here's my argument, though - because I do understand what you're saying, I just want to state my side. Power attack. For most characters, it means that you swing for the fences and hope to put one out of the park. You either miss big or hit big. I took the feat for a precision-type fighter. For him, it represented called shots - it was easier for the opponent to defend those areas, but if he got a hit in... Both are able to coexist. Both represent totally different types of training, though mechanically they're expressed the same way. For the Spirit Warriors vs Bar Room Brawler example, the spirit warriors are still the only ones who can call up the mighty spirit of the jaguar and let it guide them in combat - but by golly, that drunk over there is sure hard to put down when he's had a few drinks in him. Totally different, and it's not like they'll know in game that his thick skin is the same as their ritualized scarring (DR) or that his fancy footwork is mechanically identical to their catlike speed (fast movement) - that's the metagame. But the players will know out of game. In the metagame. Where it matters. The Spirit Warrior might not mind the Bar Room Brawler having the same powers as him, but the Spirit Warriors player might surely be miffed about it. If the Bar Room Brawler and the Spirit Warrior are mechanically identical, what's the mechanical point of being one instead of the other? If the game doesn't reflect a difference in these very different characters in the mechanics, which is the system by which the players interact with the game world via there characters, then a lot of the fun may well be sucked out. The Spirit Warrior's player might think that the fact that his character had rage "meant" something and that because his character went through those sacred rights, only he could do that. If anyone can do it, even if its reflected in game differently, who cares? Giving the mechanics in game meaning is often helpful, I think.
Roog 08-07-07, 02:00 AM	Missing the point a little? Let's all not read what people type because it makes arguing easier! I read what he said, that whole series of posts was an attempt to understand it. Here it is again... The Magic system is not overpowered simply because the Healer sucks worse than the fighter. Here let me help you think through i) The healer cannot use magic? ii) Is the healer overpowered? iii) If all spells were removed except the healer's spell list is magic overpowered? If the answer is no to all, it means magic is not overpowered. Yes, some spells are overpowered. Some spells with feats and items are overpowered (persist/DMM/nightsticks), some spell combos are over powered, but magic itself is not overpowered. Thats not exactly a model of clarity. Especially in the logic in the final paragraph. Can you explain how "magic" is overpowered without citing any spells, spell lists or class features that might go with a spellcasting class? Can you tell me what is left in the magic system when you remove "spells, spell lists or class features"? Lets see... - Spells come in levels - There are some Metamagic feats (these remain specified) - Non spellcasting classes do not have magic - There are some magic items (these remain specified, but their method of creation does not) Anything else? Manic Man is saying that magic isn't the problem, its certain spells, combinations of spells and combintions of spellcasting class features that are the problem. You don't have to scrap the mechanical paradigm of magic, because it isn't broken. You have to scrap or modifiy specific instances within the system because they are broken. The problem is with magic, there are a lot of problematic instances, to the point where it is very reasonable to say, "you know, it'd just be easier to start over." Personally, I don't agree and it seems silly to say that you can't fix overpowered spellcasting classes by changing the spell lists or class features, since that really is the source of the problem, not the mechanics of magic itself. If you rewrite problem spells and spellcasting classes as a replacement for what currently exist, you are changing a large percentage of the magic system. I would say that that would be an ideal time to examine the paradigm's of magic. Even if you decide to leave the mechanical paradigm of magic alone (by the "don't fix what ain't broke" argument), take a look at the place of magic in the game - what does it do, what is it good for, how does its uses compare to skills, what are its limits.
Roog 08-07-07, 02:07 AM	But the players will know out of game. In the metagame. Where it matters. The Spirit Warrior might not mind the Bar Room Brawler having the same powers as him, but the Spirit Warriors player might surely be miffed about it. If the Bar Room Brawler and the Spirit Warrior are mechanically identical, what's the mechanical point of being one instead of the other? If the game doesn't reflect a difference in these very different characters in the mechanics, which is the system by which the players interact with the game world via there characters, then a lot of the fun may well be sucked out. The Spirit Warrior's player might think that the fact that his character had rage "meant" something and that because his character went through those sacred rights, only he could do that. If anyone can do it, even if its reflected in game differently, who cares? Giving the mechanics in game meaning is often helpful, I think. I see the rules as a big box of tools for building the game with. Who cares if someone else also uses the same tools I did, as long as the things we made are both useful/beautiful/interesting and one does not overshadow the other. And if we both build chairs with the same plans and the same tools, but stain/upholster/decorate them differently, does it matter?
Comus 08-07-07, 02:09 AM	But the players will know out of game. In the metagame. Where it matters. The Spirit Warrior might not mind the Bar Room Brawler having the same powers as him, but the Spirit Warriors player might surely be miffed about it. I'd argue that the Spirit Warrior and the Bar Room Brawler do not have the same powers - they have very different powers. The game expresses them in the same way, yes, but the powers are different. It's a roleplay matter. If the Bar Room Brawler and the Spirit Warrior are mechanically identical, what's the mechanical point of being one instead of the other? I don't think there should be a mechanical advantage for a roleplay choice. I have, in fact, played identical character builds (except for alignment) in totally different ways - greatsword-using fighters with identical feats. One was a rude, loud braggart who charged into battle and drank twice as much as anyone else... the other was a quiet, thoughtful man who played a lot of chess and thought tactically. What I'm trying to say, basically, is that the difference between the two should be how you roleplay them. That is why you should choose to be from the Spirit Warrior tribe - not because you want +10ft movement. If the game doesn't reflect a difference in these very different characters in the mechanics, which is the system by which the players interact with the game world via there characters, then a lot of the fun may well be sucked out. I don't think so. I think the roleplaying of it is more important. They have the same tools with which to interact with the world. How they use those tools, why they use them, is where the differences lie. A hammer can drive nails into a board, but used a different way it can pull them out. The Spirit Warrior's player might think that the fact that his character had rage "meant" something and that because his character went through those sacred rights, only he could do that. If anyone can do it, even if its reflected in game differently, who cares? Giving the mechanics in game meaning is often helpful, I think. It does mean something. Only the Spirit Warriors can call on the Jaguar Spirit. Only they undergo the secret training that gives them catlike speed. Only they know the herbs to use to thicken skin after ritualized scarring. They are the only ones that can do that, and it has a definite ingame meaning. And that Bar Room Brawler? He's got a thick skin from all the chairs that've been broken over his back. And he knows a bit of fancy footwork. And even though be doesn't call on the Jaguar Spirit, he is a mean drunk. That is what makes him special. Mechanically, he might be the same - just as a Samurai and a Knight might both really use the Fighter class. But he's very different where it really counts - in how people view him ingame. I guess it just comes down to the fact that I view how and why things are done as being just as important as what is being done. I like technobabble and discussions on motivation and tactics. This kinda runs in the same vein.
SirTodd 08-07-07, 02:48 AM	Which is opposed by the mage's abilities which automatically increase as their level gets higher, without requiring the mage to expend a higher slot. A 10th level wizard's fireball does 5d6 more damage than a 5th level wizard who just learned the spell. A psion would have to expend the equivalent of a higher level spell slot to achieve the same effect. Finally, PSIONS are TOO VERSATILE?! They know 36 powers exactly at 20th level. You'd better hope they're still getting some benefit from their low level ones. ... you've never played a psion, have you? As long as were off topic... You do realize thats more spells then a sorcerer has 1-9th? And most of the low level sorcerers spells are useless or nearly so by the time he is high level. If I had the choice of being able to scale all my spells up to keep them all useful for just a few points extra or getting auto scaling only on my damaging spells but only up to a certain level I would definitely take the full scaling abilities of the psion. While my experience with 3.5 psionics is limited. I have seen them in play. Even going nova several times a day they almost never seem to run dry on points. In fact in play they are often the last one to run out of high level effects. Sure if the encounters per day run high then they are the first to completely run out of points. But I question the effectiveness of the casters who are now down to lobbing 1st and 2nd level spells in the final big fight. Actually I amend my previous statement: There is one way I would allow magic and psionics in the same game... if the mages used a spell point system. That would mitigate most of the unfairness. Oh and yes I have played a psion before... unfortunately it was back in 3.0 and I was mostly unimpressed. But as you well know psionics have gotten a big boost since 3.0.
Caelic 08-07-07, 10:30 AM	Edit: Man, I just can't do this anymore. I'm feeling way too much like a bully. Manic: you go on with the discussion by yourself, 'k? It was fun, but I'd like to get back to the actual topic at hand.
Optimized_Commoner 08-07-07, 10:39 AM	As long as were off topic... lol. You do realize thats more spells then a sorcerer has 1-9th? And most of the low level sorcerers spells are useless or nearly so by the time he is high level. Yes, everyone is aware that the sorcerer is a pathetic class. The easiest way to build an optimized sorcerer is to play a wizard. If I had the choice of being able to scale all my spells up to keep them all useful for just a few points extra or getting auto scaling only on my damaging spells but only up to a certain level I would definitely take the full scaling abilities of the psion. That's your choice if you wish to take it. However you seem under the mistaken belief that only damage spells autoscale for wizards, this is untrue. You also seem to believe that all psionic abilities are augmentable, this is also untrue. While my experience with 3.5 psionics is limited. I have seen them in play. Even going nova several times a day they almost never seem to run dry on points. In fact in play they are often the last one to run out of high level effects. Perhaps those you saw playing psions were using the rules incorrectly or very well optimized. I haven't had the same experience with them I'm afraid and found them to be exceedingly low on points. When I played a psion last I know I kept running out of points far too quickly. Actually I amend my previous statement: There is one way I would allow magic and psionics in the same game... if the mages used a spell point system. That would mitigate most of the unfairness. Seems un-necessary to me, but if it makes you happy, that's certainly an easy option to implement with Unearthed Arcana and the many optional spell-point rules on this forum. Oh and yes I have played a psion before... unfortunately it was back in 3.0 and I was mostly unimpressed. Rest assured, you are not alone. Most people were unimpressed with the 3.0 psionics rules, myself included. Long story short: People who like psionics overrate the advantages of magic and underrate the advanatages of psionics. People who like magic overrate the advantages of magic and underrate the advantages of psionics. Sounds... balanced. For the record, I like magic. PS: I always find it hillarious, thought, that people list autoscaling damage as an advantage for wizards and yet also argue that direct damage is useless at high levels. Which is it? An advantage or useless! ... You do realise that in context we're comparing the damage dealing capacities of the wizard and psion. Right? Anyway, it's hardly useless, it's just less effective than certain other options available to a wizard at that level.
Caelic 08-07-07, 10:46 AM	Can you explain how "magic" is overpowered without citing any spells, spell lists or class features that might go with a spellcasting class? Gladly! The magic system is broken for the following reasons: 1. Magic is on an exponential power curve; each new level of spells is significantly more powerful than the level before it. Going from eighth level spells to ninth level spells is a much bigger jump in power than going from first level spells to second level spells. 2. The game's non-magic-using classes are on a linear power curve. The fighter gains approximately as much by going from level 19 to level 20 as he did by going from level 1 to level 2. 3. Because of this exponential-versus-linear dichotomy, magic-using classes surge ahead of non-magic-using classes in terms of power. For any task a non-magic-using character can perform, there is a superior magical option. 4. Certain mechanisms of spell acquisition compound this. Each time a new sourcebook comes out, it theoretically improves the power of both spellcasting classes and non-spellcasting classes. The problem is that, for most of the non-spellcasting classes, that increase is only theoretical unless they make a substantial investment...taking new feats, taking a substitution level, and so forth. Spellcasters, on the other hand, can access this wellspring of new power with very little investment at all. In the case of classes that know their entire spell list, there's no investment whatsoever; in the case of classes that learn and prepare spells, the investment is relatively trivial (the expenditure of gold or exchange of spells.) Manic Man is saying that magic isn't the problem, its certain spells, combinations of spells and combintions of spellcasting class features that are the problem. You don't have to scrap the mechanical paradigm of magic, because it isn't broken. You have to scrap or modifiy specific instances within the system because they are broken. And what the rest of us are saying is that he's incorrect. It's the underlying mechanical paradigm that's broken. The fact that some spells are spectacularly broken doesn't change the fact that, even if you remove those spells, the problems I listed above remain. The problem is with magic, there are a lot of problematic instances, to the point where it is very reasonable to say, "you know, it'd just be easier to start over." Personally, I don't agree and it seems silly to say that you can't fix overpowered spellcasting classes by changing the spell lists or class features, since that really is the source of the problem, not the mechanics of magic itself. ...except that it is the mechanics of magic that are the source of the problem. Let me ask you this: which spells must I remove to fix the problem of a wizard vastly outstripping a fighter at high levels? We'll keep it simple here and restrict ourselves only to the PHB.
Optimized_Commoner 08-07-07, 10:48 AM	the problems I listed above remain. And well listed they were. which spells must I remove to fix the problem of a wizard vastly outstripping a fighter at high levels? We'll keep it simple here and restrict ourselves only to the PHB. Those that aren't cantrips? Okay, we'll keep first level too as long as they're not abused too much.
Ongorth 08-07-07, 10:49 AM	... You do realise that in context we're comparing the damage dealing capacities of the wizard and psion. Right? If that context doesn't really matter, who cares? I don't often compare the spellcasting ability of the fighter and the barbarian. . .
Caelic 08-07-07, 10:51 AM	Disruptions tend to affect the whole group, whether the problem is the player or the GM, regardless of how many people are "in" on the conflict first-hand. Well said. And that's precisely why some of us, as DMs, reserve the right to say "I'm not going to argue about this right now; my call stands. Talk to me after the game if it's a problem." Or even, in certain cases, to say, "I'm not going to argue about this; my call stands, and I can't tell you the reason. You'll have to trust me."
Optimized_Commoner 08-07-07, 10:59 AM	If that context doesn't really matter, who cares? As a guess, those discussing it? Which would be you, me and Sir Todd. I don't often compare the spellcasting ability of the fighter and the barbarian. . . Fighter is generally better. Their special abilities (ha) stack with spellcasting, unlike barbarians. They have less requirements on ability scores freeing up potential for multiclassing to gish. They have more options for taking advantage of a high intelligence score as well. Finally their bonus feats make expending feats to allow for magical ability or to qualify for gish classes far less wasteful.
Ongorth 08-07-07, 11:10 AM	Gladly! The magic system is broken for the following reasons: 1. Magic is on an exponential power curve; each new level of spells is significantly more powerful than the level before it. Going from eighth level spells to ninth level spells is a much bigger jump in power than going from first level spells to second level spells. The only reason that magic has an exponential curve is because certain spells advance exponentially. Not all of them do. Just move up the AOE direct damage spell line. Or the list of save or die effects. If you design spells to advance in a linear fashion, you don't have this problem. 2. The game's non-magic-using classes are on a linear power curve. The fighter gains approximately as much by going from level 19 to level 20 as he did by going from level 1 to level 2. Are we really going to use an unhouseruled fighter as a paragon of good class desgin to compare to? If you design other classes with abilities that actually get better with levels, you don't have this problems. 3. Because of this exponential-versus-linear dichotomy, magic-using classes surge ahead of non-magic-using classes in terms of power. For any task a non-magic-using character can perform, there is a superior magical option. This says to me that the abilities of non-magical classes need to be improved. See, adventurers need to solve problems. If certain characters can never do that, they're the problem. 4. Certain mechanisms of spell acquisition compound this. Each time a new sourcebook comes out, it theoretically improves the power of both spellcasting classes and non-spellcasting classes. The problem is that, for most of the non-spellcasting classes, that increase is only theoretical unless they make a substantial investment...taking new feats, taking a substitution level, and so forth. Spellcasters, on the other hand, can access this wellspring of new power with very little investment at all. In the case of classes that know their entire spell list, there's no investment whatsoever; in the case of classes that learn and prepare spells, the investment is relatively trivial (the expenditure of gold or exchange of spells.) What I find funny about this is any time new material comes about for non-magical classes that increase there power without requiring a feat investment, people cry about it being broken. Mongoose did this all the time and its great. Either way, this is less the fault of the magic system and more the fault of designers who don't get the system. And what the rest of us are saying is that he's incorrect. It's the underlying mechanical paradigm that's broken. The fact that some spells are spectacularly broken doesn't change the fact that, even if you remove those spells, the problems I listed above remain. I'm not talking about "removing spells". I'm talking about redesigning spell lists. This is my number one complaint about D&D in general. Casters have lists that are to complete, to the point where all spellcasting classes end up for the same spells on there lists. It isn't the magic system thats the problem, its that classes that use the magic system can do everything. Why does EVERY spellcasting class need a " Ranged Fortitude Save or Die that does damage on a passed save"? Why does every spellcasting class need to fly? Why does every spellcasting class need to turn weapons magical? Spell lists should be designed so that spellcasters can solve problems, can have a unique schick, can have some utility, but don't have every schick, don't solve every problem and don't have more utility then everyone else in the party combined. Basically, you can easily use the current magic paradigm to make a spellcasting class that is equal in power to a not spellcasting class. You just have to actually pay attention to how the system works and not go in with the design philosophy "Wizards need to do EVERYTHING, so we've got to cram every effect anyone could possibly ever want into there spell list!"
OravennasBrother 08-07-07, 11:14 AM	Ever considered maybe this guy does not realize what he is doing and could stand a player talking to him about his experience in D&D and how fighters contribute especially at lower levels? Perhaps, but I'm playing not teaching. I've seen too many people fully convinced that ALL non-casters fall WAY behind all casters (with non-core exceptions like the healer) to use up game time trying to convince a DM that Fighters are viable through 20th level, as long as you play in a manner consistent with the rules (4 encounters per day, Wealth per level guidelines followed). More -such a DM will invariably make EVERY SINGLE CALL in favor of magic "Sure magic missile can push a button, it IS a force effect, and pushing a button is NOT damage." As for "Ruining a game to accomodate some brat", that is not what was suggested That is exactly what happens when someone come in after discussing what is allowed and presenting a non-core character. The game is starting and their only character is non-core after being told core only. I either DISRUPT THE EVENING FOR EVERYONE, or tell the putz has has two choices; create a legal character or walk.
Optimized_Commoner 08-07-07, 11:20 AM	The only reason that magic has an exponential curve is because certain spells advance exponentially. Not all of them do. None the less, casting wish isn't just nine times more effective than casting burning hands. All spells progress exponentially. If you design spells to advance in a linear fashion, you don't have this problem. I did this once. It worked well. This says to me that the abilities of non-magical classes need to be improved. See, adventurers need to solve problems. If certain characters can never do that, they're the problem. Refer TOB. What I find funny about this is any time new material comes about for non-magical classes that increase there power without requiring a feat investment, people cry about it being broken. Sigh... Refer TOB. Unfortunately. Basically, you can easily use the current magic paradigm to make a spellcasting class that is equal in power to a not spellcasting class. You just have to actually pay attention to how the system works and not go in with the design philosophy "Wizards need to do EVERYTHING, so we've got to cram every effect anyone could possibly ever want into there spell list!" At the risk of sounding like a grognard, anyone miss D&D cyclopedia where all wizards got exactly 13 spells per spell level, clerics got 7 and druids got... I don't remember, been a long time since I've played 0e. Or for that matter 2nd edition, where there were certain random spells which you simply couldn't learn thus giving you your own unique spell list with abilities lacking so you'd only be good in your own exact area.
Caelic 08-07-07, 11:23 AM	The only reason that magic has an exponential curve is because certain spells advance exponentially. Not all of them do. Just move up the AOE direct damage spell line. Or the list of save or die effects. If you design spells to advance in a linear fashion, you don't have this problem. ...so if we completely rewrite the magic system, it's not overpowered. I agree with you there; I've seen lots of non-overpowered magic systems. The thing is, they were attached to other games...not D&D. The fact that you can redesign a system to make it not broken does not mean that it's not broken now. Are we really going to use an unhouseruled fighter as a paragon of good class desgin to compare to? Well, yes, because he's a part of the system, and we're discussing the underlying design of the system. If you like, use a Barbarian. Or a Monk. Or a Rogue. If you design other classes with abilities that actually get better with levels, you don't have this problems. Do you see the problem with what you're saying here? You're saying the system isn't broken if you redesign the system. This says to me that the abilities of non-magical classes need to be improved. See, adventurers need to solve problems. If certain characters can never do that, they're the problem. So how would you propose doing that, short of giving them magical abilities of their own? What I find funny about this is any time new material comes about for non-magical classes that increase there power without requiring a feat investment, people cry about it being broken. Err...like what? Either way, this is less the fault of the magic system and more the fault of designers who don't get the system. So the system would be fine, if only those silly designers of the system had designed it differently? I'm not talking about "removing spells". I'm talking about redesigning spell lists. Precisely. We're saying the system is broken. You're claiming that it's not because it can be redesigned. If the system needs to be redesigned, then, by definition, it's broken. Spell lists should be designed so that spellcasters can solve problems, can have a unique schick, can have some utility, but don't have every schick, don't solve every problem and don't have more utility then everyone else in the party combined. There are classes like that. Check out the Generic Spellcaster from Unearthed Arcana. They still outstrip non-spellcasters at high levels. Basically, you can easily use the current magic paradigm to make a spellcasting class that is equal in power to a not spellcasting class. ...as long as you first: A. Strip out roughly 75% of both the core and expanded games, including classes, feats, and spells. B. Redefine the power level of spells so that a ninth-level spell is much less powerful than it currently is, and the gradation from first to ninth level is linear, not exponential. C. Rewrite the spell lists from the ground up, based on the new definition of what constitutes a spell of X level. D. Come up with completely new ways of segregating spells among new classes. E. Rewrite every portion of the system which depends in any way on the current magic system. Wildshape has to go; most spell-like abilities will probably have to go or be changed. Begging your pardon, but what exactly is left of the "current paradigm" at that point, beyond "Spellcasters cast spells?" I have to be honest, I'd be fascinated to see how you'd accomplish this without having five thousand hyper-specialized classes.
Caelic 08-07-07, 11:27 AM	At the risk of sounding like a grognard, anyone miss D&D cyclopedia where all wizards got exactly 13 spells per spell level, clerics got 7 and druids got... I don't remember, been a long time since I've played 0e. Miss it? Nope. It has pride-of-place on my shelf. The single best value-for-money gaming product ever released, IMO.
Ongorth 08-07-07, 11:34 AM	What exactly is left? Not the paradigm of how material is created for the system, that has to go. The actual mechanics of the system, though? They're exactly the same. I'm talking about redesigning the material made with the system, not the system. This is very different. I mean, WotC printed this class, Warmage, once. If I was to replace the wizard in my game with the Warmage, I wouldn't be redesigning the system, I'd be using different material in the system. Likewise if I replaced Fighter with Warblade or cleric with mystic. System is exactly the same, material has changed.
Ongorth 08-07-07, 11:40 AM	I have to be honest, I'd be fascinated to see how you'd accomplish this without having five thousand hyper-specialized classes. 5,000 is a little high. I mean, you don't need for each class to be so specialized that it can only do literally one thing. But seriously, lets say we have 10 full spellcasting classes. Each class gets a unique schick that seperates it from the others, even if it is just doing one thing really well. Then, we'll subdivide the rest of the abilities magic can give people into 12 categories. We'lll give each class influence over 3-6 of them, depending upon how powerful the class's classs features are. So, we've got uniqueness, some overlap, some utility and each class brings something to the problem solving table. Done.
Caelic 08-07-07, 11:42 AM	What exactly is left? Not the paradigm of how material is created for the system, that has to go. The actual mechanics of the system, though? They're exactly the same. I'm talking about redesigning the material made with the system, not the system. This is very different. Well, no; the problem is that most of the replacements you list actually required substantial revision of the system. The Warblade required an entirely new system of what amounts to spells; the Warmage required a new mechanism for spell acquisition and memorization. The mystic? I don't know much about the class; IIRC, isn't it from a third-party source (Dragonlance, I think?) I can't comment on its power or lack thereof. But let's take a look at your proposal for wizards for the moment: are you saying that you'd "fix" the problem by, basically, eliminating all magic that's not blasty-damagey spells of the sort on the Warmage's spell list?
Caelic 08-07-07, 11:46 AM	5,000 is a little high. I mean, you don't need for each class to be so specialized that it can only do literally one thing. But seriously, lets say we have 10 full spellcasting classes. Each class gets a unique schick that seperates it from the others, even if it is just doing one thing really well. Then, we'll subdivide the rest of the abilities magic can give people into 12 categories. We'lll give each class influence over 3-6 of them, depending upon how powerful the class's classs features are. So, we've got uniqueness, some overlap, some utility and each class brings something to the problem solving table. Done. Okay, that answers the question I posed in my post above this. Here's the thing: I think what you're proposing is a LOT easier said than done, and I think those classes are going to be nowhere near equal when they're done. Compare, say, the Warmage to the Beguiler. Are they equal in power, in your estimation? In mine, the Beguiler is far more powerful, and would be even if you stripped away his non-magical advantages (skills, saves, and so forth.) Certain categories of spells are just more self-sufficient and versatile than others. Give someone only blasty spells, and they're a glass cannon. Give someone only healing spells, and they're somewhat limited, albeit still very useful. Give someone only summoning spells, and they can do just about anything--they just have to do it indirectly. Give someone only illusion spells, and, well...I sincerely hope you thought to ban the Shadowcraft Mage. Who gets the Teleport spells? Who gets the Wall spells? Who gets Dispel Magic? Heck, who gets Detect Magic? EDIT: Come to think of it, we're still way, WAY off topic, and I suspect that this topic, while worthy of discussion, could go on for pages all by itself. Do you want to agree to disagree here and perhaps continue elsethread?
UltimateReality 08-07-07, 12:22 PM	That is exactly what happens when someone come in after discussing what is allowed and presenting a non-core character. The game is starting and their only character is non-core after being told core only.I don't think I've ever had this problem, mostly because when in our group, if there's a new player, the DM has them make their first character around him/her. Really easy to stop that stuff at the source. I understand other people may not have the extra time to help a new person make their character, in which case I'd politely have to ask the offending player to please make a rules-legal character. And continue the game without him in the meantime. But the players will know out of game. In the metagame. Where it matters. The Spirit Warrior might not mind the Bar Room Brawler having the same powers as him, but the Spirit Warriors player might surely be miffed about it. If the Bar Room Brawler and the Spirit Warrior are mechanically identical, what's the mechanical point of being one instead of the other?I'm pretty much with Comus on my interpretation of this, although I can also see the appeal of having separate mechanics. I often use niche mechanics to represent specialties of my own campaign worlds. But, when doing so, I tend to search for obscure mechanics, instead of using core. I try to make sure, when designing a campaign, that as much of the PHB as possible is open to my players, simply for ease of use, and familiarity. I give exotic things exotic mechanics. Not much of the PHB is exotic to anyone who's played for more than about a year.
Ongorth 08-07-07, 02:33 PM	Okay, that answers the question I posed in my post above this. Here's the thing: I think what you're proposing is a LOT easier said than done, and I think those classes are going to be nowhere near equal when they're done. Compare, say, the Warmage to the Beguiler. Are they equal in power, in your estimation? In mine, the Beguiler is far more powerful, and would be even if you stripped away his non-magical advantages (skills, saves, and so forth.) Certain categories of spells are just more self-sufficient and versatile than others. Give someone only blasty spells, and they're a glass cannon. Give someone only healing spells, and they're somewhat limited, albeit still very useful. Give someone only summoning spells, and they can do just about anything--they just have to do it indirectly. Give someone only illusion spells, and, well...I sincerely hope you thought to ban the Shadowcraft Mage. Who gets the Teleport spells? Who gets the Wall spells? Who gets Dispel Magic? Heck, who gets Detect Magic? EDIT: Come to think of it, we're still way, WAY off topic, and I suspect that this topic, while worthy of discussion, could go on for pages all by itself. Do you want to agree to disagree here and perhaps continue elsethread? Well, if you notice I did admit that there were enough problems with the magic system that it would be perfectly reasonable to just completely start over, but I just thought (personally) the system was good and would rather tweek it. I'll not comment on your specifics, but I think you are overestimating the difficulty of the project as much as I'm underestimating it. We'll leave this for now. I use this system in my own games, but like most things in my games its done on demand and a-la carte in a notebook and is constantly being revised during play. But, those are the kind of players I have. The kind that are all for experimenting and don't mind mechanically redesigning there character in the middle of a session.
Ongorth 08-07-07, 02:49 PM	I'm pretty much with Comus on my interpretation of this, although I can also see the appeal of having separate mechanics. I often use niche mechanics to represent specialties of my own campaign worlds. But, when doing so, I tend to search for obscure mechanics, instead of using core. I try to make sure, when designing a campaign, that as much of the PHB as possible is open to my players, simply for ease of use, and familiarity. I give exotic things exotic mechanics. Not much of the PHB is exotic to anyone who's played for more than about a year. Just like I want my character to be portrayed in a unique fashion, I want my character to be mechanically unique too. This is why I don't like overlapping spell lists, for example.
shadzar 08-07-07, 03:09 PM	Are we really going to use an unhouseruled fighter as a paragon of good class desgin to compare to? wouldn't an unhouseruled fighter be the best to compare to since it shows just how the system doesn't work to keep the classes balanced in power levels. the core fighter makes a good control specimen.
Comus 08-07-07, 03:40 PM	wouldn't an unhouseruled fighter be the best to compare to since it shows just how the system doesn't work to keep the classes balanced in power levels. the core fighter makes a good control specimen. I disagree. The best control specimen would be a class that is never weak, but is also never the strongest. A middle-of-the-road type. I'd say Rogue, myself. Fighter is too dependent on the number and type of allowed supplements to determine power level.
shadzar 08-07-07, 03:52 PM	I disagree. The best control specimen would be a class that is never weak, but is also never the strongest. A middle-of-the-road type. I'd say Rogue, myself. Fighter is too dependent on the number and type of allowed supplements to determine power level. as i said... core fighter. don't include any supplemental material as it is just that. and a fighter being the opposite of a wizard in just about all aspects: armor, HP, casting ability, etc. then again the fighter could be so "weak" in order to balance the entire game, rather than balance the classes against each other? say rogue and cleric are balanced against each other and take their combined power we will call them both having power =3 giving us a total power of 6. say wizard has a power = 5 and a fighter a power =1. now placing wizard and fighter on one side of a scale and the cleric and rogue on the other it will balance. the problem occurs when you switch any two of the classes. the scale becomes unbalanced. it should be that each class should be balanced against the other classes. that way each class is just as usefull as the other. at the same time it would need to have all of them with some unique function that the others can't perform to make them a reason to be chosen over the others. so while they are unequal to each other in what they can do, they all are blaanced against each other. thus you don't have a party of only fighters because they need other classes to help them do certain tasks, and likewise wizards, rogue, cleric, etc. the flaw as written in both 3.x DMGs: But what does "game balance" really mean? All game balance does is to ensure that most character choices are relatively equal in terms of their chances for success. but since choosing one class over the other already breaks that balance then the game is built without any balance to begin with? but it does say "character choices are..equal..in...chances for success". not that the classes themselves are balanced against each other, but all have an equal chance for success. it just doesn't say success at what so we can only guess it means checks for its own class abilities and skills, etc.
Comus 08-07-07, 04:20 PM	as i said... core fighter. don't include any supplemental material as it is just that. and a fighter being the opposite of a wizard in jsut about all aspects: armor, HP, casting ability, etc. then again the fighter could be so "weak" in order to balance the entire game, rather than balance the classes against each other? Problem, though, is that the Fighter isn't balanced against appropriate-CR challenges. Sure, he does fine at low levels, but without serious min-maxing he just can't handle mid to high-level combat. We shouldn't try to balance everything against the weakest class in the PHB, you know? We should try and balance it against the challenges the players expect to face at a given level.
Mock26 08-07-07, 04:24 PM	Remember,folks, that there are other reasons than stats and numbers for playing a particular class. One that comes to mind is enjoyment of that particular class. If that is the case, who cares if other classes outshine them at other levels? If you enjoy playing that class and have fun with that particular character, all else is irrelevant.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-07-07, 06:21 PM	so while they are unequal to each other in what they can do, they all are blaanced against each other. thus you don't have a party of only fighters because they need other classes to help them do certain tasks, and likewise wizards, rogue, cleric, etc. My group has often toyed with the idea of an all wizard party. And once just for fun i draw a 4 person party were in everyone was primarily a wizard, or arcane caster. I came up with something like this: rogue 3/wizard 5 arcane trickster 10, wizard 5/ MoA 2/ Lore master 10, sword sage 2/warmage 4/Jade pheonix 10 (orginally was a warmage 20, or wizard 20 focusing on evocation), cleric 3/wizard 3 theurge 10.
Alyri 08-07-07, 07:20 PM	Remember, folks, that there are other reasons than stats and numbers for playing a particular class. Maybe in your misguided world, but out here in the big world it's all about the crunch baby. :P
shadzar 08-07-07, 07:27 PM	Problem, though, is that the Fighter isn't balanced against appropriate-CR challenges. Sure, he does fine at low levels, but without serious min-maxing he just can't handle mid to high-level combat. We shouldn't try to balance everything against the weakest class in the PHB, you know? We should try and balance it against the challenges the players expect to face at a given level. ok let me try again. i will start with explaining D&D a bit. the PCs are the most important thing in the game to have rules for. they are the reason the game is played. they need to be balanced against each other in respect to classes relative abilites, races, etc. once you look at it like that then the NPCs will automatically be balanced on a per case basis with everyone else individually. then all you need to do is balance everything else to determine your CR level crap. the world mechanics should be balanced AROUND the player character mechanics. monsters, NPCs, etc will all then work. a given monster that is equal to one level 5 character would then be equal to all level 5 characters. the fact the fighter is the weakest class is not my fault, but it is a core class. i never said make everoyne as weak as the current fighter class may or may not be. the point was that all the classes should be balanced. if wizard is overall power of 5, rogue is 3, cleric is 3, and fighter is 1. then the problem is not that all the other classes need to be at 1. only an idiot would think that. the problem is the 1 and 5 are too far away from the 3's either overshadowing them, or becoming useless to them. so you find a midpoint where they all are equal. 5+3+3+1=12 12/4= wana take a guess? that right.. 3! that would mean that both the wizard and fighter are unbalanced either one way of the other. :eek:
shadzar 08-07-07, 09:10 PM	My group has often toyed with the idea of an all wizard party. And once just for fun i draw a 4 person party were in everyone was primarily a wizard, or arcane caster. I came up with something like this: rogue 3/wizard 5 arcane trickster 10, wizard 5/ MoA 2/ Lore master 10, sword sage 2/warmage 4/Jade pheonix 10 (orginally was a warmage 20, or wizard 20 focusing on evocation), cleric 3/wizard 3 theurge 10. have no idea what half those classes are, but you shouldn't have to multiclass in order to balance a charater against others. one campaign i had forced everyone to be a wizard starting out with option to multiclass. (Mystara KArameikos/Glantri). its good fun having a single class type party, but for those games where it isn't required, then it shouldn't be needed to balance the game. you never applied this all wizard party in practice and tried going through with it? Glantry assumed all enemy NPC would also be magic wielding so it was pretty fun. people learned to respect many odd spells as the NPCs used them in unusual ways rather than simple attack spells and such. my stone shape as a weapon example from some thread around here.
shadzar 08-07-07, 09:12 PM	Maybe in your misguided world, but out here in the big world it's all about the crunch baby. :P only in your misguided world. i like my D&D like my peanut butter and...well nvm about the other one ;) ...creamy not crunchy.
Comus 08-07-07, 10:06 PM	ok let me try again. i will start with explaining D&D a bit. *skips most of the restated stuff* Don't you think I know all that, shadzar? The point I've been making is that the Fighter is a bad class to use as a benchmark for anything. It's an unimaginative class with no unique abilities and whose strength is entirely reliant on what feats it is allowed to take. We both agree the rogue is in the middle of the road, right? Shouldn't that be the benchmark, then? if wizard is overall power of 5, rogue is 3, cleric is 3, and fighter is 1. As a minor note - If fighter is 1, rogue is 3, and wizard is 5... cleric is around 7, and druid is near 10. have no idea what half those classes are, but you shouldn't have to multiclass in order to balance a charater against others. They're multiclassed not for balance, but to fill different roles. The arcane trickster has the skills, the Loremaster has the smarts, the Theurge has the healing, and the Jade Phoenix Mage has the beats. its good fun having a single class type party, but for those games where it isn't required, then it shouldn't be needed to balance the game. Again, it clearly wasn't to balance the game, but to see how well they could fill out different roles. I've done the same with clerics... and in the process learned that clerics fill a lot of roles very, very well, even if the only differences are spell selection and domains.
Optimized_Commoner 08-07-07, 10:35 PM	Remember,folks, that there are other reasons than stats and numbers for playing a particular class. One that comes to mind is enjoyment of that particular class. If that is the case, who cares if other classes outshine them at other levels? If you enjoy playing that class and have fun with that particular character, all else is irrelevant. Glad to hear it, but that's irrelevant. You're welcome to enjoy playing substandard classes as much as you like. It makes them no less substandard. Since you clearly don't care about the mechanics, then it won't bother folks like you if your class gets fixed up a bit.
shadzar 08-07-07, 11:11 PM	Don't you think I know all that, shadzar? The point I've been making is that the Fighter is a bad class to use as a benchmark for anything. It's an unimaginative class with no unique abilities and whose strength is entirely reliant on what feats it is allowed to take. i never said a benchmark. just a good choice to test things by. but if you want to call it a benchmark fine. same thing as a control i guess. it is just something that can be seen as differeing in power than the others. We both agree the rogue is in the middle of the road, right? Shouldn't that be the benchmark, then? again by benchmark as you call it i mean as a control. not as a midpoint to strive to reach with ech class, or a point that each class should be raised or lowered to in order to be balanced. just that you can tell with a fighter vs wizard that the classes are definately not balanced against each other. As a minor note - If fighter is 1, rogue is 3, and wizard is 5... cleric is around 7, and druid is near 10.thats nice, but i dont really care to be honest. i don't play 3.x for it to matter for me. just that in any edition they have all failed to properly balance the classes which would be to balanced them against each other and not against something else. 2E and earlier tried this with races having level limits. i understood this but never really liked it. so i removed the level limits and explained the possibility that some classes may notice power influxes due to their removal, and that humans lost their only real advantage as a race. it didn't stop people from playing human fighters in my games. They're multiclassed not for balance, but to fill different roles. The arcane trickster has the skills, the Loremaster has the smarts, the Theurge has the healing, and the Jade Phoenix Mage has the beats.mumble mumble mumble. that is all i hear when reading those terms since i have no idea what they mean. if you understand them and their relationship to each other thats fine. but multiclassing should be used to fill gaps in what a single class can't do for when say no one wants to play the cleric. not that a need to multiclass should exist in order to balance the classes. that doesn't balance the classes, it just adds the classes strengths up at vaiours points. a fighter still cannot cast spells. so a fighter wanting to cast spells CAN multiclass some wizard in their, but shouldn't need the wizard to be added because the fighter is substantially impotent in respect to power when compared to a wizard. Again, it clearly wasn't to balance the game, but to see how well they could fill out different roles. I've done the same with clerics... and in the process learned that clerics fill a lot of roles very, very well, even if the only differences are spell selection and domains. its nice, but still doesn't balance the classes for the system as a whole. that is something the designers need to do. after 30 years of D&D someone should have noticed this by now. but each new edition forgets to balance the classes against each other rather than any percieved challenges they will come up against. that is what a DM is for to give challenges that meet or slightly exceed the PCs potential in order to make for an exciting game with suspense and the possiblity to fail or pass being very close. also the players should work together when user their classes in order to fill those gaps in abilities if they want them. either by playing single classed characters if they choose where one has one responsibility in the party, or to multiclass where each person can do a little bit of this and that to help where something may be missing fromt he party make up. both should work just as good with a system of balanced classes.
Caelic 08-07-07, 11:25 PM	Actually, I'd argue that each new edition has made the problem worse. In first edition, the driving dynamic was party interdependency. No class could duplicate what another class could do with any degree of success. A cleric couldn't replace the fighter; a wizard couldn't replace the thief. Wizards and clerics were powerful, but they couldn't succeed on their own. In second edition (particularly later second, the Skills and Powers era, which I call "2.5") things gradually moved away from this dynamic and towards self-sufficient characters. The problem is that it was only the magic-using classes that really gained this self-sufficiency. (For a laugh, take a look at the "custom class" rules from 2.5 at some point. The idea was that you got a certain number of "build points" to spend on building your custom version of the class. Clerics wound up getting a monstrously high number of points, with the practical result that you could take a "cleric" and turn it into a fireball-flinging fighter who could also heal.) This trend has continued in third edition, with the added exacerbating factor of making all classes advance at the same speed.
shadzar 08-07-07, 11:40 PM	Actually, I'd argue that each new edition has made the problem worse. This trend has continued in third edition, with the added exacerbating factor of making all classes advance at the same speed. oh i agree with that. they are now trying to balance the game as a whole, but how to do that without balancing the players independant classes seems to have eluded them because it can't be done AFAIK. you mean custom classes such as this thing (http://www.kcrew.org/~shadzar/dnd/DMG_class.htm)? or something i refuse to look up in the 2.5 PO* books. *PO = Player's Options for some, but for most it probably meant that they were PO'ed about the whole concepts in the books. :rofl:
Roog 08-07-07, 11:41 PM	mumble mumble mumble. that is all i hear when reading those terms since i have no idea what they mean. What? You don't understand "different roles... skills... smarts... healing... beats"
shadzar 08-07-07, 11:48 PM	What? You don't understand "different roles... skills... smarts... healing... beats" the names of those things i guess he gave as classes. arcane trickster Loremaster Theurge Jade Phoenix Mage
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-07-07, 11:50 PM	i never said a benchmark. just a good choice to test things by. but if you want to call it a benchmark fine. same thing as a control i guess. it is just something that can be seen as differing in power than the others. That sir is what a "bench mark" is. It is mark by which other things, in this case classes, are measured. What comso is saying is that the fighter is a poor control, or bench mark, you should something else. again by benchmark as you call it i mean as a control. not as a midpoint to strive to reach with ech class, or a point that each class should be raised or lowered to in order to be balanced. just that you can tell with a fighter vs wizard that the classes are definately not balanced against each other. Thank you for your astute observation. :rolleyes: thats nice, but i dont really care to be honest. i don't play 3.x for it to matter for me. just that in any edition they have all failed to properly balance the classes which would be to balanced them against each other and not against something else. Perhaps it would easier for everyone then if you stopped pretending to know what your talking about, and just tried to learn something? 2E and earlier tried this with races having level limits. i understood this but never really liked it. so i removed the level limits and explained the possibility that some classes may notice power influxes due to their removal, and that humans lost their only real advantage as a race. Ok...what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? it didn't stop people from playing human fighters in my games. Never having played a fighter in 2ed, or anything in 2ed, I can't comment on this. But I will say I once tried to "fix" the fighter by giving it a feat at every level, and then every 5 levels it picked up weapon focus, weapon spec, greater weapon focus, weapon mastery, and weapon sup for free. It allowed them to eventually get weapon sup in two weapons. Still no takers. What does that say about feat being equal to class abilities? mumble mumble mumble. that is all i hear when reading those terms since i have no idea what they mean. if you understand them and their relationship to each other thats fine. but multiclassing should be used to fill gaps in what a single class can't do for when say no one wants to play the cleric. not that a need to multiclass should exist in order to balance the classes. that doesn't balance the classes, it just adds the classes strengths up at vaiours points. a fighter still cannot cast spells. so a fighter wanting to cast spells CAN multiclass some wizard in their, but shouldn't need the wizard to be added because the fighter is substantially impotent in respect to power when compared to a wizard. When at least your honest about it instead of making up your own defination, and arguing something nonsencical based on that. Here a brief lesson in game theory (the D&D game theory): Skills guy: This is the person with lots of skills. He picks locks, finds and disables traps, smooth talks the guards, etc. I believ the earilier additions called him a thieve. Beats: This is the person who lays down the hurts. Opens the can of whoop-ass. In short s/he deals damage to the bad guy in large amounts and kills them quickly. Knowledges: This person knows stuff. What the monster is your fighting. The history of the kingdom is. Who the King of far-far away is. Like the skills guy they have lots of skill points. Unlike the skills guy they focus on the knowledge skills. Healing: Typically a cleric. This person patches up the wounds, and keeps everybody kicking. Thats very brief, and overly broad, but it auto suffice for now. its nice, but still doesn't balance the classes for the system as a whole. that is something the designers need to do. Its not supposed to. Comso is right, the multiclassing was down to pick up class abilities needed to fulfill certain roles in the party that that the arcane casting classes lacked. You'll the lack of trap finding on the wizard class, hence the 3 level dip in rogue, or the lack of healing spells on the arcane list which necessitated the muliclass to cleric for the thuerge. after 30 years of D&D someone should have noticed this by now. but each new edition forgets to balance the classes against each other rather than any percieved challenges they will come up against. that is what a DM is for to give challenges that meet or slightly exceed the PCs potential in order to make for an exciting game with suspense and the possiblity to fail or pass being very close. We've noticed. hence why you see so many people decrying the uselessness that is the fighter. Or why poeple say the druid is uber broken. also the players should work together when user their classes in order to fill those gaps in abilities if they want them. either by playing single classed characters if they choose where one has one responsibility in the party, or to multiclass where each person can do a little bit of this and that to help where something may be missing fromt he party make up. both should work just as good with a system of balanced classes. 3.x rewards specialization. A party is better off with one guy who is really good at X, then a hole party that is only half assed at X. For example, only rogues, ninjas, scouts, and other class with the trap finding ability can find a trap who's DC is over 20, regardless of their actual search result. Now the entire party could elect to tack at least one level in one those classes, but that may not be feasible for them. Or one person could do it, and then leave other roles to other people. In the case of my all arcane example, each multiclass was down so as to be able to pick up something they needed to perform a role. Again rogue for trap finding, cleric from healing, and swrodsage for beat down potential.
Comus 08-07-07, 11:52 PM	mumble mumble mumble. that is all i hear when reading those terms since i have no idea what they mean. if you understand them and their relationship to each other thats fine. but multiclassing should be used to fill gaps in what a single class can't do for when say no one wants to play the cleric. not that a need to multiclass should exist in order to balance the classes. that doesn't balance the classes, it just adds the classes strengths up at vaiours points. a fighter still cannot cast spells. so a fighter wanting to cast spells CAN multiclass some wizard in their, but shouldn't need the wizard to be added because the fighter is substantially impotent in respect to power when compared to a wizard. That's... Oy. Forget it. I don't want to argue this with you. I don't see how this statement is connected to what I said at all. I was just pointing out that the wizards were multiclassed so that each filled one of the four iconic roles (fighter, thief, magic-user, cleric), to make a balanced (in the sense that they have all four iconic roles represented) party. also the players should work together when user their classes in order to fill those gaps in abilities if they want them. either by playing single classed characters if they choose where one has one responsibility in the party, or to multiclass where each person can do a little bit of this and that to help where something may be missing fromt he party make up. both should work just as good with a system of balanced classes. Personally, I'd like to see D&D move to a classless system, where you're given a number of points and can use them to buy abilities for your character. BESM d20 is pretty close to what I'd like to see, actually, though it isn't really classless.
Mock26 08-07-07, 11:55 PM	*PO = Player's Options for some, but for most it probably meant that they were PO'ed about the whole concepts in the books. :rofl: This is not directed at you or anyone else in this thread, but I am always amuzed by the people who criticize the various 2nd Edition Options books as being horrible and making the game extremely cumbersome to play and such. But, these very same people never seem to realize that they were, in essence, splat books that did NOT have to be incorporated into the game. After all, they were the Options books!
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-07-07, 11:58 PM	arcane trickster Prestige class found in the DMG. Combines wizard, and rogue abilites to make a fussion of the the two class. Most notablely it advances spell casting, and sneak attack, while giving four skills/level. Loremaster Another Prestige class (PrC) found in the DMG. Requires many divination spells, and knowledge skills. It gives abilities to further a knowledgeable book learned wizard archetype, such as lore which is like bardic knowledge. Theurge PrC found in the 3.5 DMG. Combine wizard and clerics. It advances both wizard and cleric casting. Jade Phoenix MagePrC found in the Tome of Battle. It combine arcane magic with blade magic, the system of maneuvers and combat abilities presented in the Tome of battle.
Mock26 08-08-07, 12:04 AM	But I will say I once tried to "fix" the fighter by giving it a feat at every level, and then every 5 levels it picked up weapon focus, weapon spec, greater weapon focus, weapon mastery, and weapon sup for free. It allowed them to eventually get weapon sup in two weapons. Still no takers. What does that say about feat being equal to class abilities? What it says to me is that the newer version has sucked some (or a lot, depending on your viewpoint) of the creativity out of the game. A lot of players seem to be more concerned with what bonuses they can get from class X and race Y and skill A and feat B. I see 3.x as making the game more about rolling the dice than about using your imagination. To me, you should pick your character not based on what bonuses you'll get or how well you stack up against other characters at various levels. I think that it should primarily be about playing a class and race because you want to play that particular race and class, because you think that you'll have fun with that class. I don't think that there is anything wrong with min/maxing your character. I just don't think that that should be your primary focus when creating your character. I think that people should be more concerned about playing something for the sheer pleasure of playing something.
shadzar 08-08-07, 12:07 AM	This is not directed at you or anyone else in this thread, but I am always amuzed by the people who criticize the various 2nd Edition Options books as being horrible and making the game extremely cumbersome to play and such. But, these very same people never seem to realize that they were, in essence, splat books that did NOT have to be incorporated into the game. After all, they were the Options books! oh i know they were options. i would hope others did also since the name kind says it for you. not everyone considered them core, but i agree many sadly did. the bad thing is those "options" are what now makes a big part of core in 3.x. Cormus: i understand you were making note of some odd class names. what the specifics of the class are means nothing to me. but the point is you shouldn't need some nor core material in order to balance core classes. the classes should be balance at the core level. TPK: it doesn't matter that the players notice the classes are unbalanced against each other. the problem is when they in turn forget the system is flawed because it includes those unbalanced classes. the players shouldn't have to do this. if it was evident in playtesting and the system was supposed to have more "intuative" rules with more consistency across the board...then why hasn't the class balanced been fixed yet by the designers? it isn't my job to fix it for everyone else. i make no money from it. the people sucking up the money for a broken system should fix it.
Comus 08-08-07, 12:16 AM	Cormus: i understand you were making note of some odd class names. what the specifics of the class are means nothing to me. but the point is you shouldn't need some nor core material in order to balance core classes. the classes should be balance at the core level. And I never, ever said the prestige classes were being used for balance purposes - though three out of four of them are indeed core prestige classes. I said the prestige classes were letting them fill a different party role. Also, to everyone - it's Comus, like the Greek god. ;)
shadzar 08-08-07, 01:05 AM	And I never, ever said the prestige classes were being used for balance purposes - though three out of four of them are indeed core prestige classes. I said the prestige classes were letting them fill a different party role. Also, to everyone - it's Comus, like the Greek god. ;) :confused: well i was talking in respect to balance betwen classes primarily. and the fact that the core classes, not a fancy new term for a class kit; should be balanced. and sad to say it but the PRCs as just kits to improve classes just like in 2E. a new name doesn't make something better.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-08-07, 01:13 AM	Shadzar, are you saying that the classes themselves are not balanced against themselves? As in some classes are just plain better then others? Because if you are, no in disagreeing with you. Further you aren't doing a good job of saying that our way of fixing this problem won't work, because no one has given any fixes for the problem. In short I'm not sure, who, or what your arguing with or about. Please clarify.
Comus 08-08-07, 01:39 AM	:confused: well i was talking in respect to balance betwen classes primarily. and the fact that the core classes, not a fancy new term for a class kit; should be balanced. and sad to say it but the PRCs as just kits to improve classes just like in 2E. a new name doesn't make something better. Yes, you were talking about balance. The problem is that I wasn't talking about balance, so in talking about balance... you were essentially replying to me with non sequiturs. Look, it went like this: TPK: I once toyed with the idea of using Wizards and PRCs to fill all the roles in a game. shadzar: You shouldn't need to use PRCs to balance classes. Me: He wasn't using them for balance. He was using them to fill nonstandard roles. shadzar: He shouldn't have to use them for balance. Multiclassing should be used to help classes fill nonstandard roles. Me: What? I just said that! When did this become a balance debate? shadzar: You shouldn't need to use PRCs to balance core classes. Me: I... I never said anything about balance. We aren't talking about that. shadzar: PRCs are like kits and should be balanced, see?
shadzar 08-08-07, 01:39 AM	Shadzar, are you saying that the classes themselves are not balanced against themselves? As in some classes are just plain better then others? Because if you are, no in disagreeing with you. Further you aren't doing a good job of saying that our way of fixing this problem won't work, because no one has given any fixes for the problem. In short I'm not sure, who, or what your arguing with or about. Please clarify. Are we really going to use an unhouseruled fighter as a paragon of good class desgin to compare to? wouldn't an unhouseruled fighter be the best to compare to since it shows just how the system doesn't work to keep the classes balanced in power levels. the core fighter makes a good control specimen. i was saying that using a fighter vs a magic-user you can best tell that the classes don't balance well. not that a fighter should be used to compare all, but you can in fact do that. each class should be balacned agaisnt the otehrs form a current standpoint. find which classes power level is the sweet spot. then adjust all others to meet that in order to balance all the classes. the unhouseruled fighter was used because that was the chosen corelation in the initial arguement and it will work just fine. that is what i was arguing about. you call it benchmark (it is but my mind with this day i've had isn't really thinking in computer terms to recognize the word), i call it a control as in an experiement. ----- the unhouseruled fighter must be used over any other fighter, because it shows exactly the problem with balancing. we agree on this right? we agree the fighter has the weakest "power level" right? while wizard may not be highest, then can we also agree that fighter and wizard are easily identifiable as a gross misbalancing of power? those were my points and why i was argueing about using the fighter. not that the unhouserueld fighter is a good class design as in it works best, but good class design to use for the test. sorry migraine medicine kicking in and i myself and not really understaing some of the things i am saying at this time. any more clearifications and i will try to make them have better sense.
SirTodd 08-08-07, 01:41 AM	Yes, everyone is aware that the sorcerer is a pathetic class. The easiest way to build an optimized sorcerer is to play a wizard. Not true at all. The sorcerer is the closest in flavor to the psion. And an optimized sorcerer can do things that would be difficult or impossible with a wizard. If it were truly a pathetic class, as you claim, no one would play them. Instead there are a great many people who love sorcerers. Just like there are a group of people who like Psions. Your comparing spells known. A wizard isn't limited in spells known like a sorcerer or psion. So it's like comparing an automobile to a house. Thats like saying the psion is way overpowered because he uses points to manifest his abilities while a wizard is stuck with spell slots. In other words an invalid comparison. That's your choice if you wish to take it. However you seem under the mistaken belief that only damage spells autoscale for wizards, this is untrue. You also seem to believe that all psionic abilities are augmentable, this is also untrue. While I can't claim all psionic powers scale. I don't have the book. I do know from what I have seen that far more of them scale in effect than the wizard gets. (I am not talking about range and duration. I am talking about improved effect). Perhaps those you saw playing psions were using the rules incorrectly or very well optimized. I haven't had the same experience with them I'm afraid and found them to be exceedingly low on points. When I played a psion last I know I kept running out of points far too quickly. I find it amazing that with your low opinion of psions you would push so hard to play them. Clearly they retain power long enough (even using them un-optimized as you do) or you would call psions useless and lump them with the 3.0 psions. You do realise that in context we're comparing the damage dealing capacities of the wizard and psion. Right? Anyway, it's (direct damage) hardly useless, it's just less effective than certain other options available to a wizard at that level. As any optimizer will tell you the best blaster is a psion, not a wizard. This is for all the reasons noted earlier. For example after 10th level a wizards fireball can NEVER get any better. A psion can always pump his power all the way up to his level.
shadzar 08-08-07, 01:43 AM	Yes, you were talking about balance. The problem is that I wasn't talking about balance, so in talking about balance... you were essentially replying to me with non sequiturs. Look, it went like this: TPK: I once toyed with the idea of using Wizards and PRCs to fill all the roles in a game. shadzar: You shouldn't need to use PRCs to balance classes. Me: He wasn't using them for balance. He was using them to fill nonstandard roles. shadzar: He shouldn't have to use them for balance. Multiclassing should be used to help classes fill nonstandard roles. Me: What? I just said that! When did this become a balance debate? shadzar: You shouldn't need to use PRCs to balance core classes. Me: I... I never said anything about balance. We aren't talking about that. shadzar: PRCs are like kits and should be balanced, see? i was always discussing the balance since prior to TPK. thinking he was responding to my post immediately before the one you mention in your example about his wizards with PRcs. no matter who TPK was responding to it can't be told really what he meant in the middle of a class balance discusison.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-08-07, 02:15 AM	i was saying that using a fighter vs a magic-user you can best tell that the classes don't balance well. not that a fighter should be used to compare all, but you can in fact do that. each class should be balacned agaisnt the otehrs form a current standpoint. find which classes power level is the sweet spot. then adjust all others to meet that in order to balance all the classes. the unhouseruled fighter was used because that was the chosen corelation in the initial arguement and it will work just fine. that is what i was arguing about. you call it benchmark (it is but my mind with this day i've had isn't really thinking in computer terms to recognize the word), i call it a control as in an experiement. ----- the unhouseruled fighter must be used over any other fighter, because it shows exactly the problem with balancing. we agree on this right? we agree the fighter has the weakest "power level" right? while wizard may not be highest, then can we also agree that fighter and wizard are easily identifiable as a gross misbalancing of power? those were my points and why i was argueing about using the fighter. not that the unhouserueld fighter is a good class design as in it works best, but good class design to use for the test. sorry migraine medicine kicking in and i myself and not really understaing some of the things i am saying at this time. any more clearifications and i will try to make them have better sense. But one was disagreeing with you that the classes are not balanced. And no one was saying the fighter wasn't the weakest class. In fact that was one of, two, reasons why Comus was saying you shouldn't use it to as a comparison. i was always discussing the balance since prior to TPK. thinking he was responding to my post immediately before the one you mention in your example about his wizards with PRcs. no matter who TPK was responding to it can't be told really what he meant in the middle of a class balance discusison. WTF? It seems to me that everyone but you understood both what I was saying, and the context I said it in. Instead of going off nonsensically when you don't understand something you should just ask. Here I'll clarify this for you. And I was responding to you BTW. You said something to the effect that in earlier additions the classes weren't balanced, but they were still playable because they each had something the other could not do. And thus they were needed. You said an wizard party would fail. I responded by siting my experiments with an all wizard, technically all arcane party, and what they character class combinations looked like. Basically showing how different wizard builds can fill different roles in the party. Clearer now?
Alyri 08-08-07, 02:18 AM	Glad to hear it, but that's irrelevant. You're welcome to enjoy playing substandard classes as much as you like. It makes them no less substandard. Sorry but I don't get an epeen from playing some 'supposedly better class' I like the fighter, I like the sorcerer, I have crushed plenty a BBEG with a fighter. Learn to play the class.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-08-07, 02:31 AM	Sorry but I don't get an epeen from playing some 'supposedly better class' I like the fighter, I like the sorcerer, I have crushed plenty a BBEG with a fighter. Learn to play the class. Thats nice, the fighter is still the weakest class by far, and away. If you want I can demonstrate why rage is mathematically better then weapon spec. Don't get me wrong, if you like playing it, and thats fun for you, then by all means play it. Whatever floats your boat and all that. But just because you like it does make it an optimal choice from a mechanical standpoint, nor does it make it balanced.
Alyri 08-08-07, 02:58 AM	WTF? It seems to me that everyone but you understood both what I was saying, and the context I said it in. Instead of going off nonsensically when you don't understand something you should just ask. Here I'll clarify this for you. I don't know why but this statement coming from you, just strikes me as amusing. Thats nice, the fighter is still the weakest class by far, and away. If you want I can demonstrate why rage is mathematically better then weapon spec. Don't get me wrong, if you like playing it, and thats fun for you, then by all means play it. Whatever floats your boat and all that. But just because you like it does make it an optimal choice from a mechanical standpoint, nor does it make it balanced. Sure explain away. I can show you, mathematically, why a fighter should beat a barbarian 75% of the time.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-08-07, 03:26 AM	I don't know why but this statement coming from you, just strikes me as amusing. Sure explain away. I can show you, mathematically, why a fighter should beat a barbarian 75% of the time. Rage provides a + 4 to strength which gives you a + 2 to attacks and damage (+3 with two handed weapons) with any weapon. Rage improves at 11th, and 20th level. even if it is limited by the number of times per day. Rage also does not cost a feat and is available at 1st level. Weapon spec on the other hand applies only to a single weapon. And it only provides a bonus to damage, not to hit. Further it does not improve as you take more feater levels. Weapon spec gives the +2 to damage at 4th when you take it, and at 20th. Weapon spec coasts a feat is not available until level 4, which means to get it you have to take fighter 3, which gives you nothing.
Optimized_Commoner 08-08-07, 04:05 AM	Not true at all. The sorcerer is the closest in flavor to the psion. Flavour is all well and good, but I was discussing mechanics. And an optimized sorcerer can do things that would be difficult or impossible with a wizard. Like? If it were truly a pathetic class, as you claim, no one would play them. Why? Mock said he's happy to player a fighter no matter what anyone else thinks less than a score posts ago. Surely Sorcerer fans could do no less. Besides, sorcerer is good for people learning the magic system or people too lazy to handle the paperwork of playing a wizard. Instead there are a great many people who love sorcerers. Many people like the monk too. Really, you're going to have to do better than an ad populum argument. Thats like saying the psion is way overpowered because he uses points to manifest his abilities while a wizard is stuck with spell slots. In other words an invalid comparison. Odd, I started talking about psions because someone made that exact comparison. Creepy. While I can't claim all psionic powers scale. I don't have the book. I do know from what I have seen that far more of them scale in effect than the wizard gets. (I am not talking about range and duration. I am talking about improved effect). Tell you what, if you're interested for the sake of reference I'll count them for you. I've got to leave for my gaming session in five minutes though, so it'll have to wait till next time I'm on. I find it amazing that with your low opinion of psions you would push so hard to play them. Clearly they retain power long enough (even using them un-optimized as you do) or you would call psions useless and lump them with the 3.0 psions. I didn't think 3.0 psions were useless. I thought 3.0 psionics was useless. There is a difference. I have no wish to play a psion really. I'm just thinking your comparison is unfair. As any optimizer will tell you the best blaster is a psion, not a wizard. This is for all the reasons noted earlier. For example after 10th level a wizards fireball can NEVER get any better. A psion can always pump his power all the way up to his level. Wow, they're the best blaster... lucky them. Well I suppose that's all you need, if you can blow stuff up who needs any other spellcasting class. Scrap wizards and clerics completely, psions can blast well. Sorry but I don't get an epeen from playing some 'supposedly better class' I like the fighter, I like the sorcerer, I have crushed plenty a BBEG with a fighter. Learn to play the class. Good for you. I'm glad it makes you happy. I don't like to play the fighter, not because of any mechanical weakness, but because I don't go to the trouble of imagining a fantasy world where magic is real to play a brute with a sharp piece of metal. I've got to play some form of magic-user to enjoy fantasy games. However neither of our concerns are relevant to the fact that the system is broken... What on earth is preventing you from understanding the relatively simple premise? Balanced System > Unbalanced System.
pauln6 08-08-07, 08:00 AM	What it says to me is that the newer version has sucked some (or a lot, depending on your viewpoint) of the creativity out of the game. A lot of players seem to be more concerned with what bonuses they can get from class X and race Y and skill A and feat B. I see 3.x as making the game more about rolling the dice than about using your imagination. To me, you should pick your character not based on what bonuses you'll get or how well you stack up against other characters at various levels. I think that it should primarily be about playing a class and race because you want to play that particular race and class, because you think that you'll have fun with that class. I don't think that there is anything wrong with min/maxing your character. I just don't think that that should be your primary focus when creating your character. I think that people should be more concerned about playing something for the sheer pleasure of playing something. I do agree with this sentiment. My character sucks in terms of optimisation because she was converted from a 2e dual class human but after 17 years I wouldn't trade her in. I am, however, upset that they never produced a nice, simple shadow mage prestige class so that I could carry forward the 2e shadow mage characterisitics. Too much flavour has been lost in favour of number crunching. All the mystique of creating magical items has been lost - I always thought it was great that anybody using Dust of Disappearance had the moral dilemma of knowing how many pixies had to die to produce it! Now it's just a Greater Invisibilty spell - how much flavour does that add? And I really don't like the way that pcs and all the npcs are loaded down with items that bost their stats by +6. However a caster without something like this is almost bound to fail beause his spell DCs will be too low. ASny DM can affect game balance depending on what kind of campaign s/he runs. Fighters may well outshine other pc classes in the right circumstances while magical items can radically asffect how effective a particualr pc class can be.
SirTodd 08-08-07, 08:59 AM	Flavour is all well and good, but I was discussing mechanics. What are you talking about? The flavor I am talking about is BASED on mechanics. They use similar mechanics. Both know a certain amount of spells as determined by their level. They even both have the same ability to use effects on the fly as the situation demands it, without prep work. Like? Like the ever popular meta-magic on the fly types or even the amazing counterspell build. Why? Mock said he's happy to player a fighter no matter what anyone else thinks less than a score posts ago. Surely Sorcerer fans could do no less. Besides, sorcerer is good for people learning the magic system or people too lazy to handle the paperwork of playing a wizard. Many people like the monk too. Really, you're going to have to do better than an ad populum argument. Bully for you if you think the wizard is the only class worth playing. But the rest of us realize there are plenty of other powerful classes. If you don't wish to play psions then why the long argument when I was simply stating why I don't use them side by side in the same game with spell casters. Are you afraid I will GM a game for you and use point based stuff instead of slots? Odd, I started talking about psions because someone made that exact comparison. Creepy. I made it clear from the start that psionics are not overpowered. Was there a point to this comment? I didn't think 3.0 psions were useless. I thought 3.0 psionics was useless. There is a difference. I have no wish to play a psion really. I'm just thinking your comparison is unfair. The difference is moot. If thats why your arguing why not simply make it clear at what points the comparison of Psion to Sorcerer is unfair. I have refuted your points so far. Wow, they're the best blaster... lucky them. Well I suppose that's all you need, if you can blow stuff up who needs any other spellcasting class. Scrap wizards and clerics completely, psions can blast well. Most of a wizard's or sorcerer's free scaling comes from damage dealing spells. This is just the final nail in the coffin of your argument that Psionics are weak because they don't get free scaling. If, despite NOT getting free limited scaling, a psion can do something far batter than the wizard or sorcerer. Then clearly it shows that the full but paid scaling of a psion is better than limited but free scaling of an arcane spell caster. I guess you're free to overreact and ban spell casters if you want. But then you won't be able to have your prized wizards.
OravennasBrother 08-08-07, 12:04 PM	I don't like to play the fighter, not because of any mechanical weakness, but because I don't go to the trouble of imagining a fantasy world where magic is real to play a brute with a sharp piece of metal. I've got to play some form of magic-user to enjoy fantasy games. Well good for you. I don't play Fighters as Dumb brutes, perhaps that is why I enjoy them. Much as this FASCINATING diversion into "Magic PWN ALLL RULE !!!ONE!!!" sentiment adds to the discussion of DM Power to Disallow, it seems to have taken a life of its own. It also demonstrates the exact difference between extremes of DM's. On the one hand the "Magic PWN ALLL RULE !!!ONE!!!" crowd and on the other the people who run 4 encounters per day (between rest cycles) and allow all classes access to reasonable wealth (DMG Suggested rewards) from level 1 and keep track of who spends a LOT (on Scrolls etc) and who does not (because they don't run through scrolls like water) and who use all the other balancing factors built into the game. Ill call the Magic favoring crowd Group 1 and the other Group 2. Someone from Group 1 comes to my campaign and states "I'm going to play a Druid because they RULE" and I'll remind them that they may have trouble within the context of a game where much of the action is URBAN and their adventures might result in them losing their powers (Read Ex Druids and then ask who determines when a Druid stops Revering nature -Answer the DM ). Then they go - Well I'll Play a Cleric, and I remind them that Deities have restrictions, just like Nature, and then they'll try "Well I'll play a cleric devoted to an ETHOS" and I'll remind them that without a Church to call upon it might be hard to find a cleric of that particular Ethos to cast Atonement should they need it. Again all as explained in the ex-cleric section of the class description in the DMG. Wizards have to SURVIVE low levels to get those "High Level" powers - and all it takes is one ambush or critical hit to kill a Wizard. You can play one (unless I've presented a setting where no PC is a spellcaster, I do that on occasion) - but it won't have everything handed to it on a silver platter just because it's a spellcaster. Now going into a campaign run by a member of Group 1 would be a waste of my time. Every attempt to defeat magic by being clever would automatically fail because "Magic PWN ALLL RULE !!!ONE!!!" and I don't particularly enjoy letting my spell list do all the thinking for me. So as soon as I identify a DM as the "Fighters SuXXors" 'cause "Magic PWN ALLL RULE !!!ONE!!!" sort, I leave. I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince someone who is so caught up in "Magic PWN ALLL RULE !!!ONE!!!" that they ignore every limitation built into the game AND give every spell the benefit of favorable DM rulings.
Alyri 08-08-07, 12:48 PM	and on the other the people who run 4 encounters per day (between rest cycles) I am never this regimented with my games.
Comus 08-08-07, 12:51 PM	Well good for you. I don't play Fighters as Dumb brutes, perhaps that is why I enjoy them. I have to agree with you. Whenever I play a melee-type character I tend to play them as being smart, and try to use SWAT-style tactics, like using sleep arrows coated in drow poison, using alchemical options like acid and alchemist's fire, caltrops, flasks of oil... the list goes on. I always like having a bag of tricks for my characters. That's just in core, mind you. Given the option, I'll usually play a Kobold with a Tome of Battle class. I just find the combination of the weakest race with melee options that make STR less of a requirement to be a lot of fun overall.
Alyri 08-08-07, 01:00 PM	Rage provides a + 4 to strength which gives you a + 2 to attacks and damage (+3 with two handed weapons) with any weapon. Rage improves at 11th, and 20th level. even if it is limited by the number of times per day. Rage also does not cost a feat and is available at 1st level. Weapon spec on the other hand applies only to a single weapon. And it only provides a bonus to damage, not to hit. Further it does not improve as you take more feater levels. Weapon spec gives the +2 to damage at 4th when you take it, and at 20th. Weapon spec coasts a feat is not available until level 4, which means to get it you have to take fighter 3, which gives you nothing. Rage only works, like you said, X number of times per day, While raging you are very limited on actions. Weapon Specialization works all day every day and the fighter still has total control of his actions Fighter 3 gives me d10hp, BAB, +1wil/ref, 2+int skill points. Perhaps I have a messed up phb let me check the srd......srd says the same thing.
Alyri 08-08-07, 01:04 PM	I have to agree with you. Whenever I play a melee-type character I tend to play them as being smart, and try to use SWAT-style tactics, like using sleep arrows coated in drow poison, using alchemical options like acid and alchemist's fire, caltrops, flasks of oil... the list goes on. I always like having a bag of tricks for my characters. Our group stays away from alchemist's fire. Our rogue was a major pyro for a while, which did help us defeat a flesh golem, but when he botched a throw and burned up our 'big reward'(flying carpet) we had to take steps....
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-08-07, 01:29 PM	Rage only works, like you said, X number of times per day, While raging you are very limited on actions. Weapon Specialization works all day every day and the fighter still has total control of his actions Fighter 3 gives me d10hp, BAB, +1wil/ref, 2+int skill points. Perhaps I have a messed up phb let me check the srd......srd says the same thing. barbarian 3 gives you a d12 hd, full bab, +1 will/ref 4+int skill points (from a larger list) and on top of that +1 trap sense.
SirTodd 08-08-07, 01:37 PM	I feel odd about a claim someone made about weapon specialization vs barbarian rage. His claim was that the +2 hit and damage from rage was better than the +2 to damage from specialization... But if you're taking the specialization tree you will have a +1 to hit and +2 to damage all the time with your favorite weapon (which lets face it, is probably the one you will stick to using). By the time a barbarian gets greater rage +3/+3 the fighter should have +2/+4 by continuing the specialization tree. And there are even greater feats of specialization. Just look in PHB2 (I think) for even more specialization feats. The barbarian only has to look forward to losing all those penalties he gets after he rages (at 17th level). In other words they are fairly balanced till high level when the fighter can get an advantage.
OravennasBrother 08-08-07, 01:43 PM	I am never this regimented with my games. Of course not, very few play at the extremes, though the "Wizards Rule Fighters Drool" fanbois (sic) invariably make comments like "I can rest between encounters, I'm a wizard and I need my spells so not resting is for retards." (no offense meant to anyone with learning disabilities, its just the common sentiment I hear from the rabid Wizard Rules crew) and if you ZOMG put them on a time limit (you have to rescue the captives BEFORE they get sacrificed) then you're "Cheating the Wizard's out of one of their class features" (namely the ability to recharge fully between any two CR appropriate encounters) I could probably name some posters from this thread with whom I would not enjoy playing as DM, and I can guarantee that they likewise would fine MY style of DMing unenjoyable. Why should either side play a game they find revolting?
Lethanic 08-08-07, 01:46 PM	Pretty much if you aren't going to present wizards with enough encounters between rests that they use up their resources then you need to either A: Make them have less resources(less spells per day) or B: Make the resources slower to regenerate(YOu don't gain back every spell every night, only some of them)
Caelic 08-08-07, 01:47 PM	Well good for you. I don't play Fighters as Dumb brutes, perhaps that is why I enjoy them. Much as this FASCINATING diversion into "Magic PWN ALLL RULE !!!ONE!!!" sentiment adds to the discussion of DM Power to Disallow, it seems to have taken a life of its own. It also demonstrates the exact difference between extremes of DM's. On the one hand the "Magic PWN ALLL RULE !!!ONE!!!" crowd and on the other the people who run 4 encounters per day (between rest cycles) and allow all classes access to reasonable wealth (DMG Suggested rewards) from level 1 and keep track of who spends a LOT (on Scrolls etc) and who does not (because they don't run through scrolls like water) and who use all the other balancing factors built into the game. Ill call the Magic favoring crowd Group 1 and the other Group 2. ...and you've done such a wonderful job of presenting the two groups in a fair and unbiased manner. Perhaps I can do the same. On the one hand, we have the group that acknowledges that the underlying paradigm of the D&D system is magic-driven, and that recognizes that (as the designers themselves have said) non-spellcasters simply cease to be viable at higher levels without magical support. These individuals recognize that, at mid to high levels, spellcasters become able to dictate the pace and terms of their encounters, and so come to dominate. On the other hand, we have folks who say "NOOOO U NO UZE 4 ENCOUNTERS PER DAY DUNGN CRAWL UR BAD MD! BAD BAD BAD DM!" and use railroading to attempt to force players to march down corridors encountering a clockwork four encounters per day. See my point? It's easy to portray proponents of the position you disagree with as frothing-at-the-mouth idiots, and proponents of your own position as intelligent and reasonable. It's easy, but it's not particularly admirable. How about we both try not to do it?
Caelic 08-08-07, 01:49 PM	Pretty much if you aren't going to present wizards with enough encounters between rests that they use up their resources then you need to either A: Make them have less resources(less spells per day) or B: Make the resources slower to regenerate(YOu don't gain back every spell every night, only some of them) The problem here, as I pointed out, is that it's extremely difficult to "present wizards with enough encounters between rests" once they hit a certain level. The nature of magic in D&D is such that they become able to dictate the terms of engagement, and the only real way to counter that is by fighting fire with fire.
Lethanic 08-08-07, 01:57 PM	Fight fire with fire then. Supply magic using opponents that force the mages to use up spells to nullify them, thus draining their resources.
Alyri 08-08-07, 01:58 PM	barbarian 3 gives you a d12 hd, full bab, +1 will/ref 4+int skill points (from a larger list) and on top of that +1 trap sense. trap sense is sooooo good.
OravennasBrother 08-08-07, 02:03 PM	The problem here, as I pointed out, is that it's extremely difficult to "present wizards with enough encounters between rests" once they hit a certain level. The nature of magic in D&D is such that they become able to dictate the terms of engagement, and the only real way to counter that is by fighting fire with fire. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the Experience RULES in the DMG. If a wizard insists on blazing away with all their high level spells and running off to rest between encounters, the DM is well within his/her rights to reduce the wizard's XP reward to, well nothing, because the danger represented by the encounter became trivial.
Comus 08-08-07, 02:22 PM	Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the Experience RULES in the DMG. If a wizard insists on blazing away with all their high level spells and running off to rest between encounters, the DM is well within his/her rights to reduce the wizard's XP reward to, well nothing, because the danger represented by the encounter became trivial. The DMG doesn't support you. It does say that an encounter that is so trivial that it doesn't appreciably use up PC resources shouldn't be worth much (if any) XP. However, the wizard's spells are his resources. If he's blowing high-level spells on the opponent, it means he couldn't use them in later encounters. If the wizard is able to engage at will, and the enemy doesn't respond in any way in the rest time the wizard is taking, then the problem is that the enemy has terrible tactics. Why don't they leave the dungeon, or set up a trap, or call in reinforcements, or do any of a hundred other things - including following the PCs to where ever they're resting and attacking them when they're sleeping.
Ongorth 08-08-07, 02:26 PM	The DMG doesn't support you. It does say that an encounter that is so trivial that it doesn't appreciably use up PC resources shouldn't be worth much (if any) XP. However, the wizard's spells are his resources. If he's blowing high-level spells on the opponent, it means he couldn't use them in later encounters. If the wizard is able to engage at will, and the enemy doesn't respond in any way in the rest time the wizard is taking, then the problem is that the enemy has terrible tactics. Why don't they leave the dungeon, or set up a trap, or call in reinforcements, or do any of a hundred other things - including following the PCs to where ever they're resting and attacking them when they're sleeping. So if I use a scroll meteor swarm to open a trapped door, the party should get XP, but if a rogue searchs, disables and open locks it, I shouldn't? Because the first one used a powerful resource for my level 10 rogue, while the second cost me zilch. The more wasteful the PCs are, the bigger the reward they should get?
Caelic 08-08-07, 02:39 PM	Yes, that's true. If the wizard is intelligent, makes full use of his capabilities, and executes intelligent strategies and tactics, thereby making fights much easier than if he mindlessly marched down a corridor waiting for the next encounter to show up, then the DM is within his rights to penalize that. I don't know any good DM who would do that, mind you--but he's within his rights to do it.
shadzar 08-08-07, 02:51 PM	Fight fire with fire then. Supply magic using opponents that force the mages to use up spells to nullify them, thus draining their resources. if the opposing magic users don't have melee support they may very likely not cause the party wizard any harm at all. casting some high level spell that requires longer than a single round could end up with a quickly dead opposing magic user. charge, get one attack, hit....magic user spellcasting was interrupted. :eek: you cant just use magic, but an encounter of great enough threat and risk that it makes the entire party so occupied that the party wizard is forced to expend his spells quickly. and that 4 encounters per day crap should be removed as an illogical premise. it should never existed and there is no basis on reason why there would be 4 encounter per day. then ever part of the system depending on it should be reworked in order to remove all signs of it.
Comus 08-08-07, 02:51 PM	So if I use a scroll meteor swarm to open a trapped door, the party should get XP, but if a rogue searchs, disables and open locks it, I shouldn't? Because the first one used a powerful resource for my level 10 rogue, while the second cost me zilch. The more wasteful the PCs are, the bigger the reward they should get? No. He overcame the encounter, and the party gets XP. I'm not saying that the more resources you put into something, the more XP you get back. I'm just saying that you shouldn't penalize XP just because PCs are using good tactics, you savvy? Yes, that's true. If the wizard is intelligent, makes full use of his capabilities, and executes intelligent strategies and tactics, thereby making fights much easier than if he mindlessly marched down a corridor waiting for the next encounter to show up, then the DM is within his rights to penalize that. I don't know any good DM who would do that, mind you--but he's within his rights to do it. I don't think he's within his rights to penalize it. The DMG specifically says "...a dangerous encounter that the PCs overcome handily through luck or excellent strategy is worth full XP." (Bolding mine.)
shadzar 08-08-07, 03:05 PM	Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the Experience RULES in the DMG. If a wizard insists on blazing away with all their high level spells and running off to rest between encounters, the DM is well within his/her rights to reduce the wizard's XP reward to, well nothing, because the danger represented by the encounter became trivial. perhaps you are unfamiliar with threat assessment. if the encounter itself can easily be won by the wizard using all high level spells then the encounter was to weak for the entire party. which means not only the wizard would not get full XP, but neither would the rest of the party. to gain XP from combat there must be the threat potential that could kill the party, not just a single member. a wizard using all high level spells against a single kobold is in no threat from that kobold and just screwing around bascially. a wizard using all his higher spells against 100 kobolds is in actual threat from the kobolds. i depends on why the wizard is running away after his spells are exhausted. to m it sounds like a calculated retreat and good tactic. not that resting during combat will allow all those spells to be memorized again. so the danger of the encounter is trivial fromt he beginning if the wizard can solely overcome it without the aid of the other party members. that is a DM foul up.
shadzar 08-08-07, 03:08 PM	So if I use a scroll meteor swarm to open a trapped door, the party should get XP, but if a rogue searchs, disables and open locks it, I shouldn't? Because the first one used a powerful resource for my level 10 rogue, while the second cost me zilch. The more wasteful the PCs are, the bigger the reward they should get? using a spell to remove an obstacle that could harm the party is not a threat. it is stupidity. the party wouldn't get XP because the door poses no threat to the party the spell used to open it does. unless you are saying the meteor swarm scroll was the trap on the door? then i have no idea what you mean.
Baernwulf_of_Nor 08-08-07, 03:10 PM	I have something to add to the Barbarian vs. Fighter argument. Sure, a barbarian can rage a number of times per day and it increases in number and power with his level. A fighter gets FEATS, which essentially ARE his class features, so you could say that when he takes feats like weapon specialization and its derivatives, they are increasing in power as he continues to level because him leveling is giving him new feats. Also his feats continue forever where a barbarians rage lasts only so long. Furthermore, due to him being able to take fighting feats as part of his class, he can take other skill boosting feats and the like as his normal ones, giving him extra customization possibilites. I am also a player that spends lots of time buying mundane items from the PHB. Chalk FTW! As to this fighter vs wizard thing, it really depends on how they start and their predicaments. If you start them a mile away on a field sure wizard will rock, but if they start right next to each other in a tiny room the fighter has the advantage. Spellcasters are like scales, they start at a 10, then decrease over time to a 1. However fighters are always a steady 5 or 6. If both are forced to fight in a giant battle that lasts several days the fighter has a much greater chance of surviving. But lets focus on team play. All the class types are needed for a good adventuring group, trapped doors are a rogues bag, fighters distract the tough close combat characters/whittle them down and the wizards aid the party by casting powerful damage spells/augmentings others abilities/dispelling the enemies spells. Everyone is needed to work as a team for success. BoN
OravennasBrother 08-08-07, 03:12 PM	The DMG doesn't support you. It does say that an encounter that is so trivial that it doesn't appreciably use up PC resources shouldn't be worth much (if any) XP. However, the wizard's spells are his resources. The Words "As a DM you must determine when a challenge has been overcome." Straight from the Book if not SRD (this does constitute fair use) If something isn't a challenge then destroying it with spells is not overcoming a challenge - including following the PCs to where ever they're resting and attacking them when they're sleeping. Yes that is an excellent tactic, yet it is another tactic which the "Wizards PWN ALL !!! ONE1!!!!" crowd call unfair. Imagine that.
Comus 08-08-07, 03:36 PM	The Words "As a DM you must determine when a challenge has been overcome." Straight from the Book if not SRD (this does constitute fair use) If something isn't a challenge then destroying it with spells is not overcoming a challenge Would it have been a challenge if the Fighter had drawn his sword and run at it, instead? If the answer is yes, then it is still a challenge if the wizard blows it apart from orbit. Again, "...a dangerous encounter that the PCs overcome handily through luck or excellent strategy is worth full XP." Yes that is an excellent tactic, yet it is another tactic which the "Wizards PWN ALL !!! ONE1!!!!" crowd call unfair. Imagine that. Did you steal the scarecrow from Farmer John? Because that's one heck of a strawman.
Ongorth 08-08-07, 03:44 PM	No. He overcame the encounter, and the party gets XP. I'm not saying that the more resources you put into something, the more XP you get back. I'm just saying that you shouldn't penalize XP just because PCs are using good tactics, you savvy? Nope. If you're circumventing the challenge system you also circumvent the reward system. I don't see how purposefully fighting less encounters then you are "supposed to" is "excellent strategy". It seems more like turning the game to "easy". I mean, if your strategy and tactics were so excellent, wouldn't you be able to take on more encounters, rather then less?
Ongorth 08-08-07, 03:47 PM	Would it have been a challenge if the Fighter had drawn his sword and run at it, instead? If the answer is yes, then it is still a challenge if the wizard blows it apart from orbit. Again, "...a dangerous encounter that the PCs overcome handily through luck or excellent strategy is worth full XP." If the fighter did it for one encounter, then sat down and rested, it would be the same thing and I don't think OB would reward either. OB is specifically talking about circumventing the appropraite number of encounters per day, which could be done by anyone, but is most advantageous for the wizard (which links to his Pro-Magic DM arguement somewhere).
OravennasBrother 08-08-07, 04:14 PM	it is still a challenge if the wizard blows it apart from orbit. Again, "...a dangerous encounter that the PCs overcome handily through luck or excellent strategy is worth full XP." Which is why I imagine you would not like my style of DMing. Because as DM I determine what is a challenge and a player spouting his interpretations of the rules won't change the way I run. I have yet to see a player who insisted that Magic rules enjoy my game, primarily because I don't let players dictate how the spells "Actually work" in edge cases and I don't let them circumvent the entire CR/Reward system by abusing conjuration magic for infinite power loops, and I don't let spells have as much individual flexibility as Skills. Spells do one thing (unless they specifically have multiple uses) and trying to argue that they should get something extra (Wall of Force as a way to damage moving objects comes to mind - as something I don't allow) is pointless when I run. Similarly if a DM decides that any "technomagicbabble" will allow spells nigh infinite utility, yet Skills can be used SOLELY for those things with difficulties listed in the DMG, then I won't enjoy that game and won't waste my time trying to convince the DM to change.
Caelic 08-08-07, 04:20 PM	The Words "As a DM you must determine when a challenge has been overcome." Straight from the Book if not SRD (this does constitute fair use) If something isn't a challenge then destroying it with spells is not overcoming a challeng ...and if you say "They destroyed it with spells, therefore it wasn't a challenge," then you're engaging in circular reasoning. Yes that is an excellent tactic, yet it is another tactic which the "Wizards PWN ALL !!! ONE1!!!!" crowd call unfair. Imagine that. *Tsk* You're still attempting to portray everyone who believes magic is disproportionately powerful with the same crude stereotype. I'm disappointed. More to the point, I'm puzzled: who has called such a tactic "unfair?" If the wizard and his party are careless enough to be followed and ambushed, that is certainly not unfair; it's the consequence of their carelessness. Now, on the other hand, if the wizard and his party are careful, mask their retreat, and take precautions against being followed and attacked, and the DM still decides that they've been followed and attacked--just because he doesn't like the idea of the wizard not having his full four encounters that day--then THAT is unfair.
shadzar 08-08-07, 04:22 PM	Nope. If you're circumventing the challenge system you also circumvent the reward system. I don't see how purposefully fighting less encounters then you are "supposed to" is "excellent strategy". It seems more like turning the game to "easy". I mean, if your strategy and tactics were so excellent, wouldn't you be able to take on more encounters, rather then less? who says how many encounters you are "supposed to" have? and even if you assume the completely flawed 4/day CR system crap is correct. no one mentioned that the wizard was fighting any less encoutner but the wizard just happened to handle them in a quicker manner. the problem is that an encounter shouldn't be based on a single character but the entire party. if the encounter was so weak as to allow a single character to handle it then the threat wasn't that good. in other words a poorly designed encounter. not what if the wizard just burned through spells and defeated a single opposing member of the encounter and the rest are still working on defeting the remainder. the wizard that is hiding could have easily done his fair share.
Mock26 08-08-07, 04:29 PM	Glad to hear it, but that's irrelevant. You're welcome to enjoy playing substandard classes as much as you like. It makes them no less substandard. Since you clearly don't care about the mechanics, then it won't bother folks like you if your class gets fixed up a bit. Who says that I clearly don't care about mechanics? I never said that, nor did I even imply that. To make that assumption is clearly a case of faulty reasoning. I merely stated that mechanics are not the only reason to pick a character class and/or race.
Caelic 08-08-07, 04:31 PM	Which is why I imagine you would not like my style of DMing. Well, no, I think I wouldn't like your style of DMing because you've made it clear that you have very strong biases and preferences, and punish players who don't adhere to them. Even though I happen to share some of your biases and preferences, I don't like the idea of punishing players just because they don't also share them. Because as DM I determine what is a challenge and a player spouting his interpretations of the rules won't change the way I run. ...and if you typically follow the line of reasoning you're advocating here--"Nope, you planned that encounter too well, the enemy never got a chance to swing back, so no XP for you"--then you're right; I wouldn't like your style of DMing. I dislike DMs who punish players for playing intelligently. I have yet to see a player who insisted that Magic rules enjoy my game, primarily because I don't let players dictate how the spells "Actually work" in edge cases It sounds very much as if you actively go out of you way to belittle and punish players who don't share your philosophy. That might have something to do with why they don't enjoy the game. and I don't let them circumvent the entire CR/Reward system by abusing conjuration magic for infinite power loops, and I don't let spells have as much individual flexibility as Skills. Spells do one thing (unless they specifically have multiple uses) and trying to argue that they should get something extra (Wall of Force as a way to damage moving objects comes to mind - as something I don't allow) ...and something nobody here has mentioned, to the best of my knowledge. That said, do you punish players who use spells for the "one thing" they're designed for? Would you punish a player who regularly uses Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion to provide a secure camp? Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum to protect that camp against scrying? Would you punish him for using Fly to engage physically-powerful but unintelligent enemies from a safe distance, or spells that inflict ability damage to incapacitate an opponent by targeting his weakest stat? is pointless when I run. Similarly if a DM decides that any "technomagicbabble" will allow spells nigh infinite utility, yet Skills can be used SOLELY for those things with difficulties listed in the DMG, then I won't enjoy that game and won't waste my time trying to convince the DM to change. Again, I'm puzzled. Where did the notion of "skills being used solely for those things listed in the DMG" come from? I don't think I've ever encountered a single DM who believes that, and I certainly haven't seen anyone here suggest it.
Caelic 08-08-07, 04:41 PM	Nope. If you're circumventing the challenge system you also circumvent the reward system. I don't see how purposefully fighting less encounters then you are "supposed to" is "excellent strategy". It seems more like turning the game to "easy". I mean, if your strategy and tactics were so excellent, wouldn't you be able to take on more encounters, rather then less? I'm always amazed by the number of people who take general guidelines and treat them as hard-and-fast rules. The CR system was based on the assumption of an average of four encounters per day; therefore, by Gawd and by golly, there MUST be four CR-appropriate encounters, each and every day, no more and no less, or you're not playing the game right! The problem is, that's not what the rules say. First off, the rules never say that "four encounters per day" is mandatory, or even suggested. The rules say that after four CR-appropriate encounters, the players should have to rest; they do not, to the best of my recollection, ever say "Players should have four CR-appropriate encounters between rest periods." Furthermore, the rules DO explicitly tell the DM not to modify the experience award for an encounter based on the number of encounters he's already had that day; but rather to "Judge the difficulty of an encounter on its own merits." Can anyone find any rules support for the notion that a party that has less than four encounters per say is somehow "cheating" or "circumventing the CR system?" Can anyone find any rules support suggesting that four encounters per day is meant to be a rule?
Comus 08-08-07, 05:11 PM	Which is why I imagine you would not like my style of DMing. Because as DM I determine what is a challenge and a player spouting his interpretations of the rules won't change the way I run. I have yet to see a player who insisted that Magic rules enjoy my game, primarily because I don't let players dictate how the spells "Actually work" in edge cases and I don't let them circumvent the entire CR/Reward system by abusing conjuration magic for infinite power loops, and I don't let spells have as much individual flexibility as Skills. Spells do one thing (unless they specifically have multiple uses) and trying to argue that they should get something extra (Wall of Force as a way to damage moving objects comes to mind - as something I don't allow) is pointless when I run. Similarly if a DM decides that any "technomagicbabble" will allow spells nigh infinite utility, yet Skills can be used SOLELY for those things with difficulties listed in the DMG, then I won't enjoy that game and won't waste my time trying to convince the DM to change. What does any of this have to do with what we were discussing? I mean, really? We aren't talking about DM calls on edge-uses of spells, skills, or anything else. We were talking about your statement that you would not give XP if the players managed to defeat it through planning and the intelligent use of their abilities. Here's how I see this going: You: And then five mummies turn around the corner! Roll initiative. Wizard: Looks like I'm first. Five mummies, eh? And they're all in the corridor? You: Yes. Wizard: All packed together? You: Yes. Wizard: Awesome! I cast an Empowered Fireball at them. Reflex for half, DC 20. You: *rolls* They all fail. Wizard: Cool. *rolls damage* Awesome! I rolled almost maximum! And they take double from fire, right? You: That's right. Wizard: That's... 146 damage to each of them, then. You: All five Mummy Lords crumble to dust. Fighter: Mummy Lords? Wow! How much XP do we get? You: None. Every Player At The Table: WUT?! You: It was too easy. No XP. Now, if the fighter had gone a few rounds with them, and the rogue had gone down to half HP, and the cleric had wasted a few turning attempts... that would have earned you some XP. Cleric: So we don't get XP... because we fought intelligently. You: That's right. I just don't see it as fair.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-08-07, 05:15 PM	if the opposing magic users don't have melee support they may very likely not cause the party wizard any harm at all. casting some high level spell that requires longer than a single round could end up with a quickly dead opposing magic user. they changed this in 3.0. Most spells only take a standard action now. So a wizard could use the afore mentioned mentioned metro swarm with a single standard action. IN fact a wizard of that level could say use a quickened 5th level or lower spell, and then another spell all in the same round. Going non-core I was crafted a wizard that was able to fire off 3 spell around. The wands got expensive, but hey it was high level FR game, last one i played in. Things just got silly. charge, get one attack, hit....magic user spellcasting was interrupted. :eek: You'd like to think that, but by the level we're talking about your charging fighter has to content with; an AC around 50-60ish, one mis chance from invisibility, another from improved blink, a contingency spell, and more likely then not reaching the flying mage. you cant just use magic, but an encounter of great enough threat and risk that it makes the entire party so occupied that the party wizard is forced to expend his spells quickly. Unfortunately you can. At most a level dip or 3 and your wizard, or cleric is can fill any party role. In fact they often can do it better then the class intended for it. This is only exaggerated when it comes to the melee classes. Wizard can out damage them over four encounters a day. Thats just a matter of resource management. Clerics and druid don't have to worry about spells, as with only a couple of buffs, or a wild shape in the case of druid, they can out fight the fighter. And that if the wizard is using damage. Most of the time they have much better options, and can usually neutralize an encounter with a single spell. At lower levels this is done with colour spray, and sleep. Mid levels they have hold monster, Edvard's black tenticals, and phantasmal killer, and at higher levels maze, power word stun, and weird are pretty good catch alls. And thats just in the PHB. While the fighter gets marginally better at swing his stick around. The mage is going from putting you to sleep, and sapping your strength, to having magical forces grapple you, paralyze you, and give you negative levels, to finally kill you outright with all your friends in a 30ft cone. and that 4 encounters per day crap should be removed as an illogical premise. it should never existed and there is no basis on reason why there would be 4 encounter per day. then ever part of the system depending on it should be reworked in order to remove all signs of it. Actually the four encounters a day comes from the CR system. Basically a balanced encounter should comsume about 25% for the partys resources, thus they should have 4 a day. Now I agree that this system is full of problems, and generally doesn't work. BUt like you said thats for the game designers to fix, not me. But then I generally fix it in my games, by hand designing every encounter, and throwing random encounter out the the window. I have something to add to the Barbarian vs. Fighter argument. Sure, a barbarian can rage a number of times per day and it increases in number and power with his level. A fighter gets FEATS, which essentially ARE his class features, so you could say that when he takes feats like weapon specialization and its derivatives, they are increasing in power as he continues to level because him leveling is giving him new feats. Also his feats continue forever where a barbarians rage lasts only so long. Furthermore, due to him being able to take fighting feats as part of his class, he can take other skill boosting feats and the like as his normal ones, giving him extra customization possibilities. The problem is that a barbarian gets feats too. A fighter will pick up 18, 11 from a specific list, all be it broad. A barbarian will get 7, with only two in core that the fighter has access to but the barbarian doesn't. The barbarian on the other hand gets class features that are better then feats, and can't be duplicated by feats. Such as uncanny dodge, and DR. Now feats may equate to class features, they don't but we'll pretend they do. The barbarian will still have more skills, and more hit points. The same saves, and base attack. The only thing the fighter has over the barbarian is heavy armour proficiency, and they both have the same weapons. As to this fighter vs wizard thing, it really depends on how they start and their predicaments. If you start them a mile away on a field sure wizard will rock, but if they start right next to each other in a tiny room the fighter has the advantage. Spellcasters are like scales, they start at a 10, then decrease over time to a 1. However fighters are always a steady 5 or 6. If both are forced to fight in a giant battle that lasts several days the fighter has a much greater chance of surviving. Not nessecarily. At long range the wizard will win every time, and at short range it becomes a competition of initiation, as the wizard will neutralize the fighter with a single spell 75% of the time. even in Melee, as casting defensive is only DC 15, assuming the wizard doesn't feel like munchkin moon dancing. But lets focus on team play. All the class types are needed for a good adventuring group, trapped doors are a rogues bag, fighters distract the tough close combat characters/whittle them down and the wizards aid the party by casting powerful damage spells/augmentings others abilities/dispelling the enemies spells. Everyone is needed to work as a team for success. BoN the problem with this that after about 5 or so the fighter type is reduced to not much more then a human shield. They are about the same as a thrall, or side kick, and can be easily replaced. I don't know about you, but when I play a character I prefer it to say relavent to the party. The Words "As a DM you must determine when a challenge has been overcome." Straight from the Book if not SRD (this does constitute fair use) If something isn't a challenge then destroying it with spells is not overcoming a challenge As already pointed out this is circuar logic. If they did nothing and let it killthem would then be a challenge? Or in order for it to be a challenge does it have to almost TPK them everytime? Yes that is an excellent tactic, yet it is another tactic which the "Wizards PWN ALL !!! ONE1!!!!" crowd call unfair. Imagine that. Not quiet. The smart wizard will have rope trick. At 5th level with an extned spell feat it will give him a safe extrademinsional space to sleep in and re prepare spells. With a duration of 10 hours it gives plenty of time for rest, and preping spells, and an hour left over for he wizard to leisurely enjoy his cheerios. Nope. If you're circumventing the challenge system you also circumvent the reward system. I don't see how purposefully fighting less encounters then you are "supposed to" is "excellent strategy". It seems more like turning the game to "easy". I mean, if your strategy and tactics were so excellent, wouldn't you be able to take on more encounters, rather then less? they don't have to fight rest, as you put it. Most of they time they can sap 4 encounters a day quiet easily. It is only at like level 1 or 2 that this is a problem. But if your giving them 4 encounters a day, and being even remotely fair about the XP, which doesn't sound like you are, then they won't stay at 1st level for long. Which is why I imagine you would not like my style of DMing. Frankly after having listen to rant for lat few pages about how magic isn't powerful you can lay the DM smack down, I find it hard to believe that anyone would your DMing style. Further all you've been able to propose to balance is a combination of DM fient, rule zero, and well acting like a jerk. Druids: Balanced because I'll make them fall. Clerics: Balanced because I'll make them fall. Deity less clerics: I'll make them fall, and there will no atonement either. Wizards I'll kill them off at level 1 before they get good. Thats not in the rules, and frankly not fair to the player. and finally using rule as a balancing mechanism, does not mean something is balanced. Thats the Oberoni fallacy.
Ongorth 08-08-07, 05:36 PM	Can anyone find any rules support for the notion that a party that has less than four encounters per say is somehow "cheating" or "circumventing the CR system?" Can anyone find any rules support suggesting that four encounters per day is meant to be a rule? No, but I will tell you DON'T meet or exceed that number of encounters, you really don't need to worry about balance, because the game is so easy that anyone can "win" anyway. Its not cheating, its not breaking the rules, but seriously, if you don't at least meet those minimums, there isn't even a challenge anymore to be measured.
Lethanic 08-08-07, 05:38 PM	No, but I will tell you DON'T meet or exceed that number of encounters, you really don't need to worry about balance, because the game is so easy that anyone can "win" anyway. Its not cheating, its not breaking the rules, but seriously, if you don't at least meet those minimums, there isn't even a challenge anymore to be measured. Although actually, it doesn't need to be that NUMBER - two REALLY TOUGH encounters could count. heck, ONE really nasty encounter could count.
Ongorth 08-08-07, 05:39 PM	Although actually, it doesn't need to be that NUMBER - two REALLY TOUGH encounters could count. heck, ONE really nasty encounter could count. Number meaning an equivilent difficulty of encounters. Let's BOTD here.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-08-07, 05:43 PM	Number meaning an equivilent difficulty of encounters. Let's BOTD here. wtf?
Caelic 08-08-07, 05:49 PM	No, but I will tell you DON'T meet or exceed that number of encounters, you really don't need to worry about balance, because the game is so easy that anyone can "win" anyway. Its not cheating, its not breaking the rules, but seriously, if you don't at least meet those minimums, there isn't even a challenge anymore to be measured. But who said "four appropriate CR encounters per day" is the standard minimum? What about "one significantly-higher-than-CR encounter, defeated through a well-executed and intelligent plan?" "Four encounters per day" isn't even, as far as I can tell, a suggested guideline in the CR system--and the CR system is asinine to begin with. Don't forget: an 18th wizard and the 3 Solars he Gates in are technically a lower CR encounter than a single Solar. (Did they ever get around to actually stipulating that a Called creature does give XP? I would hope so, but I missed it if they did.)
shadzar 08-08-07, 06:02 PM	they changed this in 3.0. Most spells only take a standard action now. So a wizard could use the afore mentioned mentioned metro swarm with a single standard action. IN fact a wizard of that level could say use a quickened 5th level or lower spell, and then another spell all in the same round. Going non-core I was crafted a wizard that was able to fire off 3 spell around. The wands got expensive, but hey it was high level FR game, last one i played in. Things just got silly. You'd like to think that, but by the level we're talking about your charging fighter has to content with; an AC around 50-60ish, one mis chance from invisibility, another from improved blink, a contingency spell, and more likely then not reaching the flying mage. Unfortunately you can. At most a level dip or 3 and your wizard, or cleric is can fill any party role. In fact they often can do it better then the class intended for it. This is only exaggerated when it comes to the melee classes. Wizard can out damage them over four encounters a day. Thats just a matter of resource management. Clerics and druid don't have to worry about spells, as with only a couple of buffs, or a wild shape in the case of druid, they can out fight the fighter. And that if the wizard is using damage. Most of the time they have much better options, and can usually neutralize an encounter with a single spell. At lower levels this is done with colour spray, and sleep. Mid levels they have hold monster, Edvard's black tenticals, and phantasmal killer, and at higher levels maze, power word stun, and weird are pretty good catch alls. And thats just in the PHB. While the fighter gets marginally better at swing his stick around. The mage is going from putting you to sleep, and sapping your strength, to having magical forces grapple you, paralyze you, and give you negative levels, to finally kill you outright with all your friends in a 30ft cone. Actually the four encounters a day comes from the CR system. Basically a balanced encounter should comsume about 25% for the partys resources, thus they should have 4 a day. Now I agree that this system is full of problems, and generally doesn't work. BUt like you said thats for the game designers to fix, not me. But then I generally fix it in my games, by hand designing every encounter, and throwing random encounter out the the window. well there is a problem then making wizards to powerful. the power was counterd in the earlier editions by having to take time to cast spells leaving openings in the attack. it still reamins then that the encounters should be tailored to a party rather than some arbitrary numebr representing what is a good encounter. a wizard as you said could do any numebr of things to nullify a whole encounters effectiveness. at higher levels it makes the game silly as the other classes have little to no use in instances where a wizard is defeated in the sense of not being able to instantly kill everyting of the opposing force. at lower levels the wizard still has many things with which to use to overcome an encounter, providing the rest of the party to not act at all in these cases. it would then be that no one would ever get XP because the smart and tactful wizard can easily overcome any situation. that was my point. the threat level should be based on the average party abilities, or the party as a whole. throwing something a fighter couldn't handle is not a great threat when a wizard can easily defeat it. or is it? the party is in jeopardy rather than jsut a single member of it. example of an easily defeated opponent that posses a threat... some wizard has captured a party member and has them magically hovering over a seemingly bottomless pit. at the blink of an eye the opponent could drop the party member. now the wizard could just blast him and kil him because of the difference in level and/or power levels. this would cause the captured member to fall to his death. at this point the threat is greater to the whole party rather than just simply the wizard. unless it was the wizard who was captured. as the previous dialog went where the party was assumed to get no XP for being intelligent or tactful it just doesn't work that way. just because a party member can single handedly defeat an opponent the group earns XP based on the threat level to the party as a whole. if it were just a single wizard in the encounter while the rest of his party was elsewhere it would be more easily understood that a cut in XP be given since he may not be at as great a threat as if his party was all with him. that is what i was saying. the 25% resources thing is also crap. i can easily see a party fighting a battle that almost exhausts their resources early in the day and having to worry about a simple. if you take into account that it should only require 25% resources per encounter, then i say any encounter with that precept would then be no real threat to the party. a threat is one that should seem to be able to exhaust all party resources. not what the DM sees as a threat, not what the players see as a threat, but fromt he point of the characters, what they would see as a threat. back to the kobolds. party of 4 is at no real threat from a single kobold grunt. but when the next corner has 100 or so kobolds all standing around waiting and the party just happens to turn up the threat has increased greatly. it isn't something that can just be thrown into a book and say this thing will threaten this class, etc. you must look at all the situational elements of the party with each encounter. i just don't like the concept of this CR system.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-08-07, 06:02 PM	Don't forget: an 18th wizard and the 3 Solars he Gates in are technically a lower CR encounter than a single Solar. (Did they ever get around to actually stipulating that a Called creature does give XP? I would hope so, but I missed it if they did.) According to the CR system: CR 1 + CR 3 = EL 4 CR 1 * 3 = EL 2 EL 2 + EL 4 = EL 5 third level druid = CR 3 3rd level druid + wolf animal companion = CR 3 3rd level druid + animal companion + summon nature's alley 2 + sudden maximize = EL 3 3rd level druid CR 3 + animal comapanion CR 1 + summoned wolves 3 CR 1 = EL 3 3 = 5 according to the CR system.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-08-07, 06:25 PM	well there is a problem then making wizards to powerful. the power was counterd in the earlier editions by having to take time to cast spells leaving openings in the attack. "there is a problem with making wizards too powerful"....you don't say? it still reamins then that the encounters should be tailored to a party rather than some arbitrary numebr representing what is a good encounter. a wizard as you said could do any numebr of things to nullify a whole encounters effectiveness. at higher levels it makes the game silly as the other classes have little to no use in instances where a wizard is defeated in the sense of not being able to instantly kill everyting of the opposing force. at lower levels the wizard still has many things with which to use to overcome an encounter, providing the rest of the party to not act at all in these cases. it would then be that no one would ever get XP because the smart and tactful wizard can easily overcome any situation. that was my point. the threat level should be based on the average party abilities, or the party as a whole. throwing something a fighter couldn't handle is not a great threat when a wizard can easily defeat it. or is it? The problem with this that it kind of works at lower levels. However at higher levels if the the fighter can effect it, then the wizard is going to own it. If it is trouble for the wizard, then the fighters will get pwned. the party is in jeopardy rather than jsut a single member of it. example of an easily defeated opponent that posses a threat... some wizard has captured a party member and has them magically hovering over a seemingly bottomless pit. at the blink of an eye the opponent could drop the party member. now the wizard could just blast him and kil him because of the difference in level and/or power levels. this would cause the captured member to fall to his death. barring the fact the captured member of the party gets to sit and watch while he is rescued (not very much fun) and that the wizard could fly down the pit and hual him out before hits the bottom. just because a party member can single handedly defeat an opponent the group earns XP based on the threat level to the party as a whole. if it were just a single wizard in the encounter while the rest of his party was elsewhere it would be more easily understood that a cut in XP be given since he may not be at as great a threat as if his party was all with him. that is what i was saying. When the power discripancy is such as it is between wizard 20 and fighter 20 there really is now way to challenge the party equally. Anything that is appropriate to the fighter is a cake walk for the wizard, and anything that is appropriate for the wizard is certain death for the fighter. On top of that the party cleric is better then the wizard, and the rogue has to be made almost perfectly or its in the same boat as the fighter. And that assumes no one is playing a druid. If there is a druid then it's animal companion is better then the fighter. the 25% resources thing is also crap. i can easily see a party fighting a battle that almost exhausts their resources early in the day and having to worry about a simple. if you take into account that it should only require 25% resources per encounter, then i say any encounter with that precept would then be no real threat to the party. A threat doesn't have to be a epic struggle with your life hanging in the balance. badically what the guide is saying is that it is a challenge if it comsumes at some resources of the parties. If they walk through it with wasting the time of day, then it isn't a challenge. Using your Kobold example, not every challenge has to be an overpowering encounter from which the walks way from, like 100 kobolbs. For a first level party a raiding party of 4-8 is usually sufficient to challenge them. Do that 4 times in one day, and your good. What the guide is saying that for a 1st level party they should encounter something equal to 4 bands of 4 kobolds each day. Now you can have the same effect if they encounter 16 kobolds at once, and then nothing the rest of the day, or one encounter with 12, and another 4, or 2 with 6, and one with 4, or 8 with 2. Basically what the guide is saying is that by the end of the day your party should have consumed all of its daily resources. there for each encounter with an El = to party level should consume 25% for their resources, and the party should have 4 of them. As a bas line. you could have 5 encounters that consume 20%, one that consumes 100%, or 100 that consume 1%. Its just a rough guide, to be used as a method for comparing monster power, CR, to party power, level. For newer DMs its pretty good. Don't use monsters with CR +/-4 of party level. For experienced DMs, it loses effectiveness, but then experienced DMs have the experience to eye ball things.
Ongorth 08-08-07, 06:52 PM	But who said "four appropriate CR encounters per day" is the standard minimum? What about "one significantly-higher-than-CR encounter, defeated through a well-executed and intelligent plan?" "Four encounters per day" isn't even, as far as I can tell, a suggested guideline in the CR system--and the CR system is asinine to begin with. Don't forget: an 18th wizard and the 3 Solars he Gates in are technically a lower CR encounter than a single Solar. (Did they ever get around to actually stipulating that a Called creature does give XP? I would hope so, but I missed it if they did.) BOTD please. I already addressed this point, anyway. Seriously, I've discussed the encounter progressions I used in another thread. Like anything in any modular game, you've got tinker things to your specifications. Like magic, I think the CR system itself works, but the actual material for it is pretty bad. But, since there are no guidelines for encounters per day (apparently) are wizards overpowered because you can nuke and rest or underpowered because you might have to fight 15 encounters in one day and run out of spells as you defend the fountain of Fast Healing 5?
shadzar 08-08-07, 06:55 PM	BOTD please. Book Of The Damned?
Lethanic 08-08-07, 07:15 PM	BOTD please. I already addressed this point, anyway. Seriously, I've discussed the encounter progressions I used in another thread. Like anything in any modular game, you've got tinker things to your specifications. Like magic, I think the CR system itself works, but the actual material for it is pretty bad. But, since there are no guidelines for encounters per day (apparently) are wizards overpowered because you can nuke and rest or underpowered because you might have to fight 15 encounters in one day and run out of spells as you defend the fountain of Fast Healing 5? Boring Owls Tell Damsels? Brides Only Take Dollars? Bears Ogle Tall Dancers? Brunettes Own Ten Dalmatians? Benefit of the Doubt? Bend Over The Dime?
Caelic 08-08-07, 07:17 PM	Battling Over The Dice? ;)
Lethanic 08-08-07, 07:57 PM	Bridge Over the Danube?
Mock26 08-08-07, 07:58 PM	Bridge Over the Danube? No! It's from that classic song, Bridge Over Troubled Dwarves!
Alyri 08-08-07, 08:21 PM	Cleric: So we don't get XP... because we fought intelligently. You: That's right. I just don't see it as fair. I fail to see the 'intelligence' of the wizard going first and casting an empowered fireball.
shadzar 08-08-07, 08:37 PM	no i got it! Bend Over'n Take Dis! Break Open The Dom, Bring On The Disco. :dancin:
Comus 08-09-07, 01:41 AM	I fail to see the 'intelligence' of the wizard going first and casting an empowered fireball. Compare that to having the wizard sit on his arse and read a dime novel until the others have taken enough damage so the DM will let them have XP.
OravennasBrother 08-09-07, 11:34 AM	Would you punish a player who regularly uses Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion to provide a secure camp? The problem with all the idiots who come to my table and expect magic UBER ALLES, is they have NEVER played with a DM who limits it in any reasonable manner. Wizards begin at level 1 the same as other characters. We use 25 PB, so if they go for 18 Int they run low on points for Dex and Con. I limit spells to NOTHING more than what is in the spell description. Examples; a Magic Missile cannot push a button or ring a bell, a Wall of Force cannot inflict damage, It is impossible to use Tenser's Floating Disk to fly. If a spell has an ability, then you can use the ability, but it may not work as planned (The cave collapsed since you were last in it, remember that Earthquake the party noticed a week ago? so the Teleport places you in a thematically similar cave) If any player comes up with an 'infinite power loop' (Abusing candles of invocation) it won't work, I don't care how the player interprets the spell/rules. The whole "It IS NOT a threat" is from a specific incident where a Wizard player (in another DM's game) decided to single-handedly Levitate and Teleport back to a camp of Trolls the party had run from a few levels earlier. Many fire based spells later the player "collected" XP for "defeating" 60 trolls as the survivors of his rain of fire were all running away. He then made up his lack of wealth per level by abusing the Fabricate spell. When I run there would be no XP award and using Fabricate to generate tons o' cash is an excellent method by which a Wizard volunteers for assassination. That I remind players Clerics and Druids can fall is not stating a will FORCE them to fall, but I have seen a lot of players get away with actions which should have required atonement in others campaigns. Priests are servants of their deity, not the other way around. I assign fair XP for encounters. I provide reasonable rewards, both monetary and magic, for dangers faced. PC's who cause trouble (killing lone travelers) and expect XP are sadly mistaken. I don't care if it is a first level party, murder is not condoned so there will be no XP reward. I create adventures with the abilities of the party in mind - when the wizard gets high enough level to teleport, many foes will lair around Waterfalls or Volcanoes or similar natural phenomena; precisely because those locations interfere with the teleport spell. Going in and killing a few of the BBEG's minions, then retreating to regroup is not going to get much XP because the BBEG can replace minions. You failed to defeat the threat. This means that a Wizard who "Goes Nova" at the beginning won't have much left for the climactic showdown with the BBEG - and if they run out and teleport from a safe distance, then the BBEG will either Move or improve security SPECIFICALLY to counter any abilities the party demonstrated in their first brush, or move and improve security. Fighters don't run out of steam so quickly; a wand (purchased by the fighter) is a relatively inexpensive way to insure the party cleric can heal him/her after each encounter. Often when a player "requests" something not allowed they are playing a dominance game; giving in establishes a precedent which abusive players can use to ruin a game. By not GIVING in to the players, the DM prevents this, sometimes with the side benefit of identifying and removing abusive players (they leave when they discover they can't whine and get their way) before they damage a campaign.
Comus 08-09-07, 12:21 PM	OB, I really have to say that you're right on one point you've made before - I wouldn't enjoy playing in your games. You just seem so hostile towards your players, like you're playing against them instead of with them. Almost paranoid, even, like you think players are out to ruin your game.
High Octane 08-09-07, 12:47 PM	The whole "It IS NOT a threat" is from a specific incident where a Wizard player (in another DM's game) decided to single-handedly Levitate and Teleport back to a camp of Trolls the party had run from a few levels earlier. Many fire based spells later the player "collected" XP for "defeating" 60 trolls as the survivors of his rain of fire were all running away. He then made up his lack of wealth per level by abusing the Fabricate spell. When I run there would be no XP award and using Fabricate to generate tons o' cash is an excellent method by which a Wizard volunteers for assassination. Some people have tried to abuse the fabricate spell, I'm pretty sure if you gave the specifics of the incident we could tear apart the theory using RAW. As for the wizard incident, I don't see that happening. Trolls no longer give XP after level 12. A 12th level wizard would not have enough firepower to kill 60 trolls. He would just run out of spells. Unless of course you are playing 2nd edition or earlier where you are awarded the same XP regardless of your level. That I remind players Clerics and Druids can fall is not stating a will FORCE them to fall, but I have seen a lot of players get away with actions which should have required atonement in others campaigns. Priests are servants of their deity, not the other way around. Oddly enough, Druids serve no deity. Hell they can even be evil as long as they revere nature. I decide to neither support nor oppose your statement. "Serving your deity" can be different depending on your DM. One DM will let you murder a village of orphan children when serving Pelor without a backlash. Another will strip your powers away if you forget to say a specific blessing when someone sneezes or strip your powers permanently if you drink any alcohol without a warning. It depends on your DM, since a DM can be either an idiot, or a douche. I assign fair XP for encounters. I provide reasonable rewards, both monetary and magic, for dangers faced. Funny, it seems that you base it on how many resources the dangers use up rather than the actual level of the danger. The difference being that planning and clever use of resources and having the right spells prepared can all contribute to a normally dangerous encounter becoming not dangerous and not resource consuming. And for that you seem to punish them, since as you know players are supposed to run at the enemy headlong without a plan, using their most ineffective spells and resources first. PC's who cause trouble (killing lone travelers) and expect XP are sadly mistaken. I don't care if it is a first level party, murder is not condoned so there will be no XP reward. I don't agree that this is the best way to handle this. Murdering lone travelers for no reason should result in alignment shifts towards both chaos and evil. And to teach them a lesson, perhaps instead you should have those "Lone Travelers" be 18th level druids. If not that, the local populace will rise up against murderers, hiring bounty hunters and adventurers to kill the party. Just stripping XP does nothing to change their attitude but irritate them. I create adventures with the abilities of the party in mind - when the wizard gets high enough level to teleport, many foes will lair around Waterfalls or Volcanoes or similar natural phenomena; precisely because those locations interfere with the teleport spell. This is just careful planning on the bad guys part. Heck you should be seeing this before the wizard is casting teleport. There are plenty of wizards in the world that the bad guys would fear. The bad guys having planned for people trying to take them down is not a new concept. They should have all sorts of guards verse wizards teleporting in, clerics divining, rogues sneaking in, or barbarians busting down the door. But, their guards should be reasonable given their resources. A level 7 BBEG camp will not have wards for scrying, teleporting, divinging, a wall of force gate, and true seeing eyes all around. The cost of all that would be astronomical. However the 18th level evil necromancer will have all that and more. Going in and killing a few of the BBEG's minions, then retreating to regroup is not going to get much XP because the BBEG can replace minions. Within a day? Wow he is talented. Of course the BBEG will likely set up some other wards. So wearing down a BBEG is right out? I see, since all camps should be able to be done within a single day of fighting since some magical force makes them perfectly doable by charging in. How DARE the PCs think of something you did not? You failed to defeat the threat. This means that a Wizard who "Goes Nova" at the beginning won't have much left for the climactic showdown with the BBEG - and if they run out and teleport from a safe distance, then the BBEG will either Move or improve security SPECIFICALLY to counter any abilities the party demonstrated in their first brush, or move and improve security. Fighters don't run out of steam so quickly; a wand (purchased by the fighter) is a relatively inexpensive way to insure the party cleric can heal him/her after each encounter. It is reasonable that the BBEG will expect the PCs to attack again, and if they do not change tactics they should expect some resistance to counter them. Thats why clever regrouping involes different strategies. Different spells used by the caster, warding spells on the fighter so the BBEG doesnt cast hold person, etc. The PCs shouldn't be punished for trying and deciding that proceeding would be too dangerous. You expect them to say "Well we had trouble here, and we are down many spells and healing, but it would not be fair to just leave. It's our fault for not using our resources just right. No we can't leave, we have a duty to fight and die to set examples for future generations." Often when a player "requests" something not allowed they are playing a dominance game; giving in establishes a precedent which abusive players can use to ruin a game. By not GIVING in to the players, the DM prevents this, sometimes with the side benefit of identifying and removing abusive players (they leave when they discover they can't whine and get their way) before they damage a campaign. Nip it in the bud! If the players start thinking for themselves now, they will start doing things you can't plan for and being creative, and we can't let that happen! It's your story after all, so the PCs should be doing exactly what you say and expect! People often say that D&D since 3.5 has gotten to be too much like a video game, with the easier rules and emphasis on balance and such. However, I dont find those aspects of video games to be the bad part. The part I hate about video games has always been that the game limits your options. When you play World of Warcraft, or any other RPG, there are things you are not allowed to do, not allowed to go, etc that railroads you into a set path, or in some advanced cases a set of different paths. You can't go to certain areas since there are impenetrable walls and doors that only open when a certain event happens. Everything in the background is just wallpaper. What I always liked about D&D was that any sort of ideas you have can be tried and played out (within reason) without some invisible force making you go through a certain set of events. But when a DM railroads, which is in a lot of cases what you are suggesting by limiting the functions of spells to only what the specifics of the spell say, and by making encounters not have XP because the players come up with ways to accomplish a task easier than you could predict, you are devolving the game to a video game. The players are still only allowed to do a certain pre-planned things. And that is the worst aspect of a video game to bring to D&D. In my opinion.
Caelic 08-09-07, 01:36 PM	The problem with all the idiots who come to my table and expect magic UBER ALLES, is they have NEVER played with a DM who limits it in any reasonable manner. Do I strike you as that sort of DM? Seriously? And yet, I am firmly of the opinion that a dependency on magic to solve significant problems is utterly built into the core of the system. THAT is why magic is overpowered; it's not just the best solution to many problems, it's the only solution to many problems. I limit spells to NOTHING more than what is in the spell description. Examples; a Magic Missile cannot push a button or ring a bell, a Wall of Force cannot inflict damage, It is impossible to use Tenser's Floating Disk to fly. That must make adjudicating illusions interesting. If a spell has an ability, then you can use the ability, but it may not work as planned (The cave collapsed since you were last in it, remember that Earthquake the party noticed a week ago? so the Teleport places you in a thematically similar cave) If there's a reason for that to have happened, fine; if that's just the DM periodically deciding that something's happened to make the spell fail because he doesn't want it to be reliable, not so fine. If any player comes up with an 'infinite power loop' (Abusing candles of invocation) it won't work, I don't care how the player interprets the spell/rules. Why do you keep bringing up infinite power loops? Who here has suggested that magic is powerful because it allows infinite power loops? The whole "It IS NOT a threat" is from a specific incident where a Wizard player (in another DM's game) decided to single-handedly Levitate and Teleport back to a camp of Trolls the party had run from a few levels earlier. Many fire based spells later the player "collected" XP for "defeating" 60 trolls as the survivors of his rain of fire were all running away. He then made up his lack of wealth per level by abusing the Fabricate spell. When I run there would be no XP award Okay, I'm curious: under what circumstances would you have given XP for these 60 trolls? If you wouldn't give XP when the magic-user was fighting them alone, surely you wouldn't have given XP if he had help. and using Fabricate to generate tons o' cash is an excellent method by which a Wizard volunteers for assassination. Sure; in-game consequences is my preferred method for dealing with abuses. I have to admit, though, I'm curious as to what exactly he was Fabricating that produced such fantastic profit margins. That I remind players Clerics and Druids can fall is not stating a will FORCE them to fall, but I have seen a lot of players get away with actions which should have required atonement in others campaigns. Priests are servants of their deity, not the other way around. True--but given your stated opinion that a Druid would fall simply for spending time in cities--a standard which is a heck of a lot more stringent than anything suggested by the rules--I suspect that you have similarly stringent policies for most Clerics. I assign fair XP for encounters. I provide reasonable rewards, both monetary and magic, for dangers faced. PC's who cause trouble (killing lone travelers) and expect XP are sadly mistaken. I don't care if it is a first level party, murder is not condoned so there will be no XP reward. Err...wait. Now you're saying you don't only dock XP if you don't think the encounter was challenging enough, you dock XP if the encounter offends your morality? How the heck is a player to determine whether killing target X constitutes "murder" in your opinion? Do they have to wait for the opponent to attack first? I create adventures with the abilities of the party in mind - when the wizard gets high enough level to teleport, many foes will lair around Waterfalls or Volcanoes or similar natural phenomena; precisely because those locations interfere with the teleport spell. I've had DMs who assume that all of their NPCs have foreknowledge of the tactics the PCs will use. I fail to be impressed by such DMs. I hope that's not what you're advocating. Going in and killing a few of the BBEG's minions, then retreating to regroup is not going to get much XP because the BBEG can replace minions. You failed to defeat the threat. This despite the DMG affirming that you should judge encounters individually? It sounds like you're saying that if the party defeats Monster X as an individual encounter, they'll get more experience than if they defeat Monster X who is the pet of the wizard, and don't then immediately go and finish off the wizard. This means that a Wizard who "Goes Nova" at the beginning won't have much left for the climactic showdown with the BBEG - and if they run out and teleport from a safe distance, then the BBEG will either Move or improve security SPECIFICALLY to counter any abilities the party demonstrated in their first brush, or move and improve security. Now, that's fine and logical; NPCs should respond to capabilities the PCs have demonstrated. Fighters don't run out of steam so quickly; a wand (purchased by the fighter) is a relatively inexpensive way to insure the party cleric can heal him/her after each encounter. So...magic doesn't dominate the game because the fighter can keep going through the use of magic?
OravennasBrother 08-09-07, 01:53 PM	Some people have tried to abuse the fabricate spell, I'm pretty sure if you gave the specifics of the incident we could tear apart the theory using RAW. As for the wizard incident, I don't see that happening. Trolls no longer give XP after level 12. A 12th level wizard would not have enough firepower to kill 60 trolls. He would just run out of spells. Fabricate, by RAW in the books lists examples, one is making Clothing from Flax or Wool. Cloth is the raw material which Tailors use to make Clothing, so clearly the ability to make something as complex as clothing means you can make something less complex - cloth. Cloth is RAW a trade good, and can be used just like money - without limit on how much you can buy/sell and without losing 50% of the value. Go figure the number of yards of cloth which can be made with the cubic feet which fabricate can produce - at 4 GP per square yard for linen it adds up fast; a conservative estimate is ~4,00 GP per casting of Fabricate for linen cloth. Defeating is not necessarily killing, that is also stated in the RAW. Driving off the trolls so he could "loot" their camp was the stated goal of said wizard. I forget how many charges he used from a Wand he purchased. Suffice to say when the trolls (Int 6 RAW) recognize a threat they cannot meet and retreat the player can claim victory and get XP for 60 trolls - even at 12th level that is more than enough to gain a full level. Without facing ANY danger. The remainder of the party was in town getting supplies, so he did not expend any real resources. DM's have to disallow such abusive "tactics" or all that is left is a video game with XP farming and mindless murder of helpless targets. Not the sort of game I prefer; I'd rather face challenges, but hey I know of a guy called Monty who has his own corridors, you might play with him.
Alyri 08-09-07, 02:41 PM	I looked in my MM and haven't found where it says a Tolls int of 6 is RAW. Can you show me the page?
shadzar 08-09-07, 02:44 PM	I limit spells to NOTHING more than what is in the spell description. i stopped reading after i saw this. would you then say that in the instance of a stone shape spell you would not allow it to do damage if the shape was a stone pike coming from the ground or ceiling to impale an enemy?
Caelic 08-09-07, 05:15 PM	Fabricate, by RAW in the books lists examples, one is making Clothing from Flax or Wool. Cloth is the raw material which Tailors use to make Clothing, so clearly the ability to make something as complex as clothing means you can make something less complex - cloth. Cloth is RAW a trade good, and can be used just like money - without limit on how much you can buy/sell and without losing 50% of the value. Go figure the number of yards of cloth which can be made with the cubic feet which fabricate can produce - at 4 GP per square yard for linen it adds up fast; a conservative estimate is ~4,00 GP per casting of Fabricate for linen cloth. Uhm...sure. If you have access to an infinite supply of the raw materials, and if the DM decides that you can casually sell that much cloth. For someone who claims to be an active DM, it seems odd that you're not asserting your authority in determining that there just isn't anyone in the area who WANTS thousands of yards of linen cloth at the moment. Defeating is not necessarily killing, that is also stated in the RAW. Driving off the trolls so he could "loot" their camp was the stated goal of said wizard. I forget how many charges he used from a Wand he purchased. Suffice to say when the trolls (Int 6 RAW) recognize a threat they cannot meet and retreat the player can claim victory and get XP for 60 trolls - even at 12th level that is more than enough to gain a full level. Without facing ANY danger. The remainder of the party was in town getting supplies, so he did not expend any real resources. You don't consider burning up "I forget how many charges...from a wand he purchased" to be expending resources? Wands must be considerably more commonplace in your game than in mine, in that case.
OravennasBrother 08-10-07, 10:05 AM	i stopped reading after i saw this. would you then say that in the instance of a stone shape spell you would not allow it to do damage if the shape was a stone pike coming from the ground or ceiling to impale an enemy? Absolutely not. The enemy just steps out of the way as the spike comes up, otherwise the spell would list damage done. Alyri - look in the entry for Trolls, the line "Abilities" lists the typical attribute for Trolls. The number listed for Int is 6 When I mention RAW on Fabricate I do not intend that anyone think I would use RAW to allow Fabricate to ruin a game, however I have seen DM's who allow just that; Fabricate trade goods for heaps o' money. Use said money to acquire nigh infinite resources. Use expendable resources (which are effectively free) to defeat enemies for high XP returns. Lather Rinse Repeat. Soar to "Epic" levels quickly. Yes magic helps solve problems in D&D - without it you have to work a lot harder. However, even the Fighter Class RAW can obtain magic gear at appropriate levels. Spellcasters are only invincible if they are allowed to recharge spells after every fight. When that fails to happen (one fight followed by uninterrupted rest) they NEED a fighter - because fighters (melee in particular) Don't have to recharge anything but Hit Points. In a game which runs from 1st to 20th level the wizard who routinely goes nova at the drop of a hat loses a lot. I don't let players have "Free" money because they're wizards - aside from adventuring they can earn per Profession, Craft, or Performance rules. Spellcasting for pay is just another profession and the income is presumably the average - you only earn when you make a sale. So a Wizard who expects to have lots of Wands, Scrolls, and other "expendable" items to give them extra firepower will, in the long run, discover the terrible price they pay - they end up reaching 20th level (if they reach 20th level) with significantly less wealth than the Fighters. Clerics who routinely "Fight" using self buffs probably should be worshiping a deity of war - for fear that a less aggressive deity may be offended by their warlike stance. But then when they run from a fight the deity is angry - the deity intended their glorious death and eternal bliss in paradise to be their reward for faithful service and instead they turned craven. Without self buffs clerics are not that useful in melee. The strengths of spellcasters are obvious to the casual reader, their true weaknesses only appear in long consistent campaign run by a DM who knows their weaknesses - weaknesses which BALANCE them WRT the other classes.
Caelic 08-10-07, 11:21 AM	Yes magic helps solve problems in D&D - without it you have to work a lot harder. However, even the Fighter Class RAW can obtain magic gear at appropriate levels. Spellcasters are only invincible if they are allowed to recharge spells after every fight. Not true. Spellcasters are powerful, not because they can run into a fight and throw lots and lots of spells, but because they can dictate the terms of the fight. It's not a case of "I can do damage faster than the fighter," it's a case of "I can engage the enemy from another continent." When that fails to happen (one fight followed by uninterrupted rest) they NEED a fighter - because fighters (melee in particular) Don't have to recharge anything but Hit Points. ...for which he is, as you pointed out, dependent on a spellcaster. I don't let players have "Free" money because they're wizards - aside from adventuring they can earn per Profession, Craft, or Performance rules. Spellcasting for pay is just another profession and the income is presumably the average - you only earn when you make a sale. So...what do you do? Decide that they never make a sale? Ban the use of any spell that could be used to turn a profit? So a Wizard who expects to have lots of Wands, Scrolls, and other "expendable" items to give them extra firepower will, in the long run, discover the terrible price they pay - they end up reaching 20th level (if they reach 20th level) with significantly less wealth than the Fighters. ...in which case burning those wands and scrolls is certainly "expending significant resources." Clerics who routinely "Fight" using self buffs probably should be worshiping a deity of war - for fear that a less aggressive deity may be offended by their warlike stance. But then when they run from a fight the deity is angry - the deity intended their glorious death and eternal bliss in paradise to be their reward for faithful service and instead they turned craven. So, wait--you "balance" the power of melee clerics by insisting that they be suicidal kamikazes? And if someone who worships, say, a god of fire, or of hunters, engages in melee, what then? The strengths of spellcasters are obvious to the casual reader, their true weaknesses only appear in long consistent campaign run by a DM who knows their weaknesses - weaknesses which BALANCE them WRT the other classes. The classes are not balanced. The fact that you can impose arbitrary restrictions which make a given class difficult or impossible to play do not make them balanced...and the restrictions required to consistently prohibit a wizard from dictating the terms of engagement are both arbitrary and heavy-handed.
Alyri 08-10-07, 11:41 AM	Alyri - look in the entry for Trolls, the line "Abilities" lists the typical attribute for Trolls. The number listed for Int is 6 Hmm. For someone who does alot of work for/against the PC's abilities I would have thunk you would have read page 6 in the MM and saw where it says "we assume....stats" I know I hardly ever use the entries straight out of the book.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-10-07, 12:50 PM	Hmm. For someone who does alot of work for/against the PC's abilities I would have thunk you would have read page 6 in the MM and saw where it says "we assume....stats" I know I hardly ever use the entries straight out of the book. They cover this in chapter 3 (I think, maybe 4) of the monster manual. Significantly increasing a monsters abilities increases it CR by 1. That would include uping its stats.
OravennasBrother 08-10-07, 03:00 PM	the restrictions required to consistently prohibit a wizard from dictating the terms of engagement are both arbitrary and heavy-handed. Because allowing a player to impale an enemy on a spike made by Stone Shape is not arbitrary?:rolleyes: (see above for Shadzar's post if you don't follow what I'm saying)
shadzar 08-10-07, 03:04 PM	i stopped reading after i saw this. would you then say that in the instance of a stone shape spell you would not allow it to do damage if the shape was a stone pike coming from the ground or ceiling to impale an enemy? Absolutely not. The enemy just steps out of the way as the spike comes up, otherwise the spell would list damage done. ok you are officially not worthy of being called a DM in my book and therefore all your ideas are worthless. you need to learn how to play D&D, and that everything is not only to be used as written in the books. [EDIT: This is considered baiting, which is against the CoC. Debate, disagree and discuss, but don't insult people like this. Thank you.]
OravennasBrother 08-10-07, 03:25 PM	ok you are officially not worthy of being called a DM in my book and therefore all your ideas are worthless. you need to learn how to play D&D, and that everything is not only to be used as written in the books. So when my Fighter lunges at the blinking enemy stating "I'm making a stop thrust at his chest so that if the attack misses due to him blinking he'll end up stuck on the ethereal plane r getting impaled on my sword and die as he blinks back in around it" You'll allow the fighter to do just that? It's just the same as what you wanted with stone shape. Oh no its not - my idea does not add to the power of wizards, how silly of me not to recognize that before.
shadzar 08-10-07, 04:08 PM	So when my Fighter lunges at the blinking enemy stating "I'm making a stop thrust at his chest so that if the attack misses due to him blinking he'll end up stuck on the ethereal plane r getting impaled on my sword and die as he blinks back in around it" You'll allow the fighter to do just that? It's just the same as what you wanted with stone shape. Oh no its not - my idea does not add to the power of wizards, how silly of me not to recognize that before. what in the hell does the ethereal plane have to do with someone moistening their eyes? you probably also think 3.x is the correct way to play and thing like called shots probably don't exist anymore. i would make any such attempt by a fighter a called shot and give it modifiers based on difficulty of the attack procedure. if it was feasibly possible. not sure what the heck your example is saying nor if it is even possible. the stone shape, in your limited mind; is unable to do damge because the spell doesn't list damage. is there not stone spears that can be used as weapons? suppose then in your limited imagination that the shape was a block seperate fromt he cieling... now its falling on the enemy because nthing is holding it up. well since there is no damage listed in the stone shape spell, then when the mass of stone falls on the enemy he just gets up and walks away. and from now on there is never any damage taken when your player are affected by a rockslide, cave-ins, etc. because you have set precedent for it. likewise if the stone spear allow easily just stepping out of the way then and kind of peircing attack is rendered null and void in your game. leaving many weapons useless because any peircing attack automatically fails since the opponent can just step aside. :rolleyes: for your learning let me explain to you. if a spell does not list an amount of damage it doesn't mean that it cannot do damage. you must find something similar to the effect of the spell that does damage if any exists and treat the result of the spell as that device and deal damage accordingly.
Alyri 08-10-07, 04:37 PM	They cover this in chapter 3 (I think, maybe 4) of the monster manual. Significantly increasing a monsters abilities increases it CR by 1. That would include uping its stats. depends on how far you 'up' the stats imo. Going from the 10s and 11s to a non elite array isn't cr changing in my book. Also depends on the group make up. CR is designed around a 4 player 'typical' group(fighter,rogue,wizard,cleric) If you are more 'gished out' then that..it opens up a whole new door. ok you are officially not worthy of being called a DM in my book and therefore all your ideas are worthless. you need to learn how to play D&D, and that everything is not only to be used as written in the books. that stoneshape spell you are preaching about, are you making an attack roll with it as well, or you doing auto damage? Is it a ranged touch attack or a normal attack? Do you adjust for the size of the 'spike' is it a large-size spike or medium or small? OravennasBrother makes a good point about just holding his weapon in the square, Why wouldn't work? Why does he have to make a called shot?
OravennasBrother 08-10-07, 04:41 PM	what in the hell does the ethereal plane have to do with someone moistening their eyes? you probably also think 3.x is the correct way to play and thing like called shots probably don't exist anymore. I'm sorry I thought we WERE Discussing 3.X. Or are you stating that in addition to disallowing anything after 2nd edition, along with called shots, that the Blink spell, which when used leaves a character blinking in and out of the prime material plane, is disallowed in your game? Could you clarify, please?
Caelic 08-10-07, 04:54 PM	Because allowing a player to impale an enemy on a spike made by Stone Shape is not arbitrary?:rolleyes: (see above for Shadzar's post if you don't follow what I'm saying) Nope. I wouldn't allow someone to use Stone Shape to directly damage an enemy, either. Now, on the other hand, if they used Stone Shape to create a spiked pit, and lured the enemy into it, I WOULD allow that to cause damage. But that's neither here nor there; I'm not talking about giving spells abilities they don't already have; I'm talking about wizards using spells as they're meant to function. Such a wizard, if he makes intelligent use of the resources at his disposal and employs tactics and strategy, will be more powerful than a non-spellcaster.
Alyri 08-10-07, 04:58 PM	I'm talking about wizards using spells as they're meant to function. Such a wizard, if he makes intelligent use of the resources at his disposal and employs tactics and strategy, will be more powerful than a non-spellcaster. Well..duh :D I don't think OravennasBrother is denying that
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-10-07, 05:00 PM	I wouldn't allow the sword holing blink trick. But then I would not allow the stone shape spike of death either. However I do allow the spell compendium in my games, and in there is the spell instant stalagmite (I think thats its name). It produces an instant stalagmite which allows for a reflex save, and deals 6d6 points of damage, and pins opponents. Bonus on save if they are flaying. Not the greatest 3rd level spell out there, but hey it would probably make a player like shadzar happy.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-10-07, 05:07 PM	Well..duh :D I don't think OravennasBrother is denying that No what OravennasBrother is talking about is balancing spell casters by arbitrarily imposing overly harsh role playing restrictions on them. Such as clerics have to make Kamikaze attacks or they lose their powers, or druids fall when they enter a city. Or wizard can't use their spells to neutralize enemies, or they gain no XP.
Alyri 08-10-07, 05:20 PM	Not what I am getting from his posts. Sounds to me like he is wanting people to play the character and not the stats.
shadzar 08-10-07, 06:51 PM	that stoneshape spell you are preaching about, are you making an attack roll with it as well, or you doing auto damage? Is it a ranged touch attack or a normal attack? Do you adjust for the size of the 'spike' is it a large-size spike or medium or small? OravennasBrother makes a good point about just holding his weapon in the square, Why wouldn't work? Why does he have to make a called shot? have no idea what square you are talking about. for the other things that is why we have DMs to decide on how it works. not every spell could have every possible use written in the rules. that is my point. and by just ignoring things that aren't spelled out explicitly in the rules then you are castrating your players imaginaitons.
shadzar 08-10-07, 07:00 PM	I'm sorry I thought we WERE Discussing 3.X. Or are you stating that in addition to disallowing anything after 2nd edition, along with called shots, that the Blink spell, which when used leaves a character blinking in and out of the prime material plane, is disallowed in your game? Could you clarify, please? oh so you mean when a character is under the influence of a blink spell rather than blinking. the mutliple eye for of winking. next time clearify. i am talking in general terms. the stone shape spell doesn't have damage listed in any version prited that i know of. but it can do damage if you take the time to actually think about it. something a DM is required to always be able to do. players can use a spell any way they choose...the designers can't include thm all in the rules. and i would hope they aren't stupid enough to try.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-10-07, 07:12 PM	i am talking in general terms. the stone shape spell doesn't have damage listed in any version prited that i know of. but it can do damage if you take the time to actually think about it. something a DM is required to always be able to do. players can use a spell any way they choose...the designers can't include thm all in the rules. and i would hope they aren't stupid enough to try. And that is where your mistake is. Spells, and other rules for that matter, can only do what they say they do. They do not do anymore or any less. This is because if the designers were to list explicitly everything the spell, or other rule, did not do, we would have an endless stream of rules attempting to cover everything. A single spell would be the size of the NY phonebook. Seriously think about everything that magic missile does not do. Now image trying to make a list like that for every single spell in all of D&D. Instead what the designers do do is list what the spell does, and it is generally assumed that if what the player wants doesn't fit in that, then the spell does not do that.
shadzar 08-10-07, 08:00 PM	there is the reason we have DMs.
solbergb 08-10-07, 08:33 PM	Quote: And an optimized sorcerer can do things that would be difficult or impossible with a wizard. Like? couldn't let that one go. Oh lets see.....a few things my sorcerer has done transport 1800lb of grain at level 3 to starving people from a crashed boat on a moment's notice. Then use the carrying capacity to transport bodie of attackers back for magical interrogation. transport an entire platoon of archers to a battlefield at level 8 at light warhorse speeds over rough terrain, again with no notice. Some days at level 10 really do require four walls of force or four tk violent thrusts. Pity you aren't likely to know which days those will be until they happen. Use arcane sight seven times on a day that started out ordinary but turned into an investigation where the ability to detect magical auras reactively and determine who could cast powerful spells was a huge advantage. or something I've seen other sorcerers do: buff the entire party with the correct energy resistance to fight the monster we've been told is about to attack in 10 minutes buff the entire party with darkvision so we can track the enemy that attacked us into his underground lair silently and invisibly without giving away our position with light. Or something every sorcerer does cast one of the best offensive spells for the current situation repeatedly until the problem is solved. Wizards usually tap out after one or two castings - even with foreknowledge they are rarely willing to lock up a large number of slots into one single spell. Use metamagic or secondary effects of spells in bizzare combinations that you could never have predicted would come up when the day began but are perfect for the current situation. An example would be "chain spell open/close" to open every door in an apartment building next to the alchemists shop that is on fire and will explode any round now. Sorcerers are best at reacting to unknown situations. Wizards are best at preparing for known situations. Sorcerers are best when a spell they know is pretty good. Wizards are best when the spells they have a prepared spell that is perfect for the job. They have different strengths. They shine at different times. Campaign style can affect percieved strength a lot. A campaign which is mostly reactive and with little downtime favors the sorcerer. A campaign where the PC's initiate nearly every fight and there is a lot of downtime favors the wizard.
shadzar 08-10-07, 09:01 PM	And that is where your mistake is. Spells, and other rules for that matter, can only do what they say they do. They do not do anymore or any less. This is because if the designers were to list explicitly everything the spell, or other rule, did not do, we would have an endless stream of rules attempting to cover everything. A single spell would be the size of the NY phonebook. Seriously think about everything that magic missile does not do. Now image trying to make a list like that for every single spell in all of D&D. Instead what the designers do do is list what the spell does, and it is generally assumed that if what the player wants doesn't fit in that, then the spell does not do that. so while you would argue to let some player play a class whose fluff or mechanic doesn't fit with the world a DM created, you would turn your idea aorund when it comes to allowing your players to think for themselves and do something with a spell just because it isn't written that way in the book? i recall several of your earlier examples about classes mentioned changing the nature of a class to allow its mechanics, but now you refuse to change the nature of spell to something other than the exact written text?
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-10-07, 09:34 PM	so while you would argue to let some player play a class whose fluff or mechanic doesn't fit with the world a DM created, you would turn your idea aorund when it comes to allowing your players to think for themselves and do something with a spell just because it isn't written that way in the book? i recall several of your earlier examples about classes mentioned changing the nature of a class to allow its mechanics, but now you refuse to change the nature of spell to something other than the exact written text? We're talking about two separate things. Changing the fluff of mechanics has nothing to do with adding to the mechanics of a spell. Would I listen to a player who wanted to change the mechanics of a spell that was not a part of my game? yes absolutely. Would the player get? Depends on the spell. However when you start allowing spells to do things they weren't intended to do, then your changing the actual mechanics of the spell. This does effect balance, and for casters they are already over powered enough, they don't need help. Now I do allow my players to think for themselves, and if they want to use a spell, then the logic ramifications of that do happen. For instance, they could use stone shape to create a hole in the floor, and fill it with spikes. They could then use silent image, or minor image, to create an illusion of the floor over their pit trap. You can't make it shoot out of the wall or anything like that, because the spell does not say it can be used like that. However you could use it to make a weapon, or similar crude object.
shadzar 08-10-07, 09:46 PM	who is changing the mechanics of a spell? what does the stone shape spell do? it shapes stone. now are you telling me that the effects of the magic do any kind of damage? well it might to a stone golem///but you wouldn't allow that would you? what is doing the damage in the event of a spike pit...the spike. the stone spikes. no matter if they come form the ground or roof the stone is the thing doing the damage, not the spell. that is where you all are screwing up. F=MV does the stone shape change the mass? no it has a limited volume it can affect. does the stoneshape change the velocity? yes the stone wasn't moving and now it has moved into a new formation. mass remain the same yet velocity changed. therefore the stone is exerting more force. if this shape were moving towards someone then that force will be transferred to them. what happens when the object comes into contact with something else? same thing a stone javelin, stone spear, stone arrow, etc does depending on the way the stone was shaped. by your meaning even though the spell clearly state you can create a weapon out of the stone like and axe or hammer then that weapon can do no damage because it was created by a spell. then why create a weapon if you can't use it as one? hmmm..... just because the weapon is created and still connected to the ceiling doesn't make it any less of a weapon. so if the stone spear cannot damage an enemy then neither can the stone axe or hammer right? is this stuff really hard for some of you people to grasp?
Archangel62 08-10-07, 11:20 PM	so while you would argue to let some player play a class whose fluff or mechanic doesn't fit with the world a DM created, you would turn your idea aorund when it comes to allowing your players to think for themselves and do something with a spell just because it isn't written that way in the book? i recall several of your earlier examples about classes mentioned changing the nature of a class to allow its mechanics, but now you refuse to change the nature of spell to something other than the exact written text? Hmmm, changing the fluff does nothing to alter the balance of the class or the balance of the gameworld. However, spells require a lot more deliberation. I'm not saying that spells can't have tactical uses, using stoneshape to structurally weaken a wall or make a trap that could deal damage (spiked pit for example or a set of stone spears covered by an illusion to make a foe charge the area and get impaled if they miss). Using a magic missile to knock an object or push a lever might work as well, however it might also damage the lever, breaking it. But, many DMs are loathe to do alterations that give spells more uses than listed (the magic missile thing for example) because like it or not some spells are scary as is and adding more features or theoretical abilities can concern DMs who are concerned about balance. The issue here is that altering a spell, giving it new abilities or uses, is altering not just the spell but theoretically a whole class or concept. If a low level spell can do more things than a higher level spell and do it consistently then perhaps there is a balance issue. The spike pit made can use the rules for the spike pit trap, if the players use it to make a firing parapet there are rules for the AC bonuses and hardness of the wall based on how thick it is and how high it is. The thing is that you shouldn't look at adding more features to a spell than it already has.
shadzar 08-11-07, 12:03 AM	The thing is that you shouldn't look at adding more features to a spell than it already has. oh how wrong you are. again the stoneshape says it can create weapons correct? again why can it crate a weapon detached from any excess stone desired and not be able to make one still attached to the other stone it was made form? it is being shaped. the spell is not given anymore features, just more functions than simple minded people can forsee. those people that can't handle such things should not be DMs. there is never going to be rules for everything that a player could come up with within the realm of the game. that is not just limited to spell uses. the DM must take these uses and figure out what happens when a player comes up with them. you can't just say you can't use a spell in a way that the spell description clearly entitles you to just because the DM doesn't want to do extra work. it is opposite where the class beforehand has been decided to not be used. he spell could come up during the game in a way no one had thought of. so what just ban all spells then or tell your players that they are not allowed to use strategy as a spellcaster. clerics should keep their mouths shut and heal people. fighters should keep their mouths shut and kill people wizards should go read a book and kill people with magic. rogue should do all the talking for the party. that way everyone is doing his described job. a real DM is able to handle those things as they come up. anyone else is either inexperienced enough to be a full DM and needs to think more about everything in the game while they can outside of their sessions, or just stop DMing if they can't handle the oft chance someone uses their imagination and comes up with something the DM isn't prepared for. :rolleyes: i see now why the game is dying, because al the fake DMs out there. yes i am irritated if you want to know because of all the close minded people out their that refuse to open up to ideas that the game is not solely bound in those overpriced books. DMs are in full control of what is allowed in the games, and players are fully within their rights to try whatever action they want within the game. whether it is written in the books or not. (note i said action, not allowed to have any class or item they want.) Hmmm, changing the fluff does nothing to alter the balance of the class or the balance of the gameworld. so it is ok for people to change the fluff of a class that has been disallowed to get those mechanics in play? the DM judged the mechanics unbalancing in his world, but they way some in here would see it the mechanics are ok to use so long as you change their names.
Ongorth 08-11-07, 01:13 AM	Hmmm, changing the fluff does nothing to alter the balance of the class or the balance of the gameworld. But changing the fluff does alter the way in which the game world and metagame mechanics interact, which may well be just as unfavorable as an alteration to the the actual gameplay as changing balance. While the two concepts are not strictly the same they both have an actual impact which could be either favorable or unfavorable depending on the circumstances. In this case, I do agree with the wisdom of OB in that letting magic do everything is a bad idea, but, say, adding additional options to "hit you with a stick" classes, like, bad example, combat stunts would likely be a good addition from a balance standpoint. No what OravennasBrother is talking about is balancing spell casters by arbitrarily imposing overly harsh role playing restrictions on them. Such as clerics have to make Kamikaze attacks or they lose their powers, or druids fall when they enter a city. Or wizard can't use their spells to neutralize enemies, or they gain no XP. It strikes me that the things that make the very design features that make these classes so problematic are arbitrary in and of themselves. It seems that OB is talking less about imposing roleplaying restrictions and more about designing a world that compensates for how arbitrarily powerful magic is. Whether or not you think the execution is good is one thing, but to be dismissive based on the fact that its "arbitrary" is missing the point.
High Octane 08-11-07, 01:16 AM	So when my Fighter lunges at the blinking enemy stating "I'm making a stop thrust at his chest so that if the attack misses due to him blinking he'll end up stuck on the ethereal plane r getting impaled on my sword and die as he blinks back in around it" You'll allow the fighter to do just that? YES! It's called an ATTACK ROLL. Attach whatever flavor you want on it. When someone is passing in and out of etherealness (is that what it is called) they can still see, and move and everything just as well as they could when not ethereal. I'm pretty sure the guy shifting in and out would try to not be standing in the impaled spot. Edit: As for the stone shape part, I agree that it could form a spike, but I don't think it could be effectively used to impale someone. In order to impale someone, the spike would have to somehow gain velocity. If the shaping of the stone were fast enough to be able to impale someone, I would assume such a thing would be in the spell description. What the spell actually says however, is that the duration is instantaneous, which means that the spike instantaneously is formed, there is no "growing" of the spike out of the ground, it simply goes "poof". Now the reason that couldn't be used as a weapon is simply that you cannot form it inside the target's body (which would be what you would have to do to impale them). The same issue came up with conjure water, when some guy decided to be "creative" and conjure water inside someones lungs to drown them. This was rebuffed by the FAQs on magic. You can easily assume that stone shape could not be summoned inside someone since that would involve displacing someone's internal organs and bones, which is not part of the spell description. However, if the creature were to provide the velocity and movement required in order to get impaled on the spike, the spell COULD be used as a weapon. Thus if a player were to say decide to ready stone shape as a readied action, and form the spike out of the ground when someone charges so it impales itself on the stone spike, that WOULD be a valid use of the spell (see the rules on readying a spear against a charge) that would have to be ruled on by a DM who would have to make up how that would work (whether it would be a reflex save, or an attack roll)
Ongorth 08-11-07, 01:18 AM	YES! It's called an ATTACK ROLL. Attach whatever flavor you want on it. You've supported his point then. Its a spell. It does what its description says. Attach whatever flavor you want. Well played.
shadzar 08-11-07, 01:24 AM	YES! It's called an ATTACK ROLL. Attach whatever flavor you want on it. When someone is passing in and out of etherealness (is that what it is called) they can still see, and move and everything just as well as they could when not ethereal. I'm pretty sure the guy shifting in and out would try to not be standing in the impaled spot. see The Chronicles of Riddick. especially the part where Riddick become the "lord" of the Necromungers. i would say that tactic would be most effective and allowed. you can attack anything you can see. rather good way to hunt and capture blink dogs as well.
High Octane 08-11-07, 01:41 AM	see The Chronicles of Riddick. especially the part where Riddick become the "lord" of the Necromungers. .....what about it? He knew where he was going to "land" and then stabbed him in the head before he could react. Successful attack roll. Plus I wouldn't describe what that guy was as "ethereal" nor does that movie necessarily follow D&D rules (Diesel or not.)
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-11-07, 01:43 AM	Shadzar: I'm really beginning to wonder about your reading and comprehension skills. I'm its not that your missing the point by a little bit, its that if it weren't for the quotes your using, i'd have to consider that your posting to the wrong thread. And seriously dude, your arguments have more straw men then a Saskatchewan corn field. But here we go from the top. who is changing the mechanics of a spell? You are, by adding the ability to fling stone at a velocity needed to hurt something. what does the stone shape spell do? it shapes stone. Yes, exactly it shapes stones. Thats it, no more, no less. now are you telling me that the effects of the magic do any kind of damage? well it might to a stone golem///but you wouldn't allow that would you? Depends on the aplication, and the arguement made. The golem lists specific things that happen with effects such as earth quake. Also stone shape requires you to touch the stone, so if the caster really wanted to get that close to the clay golem. what is doing the damage in the event of a spike pit...the spike. the stone spikes. Well a spiked pit trap in the DMG allows for a reflex saving through DC 20, the spikes do d4+2/per target with an attack of +10, (d4/per square), + falling damage (d6/ten feet). I'd go with that. no matter if they come form the ground or roof the stone is the thing doing the damage, not the spell. True, but the spell still does not specific that it can move stone with enough velocity to cause harm, thus it can not. F=MV ok.....and if v = negligible? does the stone shape change the mass? no it has a limited volume it can affect. ok..... does the stoneshape change the velocity? yes the stone wasn't moving and now it has moved into a new formation. But did it move with enough velocity, and cause harm? I can throw a bullet at you, will it hurt? Probably not. I tale the same bullet and fire it from a gun, will hurt now? mass remain the same yet velocity changed. Just becuase something is moving does not mean it is moving with enough force to do anything. therefore the stone is exerting more force. The stone is exerting some force, sure, but enough force? if this shape were moving towards someone then that force will be transferred to them. Ok. what happens when the object comes into contact with something else? same thing a stone javelin, stone spear, stone arrow, etc does depending on the way the stone was shaped. But weapons deal damage becuase of the amount of force behind them. Torak deals more damgae with his sword, the Mialee does with her sword. Why? Because Torak has a higher stregnth score then Mialee, and therefor has more force behind his sword then she does hers. Now because stone neither lists damage dealt, nor a strength score, it is assumed that it does not deal damage in that manner, and also has no strength score. I.E not sufficient force to damage the target. by your meaning even though the spell clearly state you can create a weapon out of the stone like and axe or hammer then that weapon can do no damage because it was created by a spell. No I did not stat this at all. Please show me where I said it can not create weapons. I believe i sate the opposite in fact, lets take a look: However you could use it to make a weapon, or similar crude object. So yes you can use it to make weapons. Someone still has to pick up and swing said weapon. Kind of like why a bastard sword will not deal damage sitting on a table. Some has to pick the bastard sword, make an attack roll with it, etc. then why create a weapon if you can't use it as one? hmmm..... Again I never said that you couldn't use said weapon. I said stone shape will not attack with the weapon for you, and nor will it throw the weapon at anyone for you. It shapes stone, it doesn't wield stone. just because the weapon is created and still connected to the ceiling doesn't make it any less of a weapon. I'm not sure what good a weapon attached to the ceiling, or floor is. It being kind of hard to use as it is attached to the floor or ceiling. so if the stone spear cannot damage an enemy then neither can the stone axe or hammer right? Both can damage someone, but they must be used by someone/something making an attack. In the case of a stone spear it would be either a d6, or d8 depending on if it was half, or long spear. The stone axe deals either a d10 or d12 depending on if it is of the dwarven, or great variety, and the hammer deals either a d8 or d10 depending on if it is a mual, or war hammer. In either event though some must wield said stone weapon, and make attack rolls with it, or they just sit there. Stone shape does not specific that it can make those attacks rolls for you, so it does not. Further the person using the weapons needs to be proficient with them, as stoneshape does not grant weapon proficiencies either. is this stuff really hard for some of you people to grasp? You tell me. oh how wrong you are. again the stoneshape says it can create weapons correct? Yes but it does say it use them, throw them or anything else like that. So it can't. again why can it crate a weapon detached from any excess stone desired and not be able to make one still attached to the other stone it was made form?[/quote you can do this, but what good is weapon that is still attachted to the stone, wall, roofe, floor, etc? Ok maybe to make a wall blade trap, but that has moving parts, and thus a 30% chance of failure. [QUOTE=shadzar;13374188] it is being shaped. the spell is not given anymore features, just more functions than simple minded people can forsee. Shaping stone is one thing, throwing it, or attacking with it is another. there is never going to be rules for everything that a player could come up with within the realm of the game. You'd be surprised. that is not just limited to spell uses. Except most spells are fairly specific in what they do. the DM must take these uses and figure out what happens when a player comes up with them. True, but sometimes it easier then others. Especially when the requested use is covered by another spell, or something else. you can't just say you can't use a spell in a way that the spell description clearly entitles you to just because the DM doesn't want to do extra work. You can use a spell in a way the spell description entitles you to, but you can't add things to the spell description, when you do that your changing the spell. it is opposite where the class beforehand has been decided to not be used. he spell could come up during the game in a way no one had thought of. [QUOTE=shadzar;13374188] so what just ban all spells then or tell your players that they are not allowed to use strategy as a spellcaster. This is clearly a strawman argument, and i choose not to dignify it with a response. clerics should keep their mouths shut and heal people. fighters should keep their mouths shut and kill people wizards should go read a book and kill people with magic. rogue should do all the talking for the party. The only person who has said this is you. a real DM is able to handle those things as they come up. anyone else is either inexperienced enough to be a full DM and needs to think more about everything in the game while they can outside of their sessions, or just stop DMing if they can't handle the oft chance someone uses their imagination and comes up with something the DM isn't prepared for. Ok so how does allowing players to cheat by adding whatever they want to spell descriptions, mean your a good DM? i see now why the game is dying, because al the fake DMs out there. Coming from you, I think all "fake DMs" can take that as a compliment. yes i am irritated if you want to know because of all the close minded people out their that refuse to open up to ideas that the game is not solely bound in those overpriced books. So wanting to run a game by the rules is close minded now? DMs are in full control of what is allowed in the games, and players are fully within their rights to try whatever action they want within the game. whether it is written in the books or not. (note i said action, not allowed to have any class or item they want.) You are actions are governed by the rules of the game, be they house rule or other. The DM interprets said rules, and comes up with consequences. You try to do whatever you like, but that does not garruenty it will work, or fail. Although using spells for functions that they can not perform is likely to fail. so it is ok for people to change the fluff of a class that has been disallowed to get those mechanics in play? the DM judged the mechanics unbalancing in his world, but they way some in here would see it the mechanics are ok to use so long as you change their names. Do you even bother to read what we're typing? This makes no sense at all especial when compared with the rest of the thread. 1) No one has stated the DM *Has* to allow anything, let alone everything. What we are saying is that DMs should A) listen to their players, and B have good reasons for disallowing stuff. IF a DM has a reason for what they do there is no reason, unless in an extreme situation, why they shouldn't tell the player. 2) If the DM is disallowing something due to flavor, or fluff reason, then it isn't a balance issue now is it? No its flavor issue. Meaning if you change the flavor of the mechanics then the flavor concern is moot. 3) If the DM is disallowing something for balance issues, then that isn't a flavor issue it is a balance issue. If it is a balance issue they shouldn't tell the player it is a flavor issue, and vice versa. Further if it is balance issue it can show by comparing it the strongest similar mechanic allowed. If it is weaker, then it should be ok, if it is not then it shouldn't. 4) If it is both, then the DM should stat it is both, and it can be evaluated on those grounds. If it is something else entirely then the DM can stat what it is, moral objections, unfamiliarity with the rules, etc. Now do you think you can come up with something intelligent to add?
shadzar 08-11-07, 01:48 AM	.....what about it? He knew where he was going to "land" and then stabbed him in the head before he could react. Successful attack roll. Plus I wouldn't describe what that guy was as "ethereal" nor does that movie necessarily follow D&D rules (Diesel or not.) what about it was that i was saying it would work just that way. and it is possible to do now that i understood what was being said about "blinking". i had forgoten it earlier i think.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-11-07, 01:53 AM	see The Chronicles of Riddick. especially the part where Riddick become the "lord" of the Necromungers. i would say that tactic would be most effective and allowed. you can attack anything you can see. rather good way to hunt and capture blink dogs as well. Actually that effect was not eathral, but more a function of super fast movement. In either case, the ex-lord saw two people readying an attack for when he stopped moving, and choose which one to get killed by. But that is decides the points, and Reddick still had to make an attack on the guy. And movies do not use the D&D mechanics, either 2nd ed, or 3.x. what about it was that i was saying it would work just that way. and it is possible to do now that i understood what was being said about "blinking". i had forgoten it earlier i think. No you can't hold your sword out in the square the guy is blinking in. Well you could, but since it is a 5ft square the guy could just step over to the left, or right, or turn sideways. Generally speaking you need to make an attack roll to hit poeple. We are talking about D&D right?
shadzar 08-11-07, 02:07 AM	.....bunch of crap i halfway read... target: 10^3'+1^3'/level duration: instantaneous. 6th level wizard can cast stoneshape at 6th level the wizard can shape 10^3'+6^3' of stone. 16 cubis feet of stone. it happens instantly. lets say that by instantaneous it means the speed of light. is that significant velocity for you? what force is exerted if only 1% of that 16 cubic feet of stone hits something? 2002 kilograms per cubic meter will be our dense earth (stone). there you have the numbers. do the math and tell me if there is any force behind the stone that impacts an opponent and if it is enough to do any damage. remember the stone is impacting the opponent, not the spell. 1) No one has stated the DM *Has* to allow anything, let alone everything. What we are saying is that DMs should A) listen to their players, and B have good reasons for disallowing stuff. IF a DM has a reason for what they do there is no reason, unless in an extreme situation, why they shouldn't tell the player. because the DM does not answer to his players. he is not on trial. 2) If the DM is disallowing something due to flavor, or fluff reason, then it isn't a balance issue now is it? No its flavor issue. Meaning if you change the flavor of the mechanics then the flavor concern is moot. no. the flavor is where the mechanics were derived from. if a DM doesn't want both monks and priests then he disallows the one he doesn't want and for no reason should a player think they will find some loophole to allow the mechanics for the disallowed class. 3) If the DM is disallowing something for balance issues, then that isn't a flavor issue it is a balance issue. If it is a balance issue they shouldn't tell the player it is a flavor issue, and vice versa. Further if it is balance issue it can show by comparing it the strongest similar mechanic allowed. If it is weaker, then it should be ok, if it is not then it shouldn't. no. a DM can disallow things that he feels are unbalanced on either side for his game world. if he doesn't want a player using somehting weaker than everyone else then so be it. he just doens't want to hear the BS later when he tried to prevent someone from using something that was weaker in the first place. again no need ot explain this if a player actually trusts his DM. 4) If it is both, then the DM should stat it is both, and it can be evaluated on those grounds. If it is something else entirely then the DM can stat what it is, moral objections, unfamiliarity with the rules, etc. again the DM is not on trial and doesn't have to answer to the players. "i don't want it" is enough. players i would hope would realize this and not beech about it so much. 95% of the time it is a result of a player trying to get something into a game the DM doesn't want rather than just learning why the DM doesn't want it.
shadzar 08-11-07, 02:12 AM	Your actions are governed by the rules of the game, be they house rule or other. The DM interprets said rules and there you have why the DM can allow or disallow anything he chooses for any reason he chooses.
Wight_Chocolate 08-11-07, 02:12 AM	A DM doesn't have to answer to his players, but it's still, you know, nice to explain your reasoning rather than just flatly denying them something. Respect runs both ways. Speaking of being nice, I suppose it's too late to ask for a cessation of the derogatory comments?
kalyb 08-11-07, 02:13 AM	target: 10^3'+1^3'/level duration: instantaneous. 6th level wizard can cast stoneshape at 6th level the wizard can shape 10^3'+6^3' of stone. 16 cubis feet of stone. it happens instantly. lets say that by instantaneous it means the speed of light. Or, let's say it literally means instantaneous, meaning no time at all, there's no force moving it; it just suddenly is. No force=no damage.
High Octane 08-11-07, 02:14 AM	lets say that by instantaneous it means the speed of light. Then every time the spell was cast it would create a massive sonic boom and the stone would melt or at the very least be red hot due to air friction.
shadzar 08-11-07, 02:18 AM	No you can't hold your sword out in the square the guy is blinking in. Well you could, but since it is a 5ft square the guy could just step over to the left, or right, or turn sideways. Generally speaking you need to make an attack roll to hit poeple. We are talking about D&D right? so a smart theif couldn't stand with his dagger to an open door that someone is backing out of and do damage? same thing. holding a weapon in a space while another entity enters that space. whether it actually does damage is up to the DM at the time. likewise someone walking out of darkness into a blade would not be damaged by it either i guess. you need an attack role to attack. you shouldn't need one to just hold a weapon out while someone just happenes to wonder into your weapon. have you ever walked into someone holding someting out and got stuck by it? pencil, pen, etc... i bet you felt it enough to notice you walked into it...would you say that person attacked you when you are the one that clearly walked into them?
Comus 08-11-07, 02:21 AM	lets say that by instantaneous it means the speed of light. *facepalm* By instantaneous it means that the 'magic' of the spell is just a single burst, after which the result is nonmagical. It means that the effect cannot be dispelled later. That's it. That is what "duration: instantaneous" means in D&D. Of course, if you don't believe me, I'd be happy to play in your game and use this spell to destroy the world. I'm sure I can figure out a way to use the energy generated by that much mass moving at c to boil an ocean or two. After all, F=MA, right? Or, to put it another way... E=MC^2.
shadzar 08-11-07, 02:21 AM	Or, let's say it literally means instantaneous, meaning no time at all, there's no force moving it; it just suddenly is. No force=no damage. ok then what happens at the intersection of the stone shaped cylindar and the enemy? assuming the stone will be farther than jsut then enemies distance form its point of origin. does this stone just magically move the enemy out of the way? does it impale the enemy in a way that the enemy now has stone materialized inside him and connected to him? what happens?
shadzar 08-11-07, 02:22 AM	Then every time the spell was cast it would create a massive sonic boom and the stone would melt or at the very least be red hot due to air friction. :rolleyes: i was just using the quickest tangible number to represent "instant" that i could find. :P
Wight_Chocolate 08-11-07, 02:23 AM	and there you have why the DM can allow or disallow anything he chooses for any reason he chooses. Wait, now I'm confused. Are you arguing that a DM shouldn't be allowed to declare that the Stoneshape spell can't be used in a directly offensive manner, or that they should?
shadzar 08-11-07, 02:26 AM	*facepalm* After all, F=MA, right? Or, to put it another way... E=MC^2. again they give no amount of time for the shape changing to take place. so how does one know what lenght of time it takes to have the final affects of the spell to complete...the finished product of the stone shape. we have to pick some number in order to plug into the equation and oddly they dont give one, i guess if you try to make a weapon like a stone axe it will finish forming in 3 weeks time after you are no longer in the area? maybe you already died and no longer have a use for the axe? so i guess then stone shape should be banned from all D&D use until errata is out telling how much time it takes for the stone to form its new shape? oh wait. you said the magic happens instantaneously...so that also mean the effects would happen with the magic since it is causing the stone to change shapes.... so the both the duration and length of time required for the stone to take on its new shape would both be instantaneous.
shadzar 08-11-07, 02:32 AM	Wait, now I'm confused. Are you arguing that a DM shouldn't be allowed to declare that the Stoneshape spell can't be used in a directly offensive manner, or that they should? TPK said the game is bound by rules and it is the DM that interprets those rules. therefore it is the DM that decides what is allowed or isnt. TPK made my point about allowing some things and allowing others without the need for player aprroval. he agrees with me. (he? she? i forget now which was the wife...oops. :confused: )
High Octane 08-11-07, 02:39 AM	ok then what happens at the intersection of the stone shaped cylindar and the enemy? assuming the stone will be farther than jsut then enemies distance form its point of origin. does this stone just magically move the enemy out of the way? does it impale the enemy in a way that the enemy now has stone materialized inside him and connected to him? what happens? The spell fails. Or, more likely, the stone would simply stop at the exact point where the "target" begins. You cannot conjure or transport into occupied space.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-11-07, 02:49 AM	target: 10^3'+1^3'/level duration: instantaneous. 6th level wizard can cast stoneshape at 6th level the wizard can shape 10^3'+6^3' of stone. 16 cubis feet of stone. it happens instantly. lets say that by instantaneous it means the speed of light. is that significant velocity for you? what force is exerted if only 1% of that 16 cubic feet of stone hits something? 2002 kilograms per cubic meter will be our dense earth (stone). This has already been covered so I won't go into it. because the DM does not answer to his players. he is not on trial. And now were back to this again, huh? . Anyways for what seems like the thousandth time on this thread, (I wonder if he'll get it this time, I doubt it.) No is saying the DM has to be on trail. A player can ask for the reasoning behind a ruling politely. Its not accusing him, nor being argumentative, nor is it disrespectful. It is an inquiry into a matter causing concern, or confusion. no. the flavor is where the mechanics were derived from. if a DM doesn't want both monks and priests then he disallows the one he doesn't want and for no reason should a player think they will find some loophole to allow the mechanics for the disallowed class. Ok then, lets try this: Bob is master swords man. When he picks up the blade it is as if he and his sword are one. He is graceful and talented, and experienced. He started out in the Kings army, but soon left to hone his skills as a master swordsman. as part of his journey he came across another master of the blade. The agreed to a friendly duel. Bob lost, and was so impressed by his rivals skills that Bob convinced him to take Bob on as his apprentice. Bob learned much from, and from his travels. Now Bob has his own fencers school were he teaches his technical to talent young swords people. What is Class/race/feats combo is Bob? no. a DM can disallow things that he feels are unbalanced on either side for his game world. if he doesn't want a player using somehting weaker than everyone else then so be it. he just doens't want to hear the BS later when he tried to prevent someone from using something that was weaker in the first place. again no need ot explain this if a player actually trusts his DM. Again if something is too weak for the game the DM can demonstrate that as well. Please go back and reread my OP before you respond along these lines again. It has been covered. again the DM is not on trial No one is saying the DM is on trial. and doesn't have to answer to the players. Actually yes he does. If the players leave then he has no game. Dms can't DM with out consent of their players to do so. So in that sense the DM is very much accountable to his players. "i don't want it" is enough. players i would hope would realize this and not beech about it so much. 95% of the time it is a result of a player trying to get something into a game the DM doesn't want rather than just learning why the DM doesn't want it. "I don't want it" may be enough of a reason for you,. Which is fine, but at my table we're friends and equals, not servants and masters. "I don't want it" doesn't cut it ,as no ones fun is more important then anyone else's. Now before you start, I'm not saying the players get their fun over the DMs, or anyone player gets their fun ahead of anyone else's. I'm saying we're equals, we have equal right to have fun, and thus discuss things, and comprise like rational adults. I wonder why this is such a hard concept for you. You say your an adult, so there for it must be the rational part your stumbling on. and there you have why the DM can allow or disallow anything he chooses for any reason he chooses. I'm not saying he can't. I'm saying A: Some reasons are better then others. And B: The DM should sahre those reaosns. Please read my posts before making up whats in them, and responding, thank you. so a smart theif couldn't stand with his dagger to an open door that someone is backing out of and do damage? This is called readying an action. The rules for them can be found on page 160 of the 3.5 PHB. (I don't know where, or if, they are in 2nd books, as I don't play that edition.) same thing. holding a weapon in a space while another entity enters that space. Still requires an attack role...are you sure we're talking about the same game here? This is pretty basic stuff your getting confused. whether it actually does damage is up to the DM at the time. daggers deal a d4 + str, piercing or slashing. To determine if the attacks hits or not you use an attack roll and compare it to the appropriate AC, if it meats or exceeds it, then the attack is a success and deals damage. If it does not then the attack misses and no damage is dealt. likewise someone walking out of darkness into a blade would not be damaged by it either i guess. That would be an attack roll verses flat footed AC, as the person is in darkness and not aware of the attack. Again there are rules for that as well in the PHB. You did read that, didn't you? you need an attack role to attack. you shouldn't need one to just hold a weapon out while someone just happenes to wonder into your weapon. To what situation are you talking? Readying against a charge? That requires an attack roll, and depending on weapon deals double damage. Or some just holding their wepaon out hoping some walks into it? thats just silly. have you ever walked into someone holding something out and got stuck by it? pencil, pen, etc... i bet you felt it enough to notice you walked into it...would you say that person attacked you when you are the one that clearly walked into them? Sure you'd feel it, but what contex are we about? Players running around in the dark? I assume they'd be smart enough to go slowly and feel their way around, in which they wouldn't be going fast enough to cause any harm to themselves. Maybe someone running behind some pointing a knife at them? I assume that adventures are not dumb, and know how to hold a sword safely, but in any event it would be governed with an attack roll. the same as the spikes at the bottom of the spiked pit trap, or Kursk swinging his ax, or Lida readying an action to attack some coming out of a door. (Funny you should mention a door, because that the example they use in the PHB, only they use shooting someone with a Bow) [EDIT: Baiting is against the code of conduct. Debate, disagree, and discuss but no need for name calling or insults.]
Comus 08-11-07, 03:05 AM	I like to do math late at night, so I'm gonna throw some numbers around... Solid granite has a density of 2691. 1 cubic meter = 35.3146667 cubic feet 0.453069 cubic meters of granite moved Calculating kinetic energy via E = .5*m*V^2 Assuming the speed of light... 1219.2 kilos 5.4864xE19 Joules Some Numbers: 2.1×E17 J, the yield of the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever tested 8.4×E17 J, the estimated energy released by the eruption of the Indonesian volcano, Krakatoa, in 1883 Heck, this thing is only 200 times more energetic than the biggest nuke ever tested, and only 155.5 times as powerful as Krakatoa. Clearly, this is normal for this spell level. Note that this doesn't yet take relativity into effect. If we assume the stone is moving at lightspeed, then the relativistic mass is infinite, and the energy it creates in that movement is likewise infinite. To avoid infinities, I'll assume the object is 'merely' moving at 99% of the speed of light. That should be close enough for 'instantaneous', right? :D Here's a link to the equasions used... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity) And we come up with... 4.128xE21 Joules. Not bad - an increase of just over 75 times. Mind you, I'm doing this math at 3AM, so I can't claim it's perfect... but it's probably close enough as makes no odds.
shadzar 08-11-07, 03:08 AM	The spell fails. Or, more likely, the stone would simply stop at the exact point where the "target" begins. You cannot conjure or transport into occupied space. unfortunately stone shape is transmutation not conjuration. ;)
High Octane 08-11-07, 03:21 AM	unfortunately stone shape is transmutation not conjuration. ;) I don't even know how to put it into words how you pulling THAT little attempt at an argument makes you look.
shadzar 08-11-07, 03:24 AM	A player can ask for the reasoning behind a ruling politely. Its not accusing him, nor being argumentative, nor is it disrespectful. It is an inquiry into a matter causing concern, or confusion. there is a difference in tone, and you have not given any such quesiton to be able to identify the tone of any question. yes a player can ask anything he wont, however, it doesn't mean the DM must answer him. Ok then, lets try this: Bob is master swords man. When he picks up the blade it is as if he and his sword are one. He is graceful and talented, and experienced. He started out in the Kings army, but soon left to hone his skills as a master swordsman. as part of his journey he came across another master of the blade. The agreed to a friendly duel. Bob lost, and was so impressed by his rivals skills that Bob convinced him to take Bob on as his apprentice. Bob learned much from, and from his travels. Now Bob has his own fencers school were he teaches his technical to talent young swords people. What is Class/race/feats combo is Bob?none. bob is a 0-level commoner (if such a class exists in 3.x so help me i don't want to hear about it because a 0-level commoner means the person has no class or levels simply put, therefore he has no abilities of any classed character.) Again if something is too weak for the game the DM can demonstrate that as well. Please go back and reread my OP before you respond along these lines again. It has been covered. No one is saying the DM is on trial. Actually yes he does. If the players leave then he has no game. Dms can't DM with out consent of their players to do so. So in that sense the DM is very much accountable to his players. "I don't want it" may be enough of a reason for you,. Which is fine, but at my table we're friends and equals, not servants and masters. "I don't want it" doesn't cut it ,as no ones fun is more important then anyone else's. Now before you start, I'm not saying the players get their fun over the DMs, or anyone player gets their fun ahead of anyone else's. I'm saying we're equals, we have equal right to have fun, and thus discuss things, and comprise like rational adults. I wonder why this is such a hard concept for you. You say your an adult, so there for it must be the rational part your stumbling on.i DM one way. my way or the highway. if you want me as a DM you accept that. i have been asked by 3 gaming stores to DM long term games and short ones alike. the only reason the long term games ended was one player dropout because they didn't really want to play i was a coDM of that one. another where the store owner kept adding players when i already had 12 in the game and couldn't get the moron to understand D&D doesn't work with that many people and he refused to break the game into smaller groups or anything more manageable. lastly a short term game that people wanted me to continue the one shot, but i didn't want to DM 3.x which they wanted to play. there are still people that want me to DM and are fully welcome to play my way with little to no quesitons. they don't have to worry about anyone interrupting the game. nothing in the system is broken. no one get preferential treament. there is equal time for RP and hack'n'slash. there are puzzle that can be so ridiculousy simple they are hard. these people want to know what i am thinking as you ascertain your players asking means. but my players find out by playing cause they know i have something up my sleeve and they want to know what. they jsut happen to be able to answer their own questions as we play by what happens in the game. the things i don't answer gets them more excited when the time comes that they find the answer out IN GAME as all the anticipation leading up to it has built. I'm not saying he can't. I'm saying A: Some reasons are better then others. And B: The DM should sahre those reaosns. Please read my posts before making up whats in them, and responding, thank you.oh i read your posts, but do you read mine? you seem to think that everything has an answer that this hypothetical player must accept for it to be good enough for him. where you say a DM that doesn't answer every little questino about why something isnt allowed is disrespecting his players...i say he is respecting their right to play by making the judgements that will ensure the game flows without distractions so that everyone can have fun instead of just one annoying playe that thinks he is special and can just interrupt the game at any time.
shadzar 08-11-07, 03:29 AM	Mind you, I'm doing this math at 3AM, so I can't claim it's perfect... but it's probably close enough as makes no odds. so them you would agree that this mass of stone DOES exert some force when it makes contact with something else? even though the spell makes no mention of being able to do damage we can also safely say that force of one physical object upon another causes a reaction of some sort. (see Newton) and that reaction could be moving it or possible attempting to go through it. in the case of a physical body it would do damage to it. correct?
shadzar 08-11-07, 03:34 AM	I don't even know how to put it into words how you pulling THAT little attempt at an argument makes you look. why not? come on try it. you claimed that you couldn't conjure or transport into occupied space. firstly you got the wrong spell for the school. secondly are you gonna try to tell me that there must be a vacuum in order to transport into it? oddly enough air occupies space. here try some experiments. take a balloon and weigh it. blow up the balloon. notice how the balloon got bigger? something must be inside it! :eek: wonder what it is. its AIR! thats right that thing that must not be able to occupy space actually does! now for giggles go ahead and tie the balloon off and weigh it again. guess whats gonna happen! :evillaugh yup! the dang thiing weighs more now than it did! must mean not only does air occupy space but it weighs something too! ;) neat isnt it. for more on these and other types of experiments please visit any second grade science class.
kalyb 08-11-07, 03:41 AM	Just out of curiousity, shadzar, would you allow a PC cast water walk and then jump from the back of a griffon flying 800 ft in the air above a sea without taking damage? The spell says you hover a couple of inches above the surface so you never hit anything. And spell doesn't say you can't do that.
shadzar 08-11-07, 03:50 AM	Just out of curiousity, shadzar, would you allow a PC cast water walk and then jump from the back of a griffon flying 800 ft in the air above a sea without taking damage? The spell says you hover a couple of inches above the surface so you never hit anything. And spell doesn't say you can't do that. if the water were dep enough that the player would enter it and be able to slow down and reverse direction to be on top of the water then yes. however it wold be more likely that the PC would hit the ground below that water before slowing down since the water would not really slow him down any. seriously the PC would take falling damage. why falling damage? because the falling does nothing it is the sudden stop at the end that causes the damage. when stopping suddenly the body would taking damage for falling nearly 800 feet. he wouldn't fall into the water so long as the spell was working. but if the falling damage was enough to kill him then his corpse would still be hovering over the water those few inches. just like the stone shape the force does the damage. the water combined with water walk is no different than falling off a cliff. both would need something like feather fall to impede the fall so their is no hard stop at the end. ;) and i didn't need to look up no water walk spell to make a call on that either. metaphysics do not completely override normal physics in my worlds. falling objects are subject to falling damage under all circumstacnes in which a gradual fall occurs. 60 mph to 0 mph means the damage she is a coming!
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-11-07, 05:51 AM	You know what forget it. This is bringing out the worst in me, and I'm going to sink down to that level. You said it yourself, you game your way or the highway. Thats speaks more towards your style of play, then any post I could ever make. Have fun with it.
Roog 08-11-07, 07:40 AM	target: 10^3'+1^3'/level duration: instantaneous. 6th level wizard can cast stoneshape at 6th level the wizard can shape 10^3'+6^3' of stone. 16 cubis feet of stone. it happens instantly. lets say that by instantaneous it means the speed of light. is that significant velocity for you? what force is exerted if only 1% of that 16 cubic feet of stone hits something? 2002 kilograms per cubic meter will be our dense earth (stone). there you have the numbers. do the math and tell me if there is any force behind the stone that impacts an opponent and if it is enough to do any damage. 16 cubic feet of stone moving at the speed of light requires infinite energy (due to relativity). When moving it has infinite momentum (again due to relativity). This gives us two cases... Case 1: When it collides with anything (i.e. the target) a portion of the target will be accelerated to light speed, and an infinitely energetic blast will result. This will cross the campaign at light speed, destroying the campaign world (and the rest of the campaign universe along with any and all catgirls). The campaign then ends - lucky us. Case 2: If it does not collides with anything the stone still acquires infinite mass. This will create an infinitely massive black hole centered at the stones point of origin. The event horizon of this black hole will cross the campaign at light speed. When the stones movement ends, this will create an infinitely large white hole centered at the stones destination. The reverse event horizon of this white hole will cross the campaign at light speed. Due to relativistic effects these things do not cancel each other out. These effects will destroy the campaign world even more impressively than in case 1 (and the rest of the campaign universe along with any and all catgirls). The campaign then ends - lucky us.
Archangel62 08-11-07, 11:32 AM	so it is ok for people to change the fluff of a class that has been disallowed to get those mechanics in play? the DM judged the mechanics unbalancing in his world, but they way some in here would see it the mechanics are ok to use so long as you change their names. The conversation before held more that the DM had no problem with the mechanics, just the fluff of the class. If the fluff was the only issue then it can be changed. Hell, in my games players can have their spells look like whatever they want, a warlock who had a draconic heritage had an Eldrich blast that looked like a small shadow dragon flying from his hands and charging his target. The issue is altering the mechanics. If a player wants to make weapons that's one thing, but if you want to create weapons and have them attack something unless that target is pinned it still requires an attack roll to hit it whether or not said object is still part of the cave floor or ceiling. I notice that you also cut out a large portion of my commentary involving that the wizard CAN use the spell tactically and find many different possible uses for it but spells that deal damage being used to push objects might concern some DMs is all I was trying to say.
Caelic 08-11-07, 11:55 AM	oh how wrong you are. again the stoneshape says it can create weapons correct? again why can it crate a weapon detached from any excess stone desired and not be able to make one still attached to the other stone it was made form? Surely you can't be missing the distinction? The fact that a spell can create a weapon does not mean that that spell can wield that weapon, or propel it with sufficient force and accuracy to be an effective attack. Attempting to apply high-school level physics to magic is generally a bad idea; as others have already pointed out the flaws in doing so, I will refrain from repeating their excellent points. it is being shaped. the spell is not given anymore features, just more functions than simple minded people can forsee. those people that can't handle such things should not be DMs. I ask you the same thing I asked OB: do I seriously strike you as a "simple minded person who should not be a DM?" Because I don't permit Stone Shape to be used in a directly offensive fashion. you can't just say you can't use a spell in a way that the spell description clearly entitles you to just because the DM doesn't want to do extra work. The "clear implication" you're basing your argument on doesn't exist. a real DM is able to handle those things as they come up. anyone else is either inexperienced enough to be a full DM and needs to think more about everything in the game while they can outside of their sessions, or just stop DMing if they can't handle the oft chance someone uses their imagination and comes up with something the DM isn't prepared for. :rolleyes: Ehrm...Shadzar...you do realize that this "Anyone who doesn't see things the way I do is too stupid or inexperienced to be a DM" attitude isn't going to score you any points, right? I defended you earlier in the thread when people were attacking you. You're making it sort of hard to do so at the moment.
Comus 08-11-07, 01:34 PM	so them you would agree that this mass of stone DOES exert some force when it makes contact with something else? even though the spell makes no mention of being able to do damage we can also safely say that force of one physical object upon another causes a reaction of some sort. (see Newton) and that reaction could be moving it or possible attempting to go through it. in the case of a physical body it would do damage to it. correct? If I could slap you through the internets, I would. Do you not see how ridiculous your argument is? Have you noticed that not a single person agrees with you? Did you notice people showing that Stone Shape does not work that way, otherwise it would destroy the world, and possibly the universe, with a single casting? Stone Shape does not move anything at or near the speed of light. Most likely, it doesn't move very quickly at all, and gives people more than enough time to get out of the way. Stone Shape is not intended to be used as an attack spell. At best, it can be used to create hazardous terrain. You want to use it to make caltrops? Sure - but someone's going to have to step on them! A spiked pit? Awesome - but someone's going to have to fall into that pit to make it do damage.
UltimateReality 08-11-07, 01:50 PM	Trying to apply real-world physics to D&D = all aboard the failboat. I thought we'd covered this by now in the countless other threads in these forums where it inevitably comes up.
Archtyrant Terevoth 08-11-07, 02:15 PM	suppose then in your limited imagination that the shape was a block seperate fromt he cieling... now its falling on the enemy because nthing is holding it up. well since there is no damage listed in the stone shape spell, then when the mass of stone falls on the enemy he just gets up and walks away. and from now on there is never any damage taken when your player are affected by a rockslide, cave-ins, etc. because you have set precedent for it. What if the stone block just um.. misses? Just because you create a falling block over the enemy doesn't mean that you're going to automatically strike him. It's quite possible that the spell takes a second or two and gives the guy fair warning that stone is being shaped around him. And if you allow stone shape attacks, what's next? How about creating a small stone boot attached to the ground to trap someone's foot? What about creating a binding loop of stone to entrap someone? How about creating a mask of stone to suffocate the guy? Next we'll be having tentacles of stone going into someone's lungs and spears of stone popping out of the wall to impale people. If we go down this road, stone shape rapidly becomes the most powerful offensive spell for its level.
shadzar 08-11-07, 04:35 PM	I ask you the same thing I asked OB: do I seriously strike you as a "simple minded person who should not be a DM?" Because I don't permit Stone Shape to be used in a directly offensive fashion. Ehrm...Shadzar...you do realize that this "Anyone who doesn't see things the way I do is too stupid or inexperienced to be a DM" attitude isn't going to score you any points, right? I defended you earlier in the thread when people were attacking you. You're making it sort of hard to do so at the moment. if you can't think outside of the written text then yes you are simple minded and probably shouldn't be a DM. what will you do when the players constantly come up with something that their is no concrete rule for? cower in fear of this unorthodox method of thinking? forums, much like D&D, isn't a game where you score points in an attempt to win something. if it is the last thing i do on this screwed up planet that i convince people that the rules are not written in concrete and every application of an idea or spell cannot be written into the rules and you have to think outside the box at times then so be it. as for changing the fluff to make a mechanic work whomever said that still misses the point. mechanics were created from the fluff. thus the mechanics not being allowed means the fluff not being allowed and vice versa. if no ninjas are allowed then the mechanics for a ninja will not be allowed because why? the DM said so. there are no ninjas in his world. you want so strongly to play a ninja then go home and whine to your mother that the other people wont exist just to please you. or grow up and realize there are other gaming groups, go find one that allows ninjnas. or maybe try playing something else with the gaming group that doesn't allow the ninjas. there are so many danged "options" presented in you people 3.x rules system that their is no need to throw a tantrum when you can't play one of the thousands of classes that have rules for them. i find it hard to believe you couldn't find some other class that you would have fun with. if you can't then maybe D&D is not for you. unlike some i don't play D&D with stupid people. where physics can apply since i understand them i employ them in my game. just because the PCs of a medieval error don't understand physics doesn't mean they didn't exist in that era. like another thread i have tried to make it clear...if the term DMPC ever comes up in a game i am playing i get up and leave with no explanation, never to return because the group will not have anything to offer me. such goes with 3rd grade games also. meaning anyone who would say a mass of physical material can affect another mass of physical material just because the mode of locomotion was magical. BS. it is really no different in my example than should i have said a block as carved from the cieling as to where it was no longer connected and thus affected by gravity. i guess then since a stone column coming from the same ceiling would do no damage, then a large block of stone would also do no damage when it hits. which means falling rocks and anything else similar would not do any damage. if physical objects can damage, then they can damage all the time. people talk so highly of the consistency of the rules in 3.x yet they violate that consistancy when it comes to simple physical interactions....oh but some magic was involved and we are afriad of that scary thing. we are highly superstitous we want to start the witch trials all over again. that is the only way i can see these people as. Newton's laws of motion are always in effect whether you like it or not. if not, then you better be describing som damg believable and good new physics for your world.
shadzar 08-11-07, 04:47 PM	What if the stone block just um.. misses? Just because you create a falling block over the enemy doesn't mean that you're going to automatically strike him. It's quite possible that the spell takes a second or two and gives the guy fair warning that stone is being shaped around him. And if you allow stone shape attacks, what's next? How about creating a small stone boot attached to the ground to trap someone's foot? What about creating a binding loop of stone to entrap someone? How about creating a mask of stone to suffocate the guy? Next we'll be having tentacles of stone going into someone's lungs and spears of stone popping out of the wall to impale people. If we go down this road, stone shape rapidly becomes the most powerful offensive spell for its level. how do you think any spell is used? or why? it is used to cause an effect. the mask i would say hard to swallow since you need to touch the stone. but the rest are easily viable. it doesn't say the stone shape can't be used to create attack-like affects. whether the opposing party notices a block or spike formt he ceiling or something else depends on the situation. it all boils down to two things in this case, and one in most cases with spells. how much time does it take for the stone to be shaped. for all spells. does it fit the spells description. again the spell doesn't include damage because the magic doesn't do the damage. to claim that the stone wont do damage is for lack of a better term....complete BS. as for applying real world physics to D&D you do it every time you play. when your PC pushes on the ground with his foot the gorund pushes back causing to to move forward or up depending on the angle of deflection of your foot. likewise a lightning bolt uses angle of deflection in order to know what way it bounces when it hits a wall. light also adheres to physics. arrows fly through the air only a certain distance, why? because of friction and gravity. who would have guessed that might be a reason that ranged weapons actually have an upper limit to their RANGE rather that travelling infinitely. so you want to try and define the exact physcis of your games as to what does and doesn't work? or are you just taking physics for granted?
Stev Beren 08-11-07, 05:18 PM	if you can't think outside of the written text then yes you are simple minded and probably shouldn't be a DM. what will you do when the players constantly come up with something that their is no concrete rule for? cower in fear of this unorthodox method of thinking? forums, much like D&D, isn't a game where you score points in an attempt to win something. if it is the last thing i do on this screwed up planet that i convince people that the rules are not written in concrete and every application of an idea or spell cannot be written into the rules and you have to think outside the box at times then so be it. as for changing the fluff to make a mechanic work whomever said that still misses the point. mechanics were created from the fluff. thus the mechanics not being allowed means the fluff not being allowed and vice versa. if no ninjas are allowed then the mechanics for a ninja will not be allowed because why? the DM said so. there are no ninjas in his world. you want so strongly to play a ninja then go home and whine to your mother that the other people wont exist just to please you. or grow up and realize there are other gaming groups, go find one that allows ninjnas. or maybe try playing something else with the gaming group that doesn't allow the ninjas. there are so many danged "options" presented in you people 3.x rules system that their is no need to throw a tantrum when you can't play one of the thousands of classes that have rules for them. i find it hard to believe you couldn't find some other class that you would have fun with. if you can't then maybe D&D is not for you. unlike some i don't play D&D with stupid people. where physics can apply since i understand them i employ them in my game. just because the PCs of a medieval error don't understand physics doesn't mean they didn't exist in that era. like another thread i have tried to make it clear...if the term DMPC ever comes up in a game i am playing i get up and leave with no explanation, never to return because the group will not have anything to offer me. such goes with 3rd grade games also. meaning anyone who would say a mass of physical material can affect another mass of physical material just because the mode of locomotion was magical. BS. it is really no different in my example than should i have said a block as carved from the cieling as to where it was no longer connected and thus affected by gravity. i guess then since a stone column coming from the same ceiling would do no damage, then a large block of stone would also do no damage when it hits. which means falling rocks and anything else similar would not do any damage. if physical objects can damage, then they can damage all the time. people talk so highly of the consistency of the rules in 3.x yet they violate that consistancy when it comes to simple physical interactions....oh but some magic was involved and we are afriad of that scary thing. we are highly superstitous we want to start the witch trials all over again. that is the only way i can see these people as. Newton's laws of motion are always in effect whether you like it or not. if not, then you better be describing som damg believable and good new physics for your world. If Newton's laws are always in effect, then we had better get rid of a good number of the spells in the book. . Because many of them violate them quite blatantly. Especially the law of Reciprocal actions. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" I agree, however, with the first part of your post.
shadzar 08-11-07, 05:47 PM	If Newton's laws are always in effect, then we had better get rid of a good number of the spells in the book. . Because many of them violate them quite blatantly. Especially the law of Reciprocal actions. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" I agree, however, with the first part of your post. since i break things up for my legibility rather than just subjedct which would you consider the "first part of my post" the first block of text? well some spell do violate Newton as well as many others...law of gravity vs levitation. but those are for the simple reason that they are magic. in the case of the stone shape (yes sticking with the same example spell) it also violates the laws of physics but doesn't entirely change them. that is where the DM comes into play to adjucate the physics vs magic. the specific spell doesn't indicate in any way that the stone can not be used as an attack mode. and their are clearly rules for attack with stone based weaponry. ergo a smart DM would put 2 and 2 together and see how this stone is being used. in the case of the character i used when sitting into a campaign the stone shape was declared to do 18d6 to the giant insect we were fighting. not recalling the level, but before the DM could adjucate the possibility completely the other players were like OMG that would be massive damge because it would impale this large thing (which was my intent), other were remarking how it would hurt like hell to get hit with a stone wall. the DM made whatever die roll needed for the insect then told me to roll 18d6. thus the bug took his 56 damage and was momentarily stuck in place until he broke free fromt he ceiling. one brand new play was all like "i didn't knwo you could do things like that in D&D" the whole table responded with "we told you you could do anything in the game". the DM then added, "i knew you would do something crazy like that but your good at it [coming up with new ideas outide the norm to make the game more interesting than stale old tactidcs]". D&D gained 4 new players that day. :eek: oh no! i created more players for 3.5 edition! excuse me while i go gouge out my eyes for doing something so terrible.
Stev Beren 08-11-07, 06:02 PM	as for changing the fluff to make a mechanic work whomever said that still misses the point. mechanics were created from the fluff. thus the mechanics not being allowed means the fluff not being allowed and vice versa. if no ninjas are allowed then the mechanics for a ninja will not be allowed because why? the DM said so. there are no ninjas in his world. you want so strongly to play a ninja then go home and whine to your mother that the other people wont exist just to please you. or grow up and realize there are other gaming groups, go find one that allows ninjnas. or maybe try playing something else with the gaming group that doesn't allow the ninjas. there are so many danged "options" presented in you people 3.x rules system that their is no need to throw a tantrum when you can't play one of the thousands of classes that have rules for them. i find it hard to believe you couldn't find some other class that you would have fun with. if you can't then maybe D&D is not for you. Is what I was referring to. While I might have been a little less. . .confrontational. .about it, I agree with the general thought. And if its not defined, its just as valid to go with the option that doesn't give a spell additional powers it was not intended to hve. Or to just raise the level of the spell if it is going to be capable of such.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-11-07, 06:10 PM	if you can't think outside of the written text then yes you are simple minded and probably shouldn't be a DM. what will you do when the players constantly come up with something that their is no concrete rule for? cower in fear of this unorthodox method of thinking? I see your playing stupid again. It would appear your winning too. forums, much like D&D, isn't a game where you score points in an attempt to win something. Then why can't you admit your wrong? if it is the last thing i do on this screwed up planet that i convince people that the rules are not written in concrete and every application of an idea or spell cannot be written into the rules and you have to think outside the box at times then so be it. Most of us don't regard cheating as playing in anyway similar to our style. Now your free to house stone shape to do whatever you like, but you must realize that it is a house rule, and not RAW. as for changing the fluff to make a mechanic work whomever said that still misses the point. mechanics were created from the fluff. thus the mechanics not being allowed means the fluff not being allowed and vice versa. if no ninjas are allowed then the mechanics for a ninja will not be allowed because why? the DM said so. there are no ninjas in his world. you want so strongly to play a ninja then go home and whine to your mother that the other people wont exist just to please you. or grow up and realize there are other gaming groups, go find one that allows ninjnas. or maybe try playing something else with the gaming group that doesn't allow the ninjas. We've been over this straw man many times before. But since you insist lets go back to Bob, the "zeroth level commoner." Firstly unless Bob has racial HD he can't be a zeroth level anything, as having no HD means your an inanimate object. So we'll go with 1st level commoner, so it at least makes some sense. Now could you please explain to me who the mechanics of a 1st level commoner fit the flavor of a grand master swordsmen? I'm a little confused as to how you came to that conclusion. there are so many danged "options" presented in you people 3.x rules system that their is no need to throw a tantrum when you can't play one of the thousands of classes that have rules for them. Its not throwing a tantrum, that is what your doing, what your doing is bad. Why can't, or shouldn't the DM give a reason for not including an option that his players find fun? i find it hard to believe you couldn't find some other class that you would have fun with. if you can't then maybe D&D is not for you. Thats not the point. Why can't the DM give a reason for it to not be included. unlike some i don't play D&D with stupid people. where physics can apply since i understand them i employ them in my game. just because the PCs of a medieval error don't understand physics doesn't mean they didn't exist in that era. Given your limited understanding of physics I think your world would be strange indeed. like another thread i have tried to make it clear...if the term DMPC ever comes up in a game i am playing i get up and leave with no explanation, never to return because the group will not have anything to offer me. What exactly does the DMPC have to do with the price of tea in china? And we already know your too much of a spoiled prat to take other people into consideration, that is not the point of the discussion either. such goes with 3rd grade games also. meaning anyone who would say a mass of physical material can affect another mass of physical material just because the mode of locomotion was magical. BS. it is really no different in my example than should i have said a block as carved from the cieling as to where it was no longer connected and thus affected by gravity. i guess then since a stone column coming from the same ceiling would do no damage, then a large block of stone would also do no damage when it hits. which means falling rocks and anything else similar would not do any damage. Ok Now your making sense, sort of. using stone shape to make a stone block from the ceiling, and then letting it fall onto your opponent is within the context of the spell. You are using stone shape to for a block, or spike, then separating it from the ceiling, and gravity is doing the rest. There are a couple of ways to handle this: A You make an attack roll verses your opponents AC, or B you make an attack verse the squares AC, usually 5, and the enemy gets a reflex save to negate, or for half. Either way damage would be based on weight of the stone, and height from which it falls. The rules for falling objects are in the DMG towards the back. But that is different then having the stone fly out of the wall, or up from the ground. if physical objects can damage, then they can damage all the time. No one is disputing that. We're saying that stone shape can not generate any force with which to propel the stone. Therefor you need to get force from somewhere other then the spell, such as gravity, or yourself in the case of a weapon. people talk so highly of the consistency of the rules in 3.x yet they violate that consistancy when it comes to simple physical interactions....oh but some magic was involved and we are afriad of that scary thing. we are highly superstitous we want to start the witch trials all over again. I find them to be for the most part internally consistent. They don't have to be exactly as the laws of physics are in our world, they just have to be consistent with themselves. Which they are. All spells do what they say they do, and nothing more. Not just a few. This is for balance reasons, but here lets try a few more, just for fun. Can a wizard use mage hand to strangle someone? Can an unseen servant use a weapon and attack things? Can magic missile make sunder attacks? Newton's laws of motion are always in effect whether you like it or not. if not, then you better be describing som damg believable and good new physics for your world. You do realise that these two lines are inconsistant with each other, right? Either newtons laws are always in effect with every game, no matter what. Or DMs are free to come with their own system of physics, or maybe they use hybrid? now you are learning. how do you think any spell is used? or why? it is used to cause an effect. the mask i would say hard to swallow since you need to touch the stone. but the rest are easily viable. Ermm he was using examples to make your argument look even more ridiculous. But you assisted with that nicely. it doesn't say the stone shape can't be used to create attack-like affects. It does not say it ca, and that is why it can't. whether the opposing party notices a block or spike formt he ceiling or something else depends on the situation. it all boils down to two things in this case, and one in most cases with spells. how much time does it take for the stone to be shaped. for all spells. does it fit the spells description. Time shaping the spell is irrelevant. Weather the opponent is aware of the attack or not, makes little difference, just determines of they are flat footed or not. But your right it boils down to does it fit the spells description. again the spell doesn't include damage because the magic doesn't do the damage. to claim that the stone wont do damage is for lack of a better term....complete BS. Objects made by stone shape can deal damage depending on what they are. No is saying they don't. However stone shape will not give any kind of force to the object, that needs to be derived from somewhere else. as for applying real world physics to D&D you do it every time you play. when your PC pushes on the ground with his foot the gorund pushes back causing to to move forward or up depending on the angle of deflection of your foot. Ok..... likewise a lightning bolt uses angle of deflection in order to know what way it bounces when it hits a wall. light also adheres to physics. Lightning bolt doesn't do that. ...If the damge caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the bolt may continue beyond the barrier if the spell's range permits; otherwise, it stops at the barrier just any other spell effect does. arrows fly through the air only a certain distance, why? because of friction and gravity. who would have guessed that might be a reason that ranged weapons actually have an upper limit to their RANGE rather that travelling infinitely. so you want to try and define the exact physcis of your games as to what does and doesn't work? or are you just taking physics for granted? I don't need to. For the most part the rules do that for me. Now would it be asking too much for you to try and add something intelligent?
shadzar 08-11-07, 06:24 PM	Is what I was referring to. While I might have been a little less. . .confrontational. .about it, I agree with the general thought. And if its not defined, its just as valid to go with the option that doesn't give a spell additional powers it was not intended to hve. Or to just raise the level of the spell if it is going to be capable of such. ok thanks for pointing out the part so i knew. as for the spells dont you find it that new spells make for great additions to the game? for example the stoneshape with attack type modes. it could lead to another whole spell idea which is made for attacking with stone via magic. but the new spell has to start somewhere. an idea from a currently existing spell. say n the beginning there were only a few spells. one was lighting bolt. it shot forth and became much wonderful a use for attacking. now say some hyper wizard tried using it to strike more than one target or directing it or whatevr and created the basis for chain lightning. now this wizard can adapt the lightning bolts eneries and patterns to form this new spell fromt he freak occurence of the earlier unorthodox use. same goes with the stone shape. while its attack mode are limited in what it can do such as opening a doorway or pit below someone why couldnt the presence of the stone be just as effective as the absence of it for attacking. this gives the wizard the infinite potential to grow in what he can do. now say other spells were applied like this. it wouldn't mean that they would all need to be rasided in level then sicne they all have alternate uses other than described. like a magic missle pushing some button i would have to equate it to something like the force of wind and unable to push the button since it cant exert constant force on it. unlike say the magic missle being used to knock over a candle or something that only require it to be unbalanced beyond it center of gravity. these new uses for spells allows the wizard to grow. it doesn't say much for game balance at all, but there are more than liekly other things other classes can do in order to make then more powerful within their own abilities.
Stev Beren 08-11-07, 06:26 PM	ok thanks for poointing out the part so i knew. as for the spells dont you find it that new spells make for great additions to the game? for example the stoneshape with attack type modes. it could lead to another whole spell idea which is made for attacking with stone via magic. but the new spell has to start somewhere. an idea from a currently existing spell. say n the beginning there were only a few spells. one was lighting bolt. it shot forth and became much wonderful a use for attacking. now say some hyper wizard tried using it to strike more than one target or directing it or whatevr and created the basis for chain lightning. now this wizard can adapt the lightning bolts eneries and patterns to form this new spell fromt he freak occurence of the earlier unorthodox use. same goes with the stone shape. while its attack mode are limited in what it can do such as opening a doorway or pit below someone why couldnt the presence of the stone be just as effective as the absence of it for attacking. this gives the wizard the infinite potential to grow in what he can do. now say other spells were applied like this. it wouldn't mean that they would all need to be rasided in level then sicne they all have alternate uses other than described. like a magic missle pushing some button i would have to equate it to something like the force of wind and unable to push the button since it cant exert constant force on it. unlike say the magic missle being used to knock over a candle or something that only require it to be unbalanced beyond it center of gravity. these new uses for spells allows the wizard to grow. it doesn't say much for game balance at all, but there are more than liekly other things other classes can do in order to make then more powerful within their own abilities. If there are ANY classes where I will be extra stingy with following the rules exactly, its gonna be mages.
shadzar 08-11-07, 06:34 PM	Now your free to house stone shape to do whatever you like, but you must realize that it is a house rule, and not RAW. i don't know of what this RAW people keep refering to means. if you inteded to say playing by the letter of the book then say so. the book isn't meat. if it were i would prefer mine well-done. just like my games and not half-assed by going just by the book. as i have said many time you can NOT go by jsut what the book says because there are things that will always come up that are not covered in the books. thusly there can NEVER be a firm set of rules for all possible actions and responses in the game. the point of D&D is for fun. if you find fun in just reading books and not thinking for yourself then so be it. but i will not suffer fools when it comes to my games. i like to play with people that have a mind of their own rather than mindless automatons who can only play the way they are instructed to play. again D&D is an open ended game. you toss around this idea of RAW so flagrantly but have also contradicted yourself in the case that you change the RAW when it suits you. if altering fluff in order to get some mechanic form a class. well the fluff is the RAW way. make up your mind. are you going to stand on the side of using things only and purely as they are written and to the letter of the text they are written as concrete rules? or are you going to accept that things must be changed at times from the RAW for whatever reason, and thus being able to change one thing means that anything else is subject to change as well? so which is it? concrete rules, or general guidelines?
shadzar 08-11-07, 06:48 PM	If there are ANY classes where I will be extra stingy with following the rules exactly, its gonna be mages. oh i can whole heartedly understand that sentiment since the magic user has always been overly powerful and a balance issue over the years. but that is why i take those odd spells for utility rather than common attack spells. to give magic its flare. of course you would take attack spells, but i like to see people try new things. and since i play 2E there are plenty of ways to quell the wizards form being too unbalancing. not sure if many exist now in 3.x but there wa always the thing about chance to learn a spell added to the fact that wizards just couldn't find any spell they wanted they have to take what was given them from their travels. be it the dead mans hands containing a scroll they could use now or save to scribe later, or a librarm in someones personal or a cities library that the wizard must take time to learn and jot it down in his own spellbook. i think that may be a problem with balance issues for some that think a wizards should have access to every possible spell in the PHB alone not including optional sourcebooks. id on't find that a wizard just always is able to find infinite resources for learning all the spells just when they come of level to be able to get more. but maybe that is only me and the wizard is supposed to just instantly know nnew spells jsut because of that kobold he killed just now without actually having to research it or find it somewhere in order to learn it.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-11-07, 07:16 PM	i don't know of what this RAW people keep refering to means. if you inteded to say playing by the letter of the book then say so. the book isn't meat. if it were i would prefer mine well-done. just like my games and not half-assed by going just by the book. RAW = Rules As Written. again D&D is an open ended game. you toss around this idea of RAW so flagrantly but have also contradicted yourself in the case that you change the RAW when it suits you. if altering fluff in order to get some mechanic form a class. Oh now you know what RAW means? I thought you didn't?
Caelic 08-11-07, 08:00 PM	if you can't think outside of the written text then yes you are simple minded and probably shouldn't be a DM. I think we have just established that you are not qualified to judge who is and is not fit to be a DM. Certainly, if your definition of "...can't think outside of the written text" is "...don't declare Stone Shape to be an auto-hit spell capable of impaling opponents," this is the case. what will you do when the players constantly come up with something that their is no concrete rule for? cower in fear of this unorthodox method of thinking? My players are quite creative and innovative. They are also, however, skilled players of the game, who understand that spells have limitations. forums, much like D&D, isn't a game where you score points in an attempt to win something. That's fortunate, because you're certainly not. if it is the last thing i do on this screwed up planet that i convince people that the rules are not written in concrete and every application of an idea or spell cannot be written into the rules and you have to think outside the box at times then so be it. ...and insulting people and insisting that if they don't see things your way they're simple-minded and don't understand the game is, of course, the best way to do that. People are always more inclined to see your point when you insult them. as for changing the fluff to make a mechanic work whomever said that still misses the point. mechanics were created from the fluff. thus the mechanics not being allowed means the fluff not being allowed and vice versa. if no ninjas are allowed then the mechanics for a ninja will not be allowed because why? the DM said so. there are no ninjas in his world. Does anyone else find it funny that shadzar continually flip-flops? On the one hand, he insists that mechanics and fluff are inseparable, annd that one not being allowed means the other isn't allowed; on the other hand, he insists that the fluff of Stone Shape should completely supersede the mechanics. unlike some i don't play D&D with stupid people. Man, and I thought I was arrogant. where physics can apply since i understand them i employ them in my game. just because the PCs of a medieval error don't understand physics doesn't mean they didn't exist in that era. Ah, yes. Flawed Gaming Assumption #73: This Universe's Laws of Physics Apply In A D&D World. News flash: the laws of any universe that includes the D&D magic system are different than our own. That includes both physics and metaphysics. like another thread i have tried to make it clear...if the term DMPC ever comes up in a game i am playing i get up and leave with no explanation, never to return because the group will not have anything to offer me. Do you take your toys when you go home? if physical objects can damage, then they can damage all the time. Sure. That makes sense. So the sword that's hanging on my wall should cause me massive damage when I take it down--because it can damage all the time, not merely when it's wielded. Broom straws have been known to go right through palm trees during hurricanes; that means that a broom straw should be able to kill a man under any circumstances. people talk so highly of the consistency of the rules in 3.x yet they violate that consistancy when it comes to simple physical interactions....oh but some magic was involved and we are afriad of that scary thing. we are highly superstitous we want to start the witch trials all over again. No; we're simply smart enough to recognize a few simple truths: 1. Any universe which contains magic has different physical laws. 2. The game is an abstraction. Certain things are unrealistic for the sake of game balance and playability. that is the only way i can see these people as. That's your failing and your limitation, not theirs. Newton's laws of motion are always in effect whether you like it or not. I thought you understood physics? This is simply a false statement. Exceptions to Newton's laws have been known for quite a long time. if not, then you better be describing som damg believable and good new physics for your world. Certainly...because attempting to insist that the Laws of Thermodynamics, conservation of matter, and the general laws of motion and relativity exist in a universe where disintegration, teleportation, and the spontaneous creation of matter are all possible is pretty darned silly.
Caelic 08-11-07, 08:11 PM	oh i can whole heartedly understand that sentiment since the magic user has always been overly powerful and a balance issue over the years. but that is why i take those odd spells for utility rather than common attack spells. Well, that, and the fact that your DM is apparently lenient enough to allow them to do massively more damage than the common attack spells, sure. If my utility spells inflict twice the damage of any attack spell of their level, why would I ever bother with attack spells? That's particularly true when my DM obviously ignores limitations like a range of touch...because, y'know, "touch" simply means I have to touch a piece of the stone here, and I can shape a piece thirty feet away. Right? Heck, why stop there? Let's do some more "smart play." I'll be using Major Creation to create massive amounts of the most potent contact poisons I can think of, covering my target. Should be quite a lot of saves, right? But, really, why stop there? Let's use Major Creation to create lava directly over the head of my target! Now, lava is highly dangerous stuff. Getting hit in the head with a single drop of it in real life is extremely likely to be fatal. So dumping twenty-plus cubic feet of it on my opponent should be an instant kill. Right? I mean, that's just clever and innovative play, and any DM who doesn't let it work is just simple-minded, right?
shadzar 08-11-07, 08:31 PM	and i guess you would say that cantrips also can't do anythign that would cause damage? :rolleyes: slipping on a banana peel...falling damage. 1 HP gone. and who in their right mind would allow something that is lower than a level one spell be able to extinguish flames! no more puffs of wind to blow out a candle. OMG most of the cantrips as written are more powerful than some level 3 spells even! dear god what have they done!?!? the spells power level is the measure of power expended in order to create the effects and also the amount it exists as in order for resistance purposes in your 3.x. what it does is a key in determining its level required to cast it and thusly its power level. but what reall is such a spell as stone shape doing? wouldn't magic misile be more powerful than anything like stone shape be since it can cause damage? shouldn't them all damage causing spells be ranked higher than those that don't have damaging effects. or are you thinking only in terms of power being something visible rather than what is exerting in order to accomplish the results fo the spell?
Caelic 08-11-07, 08:46 PM	and i guess you would say that cantrips also can't do anythign that would cause damage? :rolleyes: slipping on a banana peel...falling damage. 1 HP gone. Now, I'm curious. Which cantrip are you using to accomplish that effect? Prestidigitation? and who in their right mind would allow something that is lower than a level one spell be able to extinguish flames! no more puffs of wind to blow out a candle. You do like strawman arguments, don't you? Is it because you're really not very good at responding to the actual points others make? OMG most of the cantrips as written are more powerful than some level 3 spells even! dear god what have they done!?!? Yep. Strawman and clumsy, heavy-handed hyperbole. wouldn't magic misile be more powerful than anything like stone shape be since it can cause damage? shouldn't them all damage causing spells be ranked higher than those that don't have damaging effects. If you really think that way, then you definitely don't understand the game very well. or are you thinking only in terms of power being something visible rather than what is exerting in order to accomplish the results fo the spell? Once again in coherent English, please?
Stev Beren 08-11-07, 09:53 PM	Look in the SRD. Look at Zero Level Spells. You have cantrips. Was that hard? And if you want to insult him by accusing him of pre-school debating, the least you could do is use at least pre-school formatting, punctuation and grammar to do it.
Archangel62 08-12-07, 02:19 AM	and i guess you would say that cantrips also can't do anythign that would cause damage? :rolleyes: slipping on a banana peel...falling damage. 1 HP gone. and who in their right mind would allow something that is lower than a level one spell be able to extinguish flames! no more puffs of wind to blow out a candle. OMG most of the cantrips as written are more powerful than some level 3 spells even! dear god what have they done!?!? the spells power level is the measure of power expended in order to create the effects and also the amount it exists as in order for resistance purposes in your 3.x. what it does is a key in determining its level required to cast it and thusly its power level. but what reall is such a spell as stone shape doing? wouldn't magic misile be more powerful than anything like stone shape be since it can cause damage? shouldn't them all damage causing spells be ranked higher than those that don't have damaging effects. or are you thinking only in terms of power being something visible rather than what is exerting in order to accomplish the results fo the spell? Magic missile is really a fairly weak spell, the only advantage it has is that it will always hit and that until recently few things had options against force damage. Its main worth is at mid levels as at low levels it is next to useless compared to debuff and status affecting spells such as sleep or color spray, allowing for instant CDG affects. In addition, you really should try understanding 3.5 before you try to argue about spell comparisons. The rules for actions, movement, and the amount of time it takes to cast a spell as well as the rules thereof have changed enough so that some things that might have worked or been reasonable in 2nd edition simply do not function properly in 3.5. A simple example might be your banana peel idea, in 3.5 trip attempts are opposed rolls or offer some form of save, the main reason is because of the penalty to AC, the fact that it provokes AoO, and that it significantly lowers their tactical options as it is a move action to stand up and the fact that they cannot properly attack while prone. In other words, understanding the other mechanics of a game might help you understand how and why some spells function. Yes, there are cantrips that can do some damage, it's minimal but it can be done. The problem is that altering spells to allow them to function differently than their wording leads to more mechanical issues, it isn't a question of fluff or DM decision, it's a question of understanding the rules and why they exist as they do. To say nothing of other problems like someone putting levitate on arrows to try to extend their range. And, if you want to work with physics let's consider weight ratios and the problem that the stone you shape isn't being added to, it's taking from other areas, entirely possible that each stone shape you do can cause a cave in. I should also add that flight spells must either provide a form of propulsion or they also violate several laws of physics. The problem is that physics can't be applied perfectly in D&D, hell most real world things can't be applied cleanly because setting them to percentile chances either makes them moot to early or simply doesn't work in the context of D&D.
kalyb 08-12-07, 02:48 AM	Sweeeeeet! I just realized how powerful a spell Stone Shape is. It's a level 3 instant death spell with no save and spell resistance does not apply. Walk up to , say, Medium-sized creature. Use Stone Shape to create a hollow tube about 3 ft high around the creature and give it a flat top. The top cuts the creature in half. It doesn't get a save or use of spell resistance because the spell affects the stone, not the creature. Pretty impressive spell.
Optimized_Commoner 08-12-07, 09:53 AM	Magic missile is really a fairly weak spell, the only advantage it has is that it will always hit and that until recently few things had options against force damage. That's not entirely true. Magic missile also strikes ethereal opponents (if you can see them) and intangible opponents. It is extremely useful to any sort of ghost-hunter. Plus as a first level, autohit spell it's a great conduit for metamagic feats with secondary effects. It's one of the better 1st level spells. Just remember... it's a first level spell. Man, and I thought I was arrogant. You are :P. Aren't we all?
Alyri 08-12-07, 12:37 PM	Think it's been 100 posts about a stone shape spell. Hopefully shadzar has changed other things in 2ed, seeing as how he does real world physics and the like. I never quite understood why a character could carry more weight than a mule could.
Holy_Beholder 08-12-07, 04:41 PM	Fudge has so much of my love. Risus is interesting, but I'm not sure I'm to the point where I could GM it. And Fate...Fate seems an interesting idea, but kind of lacking in implementation to me. (At least, Fate 2.0; I don't know about the new edition.) Fudge is like the perfectly customizable game for me. Because I already love homebrewing. :P Yeah, FUDGE is awesome. Although things need to be changed, and stealing things is fun(and by things I mean spell lists, abilities, even skills) The easiest way to learn is to convert stuff over from a game you know, and everyone here knows D&D. Also, Risus is complicated however a game based on it, which is diceless, is much easier. Its just that its diceless.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 05:41 PM	have you ever read the cantrip spell entry? you really need a list of all the things possible after that and can not think for yourself what things are cantrips? i pity you. In 3.x "cantrip" is a blanket term for 0 level arcane spells which there is a specific list of. The actual spell you knew as "cantrip" is now: Prestidigitation Universal Level: Brd 0, Sor/Wiz 0 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 10 ft. Target, Effect, or Area: See text Duration: 1 hour Saving Throw: See text Spell Resistance: No Prestidigitations are minor tricks that novice spellcasters use for practice. Once cast, a prestidigitation spell enables you to perform simple magical effects for 1 hour. The effects are minor and have severe limitations. A prestidigitation can slowly lift 1 pound of material. It can color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round. It can chill, warm, or flavor 1 pound of nonliving material. It cannot deal damage or affect the concentration of spellcasters. Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial. The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components. Finally, a prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects. Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour.
Comus 08-12-07, 05:42 PM	i really have no care aobut how they screwed up stuff. there is a reason i don't like it. and because i don't like many aspects of it i am not going to waste my time with its more flawed system. If you don't want to discuss 3.5, then go to a different board. WotC has a board for past editions of D&D, unless I'm mistaken. Go see if anyone there would allow you to use Stone Shape as an attack spell. have you ever read the cantrip spell entry? you really need a list of all the things possible after that and can not think for yourself what things are cantrips? i pity you. Cantrips are 0-level spells. Period. This is a 3.5 board, and we're talking about that system and the spells within. Have you noticed yet that absolutely no one agrees with your current position? And for God's sake, learn to use capital letters.
shadzar 08-12-07, 05:48 PM	[stuff was here] click it -> http://forums.gleemax.com/images/buttons/dnd/viewpost.gif (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13243042#post13243042) http://forums.gleemax.com/images/misc/community/forumhome/active_dnd.gif oddly no where does it state that these forums are solely for 3.5 you jsut infer that of your own volition. several subforums do mention they are d20 forums. however among them the following do NOT state that anything outside of 3.5 is not allowed: D&D General Whats a Dm to do? Whats a player to do? oddly this thread is entirely in the wrong subforum. it should be in D&D general. this thread is entirely hypothetical and not even asking for advice on a specific problem for assistance in its resolution from a player POV as would be suggested by this subforums description. Character creation, resolving problems with the DM or other players, and general advice on how to be a better player. unless it was being considered in part as how to be a baetter player, but the the thread creator has ignored many aspects of it by constantly stating than he would prefer to be disruptive rather than just accept a DMs decision without instantly questioning him on it. if the thread creator was asking for help from the POV of a player then why has any advice been ignored by him? well if you can't place your threads in the proper place then maybe that explains why you refuse to listen to people.
UltimateReality 08-12-07, 06:08 PM	Yeah, FUDGE is awesome. Although things need to be changed, and stealing things is fun(and by things I mean spell lists, abilities, even skills) The easiest way to learn is to convert stuff over from a game you know, and everyone here knows D&D.D&D also has a lot of stuff I really like -- for instance, the attributes and skills are fairly comprehensive and, for the most part, I like them. Those mechanics port over almost identically to my Fudge settings. The true power of Fudge, I feel, is that it can do a decent job of "translating" a lot of games, and it's extremely customizable. I didn't realize exactly how much stuff I was already houseruling and homebrewing for D&D/d20 until I found Fudge. Fudge did what I wanted a lot better than trying to mash things into prestige classes and feats and trying to work out a way to make the d20 Class Construction Engine a balanced, efficient option for players. Also, Risus is complicated however a game based on it, which is diceless, is much easier. Its just that its diceless.I'm not sure about the variations on Risus, but the game itself seems pretty simple to me -- almost too simple, too broad. I could see it for a one-shot or something, though.
Caelic 08-12-07, 07:37 PM	have you ever read the cantrip spell entry? Yep. What's more, I've read the old 3.0 lists of cantrips, which were based on the first edition cantrips, which I have also read...along with the second edition cantrips, and various lists of optional cantrips that have appeared in other sources. By and large, I have them committed to memory. You, on the other hand, have already admitted to never having read any of these. You seem quite proud of not knowing about 3.5, in particular. A piece of friendly advice that applies to almost everything in life: take the time to educate yourself. It always pays to know what you're talking about, and ignorance is never a virtue.
MrCustomer 08-12-07, 07:39 PM	Shadzar. If Blindness (Wizard 2) is cast on my 1-eyed Swashbuckler is it only half as effective? Could I still see with only a 50% concealment effecting my vision? As a worthy Dm surely you can think outside of the box? Stone Shape's description explains how it could be used to attack and how effective it would be. The Dm's guide furthermore explains on how to design new spells and how it would be balanced. Since Spike Stones is the same level spell then using Stone Shape to create the effect would do the same damage, 1d8 piercing, reflex for partial. You can create a trapdoor with Stoneshape btw thus being able to use it to attack in a similair manner like dropping a rock on their head would be appropriate, but Stoneshape has an area limit of touch plus 10 cubic ft+1/level so you would have to be relatively close to the cieling above your opponent to do this. Since you are likely casting this right smack in front of the enemy you provoke an attack of opportunity in most situations, since you are touching the wall with your hands to cast this spell, you are flat footed. The further away you are the less damage Stone Shape would do. As for dropping the item on the person, or conversely dropping them into a spike pit, sure but the limit would be your design of the trap, Make the appropriate roll to craft such a trap and you can have it attack your opponent, A spiked Pit Trap, CR 2 is 20 ft deep, 5ft by 5ft. 500cubic ft. so most pit traps are too large, dropping a block is about your limit, no attack bonus since it is crude, 30% chance of failure (moving parts have a 30% fail rate) 4d6 damage. An Attack of Opportunity while flat footed and probably breaking your concentration and failing to cast the spell to do so little damage isn't effective. See there is being creative and thinking outside the box, and there is keeping in the frame of the rules. A Wizard is much better off using conventional spells for damage, at level 5 he could cast much more effective spells. Keeping in the rules though he could use Shape Stone to create an effective barrier to keep himself safe, like a low wall for cover, or a tunnel for the rogue to use to sneak behind the enemy to flank them and use his sneak attack, or an escape route or enterence to the enemy lair to suprise him. Or to set up a trap ahead of time. You could use the rules to create a new spell that does damage relative to what other spells of that level does. Stone Skewers could spike through the enemy in the same manner as Ice Storm or Fireball, 5d6 damage is appropriate for a level 5 Wizard spell.
Alyri 08-12-07, 08:16 PM	several subforums do mention they are d20 forums. however among them the following do NOT state that anything outside of 3.5 is not allowed: D&D General Whats a Dm to do? Whats a player to do? Under D&D Related Topics D&D Out of Print Hop to this Other Worlds board to discuss vintage gaming with older editions and classic products. Or if that is too hard to understand, Click here --> D&D Out Of Print (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=54)
shadzar 08-12-07, 08:24 PM	Shadzar. If Blindness (Wizard 2) is cast on my 1-eyed Swashbuckler is it only half as effective? Could I still see with only a 50% concealment effecting my vision? As a worthy Dm surely you can think outside of the box? identify which blindness spell you wish to use. if it is NOT 2E then present the spell here in its entirety for me to review and make a decision on.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 08:27 PM	identify which blindness spell you wish to use. if it is NOT 2E then present the spell here in its entirety for me to review and make a decision on. Blindness/Deafness Necromancy Level: Brd 2, Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Target: One living creature Duration: Permanent (D) Saving Throw: Fortitude negates Spell Resistance: Yes You call upon the powers of unlife to render the subject blinded or deafened, as you choose. Blinded The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) to the blinded character. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them. Oh yah, and I got all that from here: http://www.d20srd.org/index.htm
Wight_Chocolate 08-12-07, 08:32 PM	First off, it is already in your sig. Second off, you are seriously acting extremely immature waving that ONE post around using it as a shield every time someone comments on your capitalization (or lack thereof.) Agreed. There's only so far that this defense can go. I've been spending some time looking through this thread. You can point people to the warning as much as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that your writing is difficult to follow. There's only so often and so much one can butter up a request for you to do something about that before they have to take a more direct approach. Furthermore, since you're so fond of this post, you should probably take note that it suggests that the person in question actually make an effort to tidy up their writing if other people are having trouble understanding it. You don't seem to be taking that part into account. Seriously, are you actually that bothered that people aren't sugarcoating it when they ask that you be more coherent, or do you have no intention of fixing it either way?
shadzar 08-12-07, 08:40 PM	[stuff was here] welcome new user to the environment that is a bulletin board service. while reading a BBS understand a few things: you may not agree with every post made. you may not understand every post made. you are not required to read every post made. you may respond to any post made. you are not required to respond to any posts. ;)
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 08:49 PM	From the Critical Miss article on playing the game Troll: the Provoking (http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue9/troll1.html): i dont need know f****** gramer im cool A very simple way to wind people up is simply to write like a retard. This allows you to get in a "double whammy", aggravating people not only with what you are saying, but with the way in which you are saying it. Here are some simple tips: * Don't use apostrophes when doing contractions. Write "im", "dont", "wont", "doesnt" instead of "I'm", "don't", "won't", "doesn't". * Don't put a capital letter at the start of sentences. * Don't capitalise the word "I" or "I'm", saying instead "i" and "im". * Don't put in proper paragraph breaks. * Don't use full stops in the correct places. * Deliberately misspell lots of words (say things like "thier" or "draogns"). If people complain about your lack of grammar, there are three main approaches you can take: a) Say you aren't as educated as they are, so they should feel sorry for you. b) Say you don't have time to get the grammer correct. c) Say that you think grammatical rules are stupid and old-fashioned. I particularly like b as an answer. Since the few milliseconds you might save are totally dwarfed by the extra time that everyone else has to spend attempting to read your posts, what it really translates to is: "My time is *way* more important than your time."
WizO_Autumn 08-12-07, 10:02 PM	I just deleted about 20 posts and edited about 10. Baiting is NOT allowed. It is against the Code of Conduct. You MAY debate, disagree, and discuss, but insults and personal attacks are not allowed. Also, off topic posts, when taken too far, are not appreciated. This arena is in fact for D&D 3.x and though it is fine to mention other systems within the D&D boards, to insist that they must be discussed, or to talk about them in order to derail a thread is disruption. So everyone, post politely, or at least civilly, or just walk away. To continue this argument will only net you warns.
shadzar 08-12-07, 10:38 PM	Shadzar. If Blindness (Wizard 2) is cast on my 1-eyed Swashbuckler is it only half as effective? Could I still see with only a 50% concealment effecting my vision? As a worthy Dm surely you can think outside of the box? as per the info provided on the blindness spell.... the spell is 100% effective on any creature no matter how many eyes it has versus how many of them function properly or whatever method of sight is used. 1, 2, 3, 4, 30 eyes; 2 eyes only one working, 30 eyes only 12 working...whatever. the spell causes the ability to register sight moot. either by destroying the eyes or by destroying the brains ability to process sight. all forms thereof as mentioned before such as normal vision, ultravison, darkvision, infravision, x-ray vision, televison...whatever! it does not state that the total 50% miss chance is related only to sight affected use of the spell. just that being blind confers at max 50% miss chacne because you are losing half of you abilities to tell if something is there. that must mean that hearing is also a part of determining concealment and assume that the character can still hear. otherwise i have no idea what in the world it was meaning. i would figure if concealment is only affected by a person who can see something and this persons ability to see has been removed, than concealment should automatically pass against them. but it mentions spot checks and such auto-fail so it must be more to concealment than just being able to see someone or not. now i would need to know the concealment rules to cross-reference why it claims only the 50% miss chance as a total for a blinded person. also i would need to know how concealment works on people who were not sighted to begin with.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 10:43 PM	now i would need to know the concealment rules to cross-reference why it claims only the 50% miss chance as a total for a blinded person. also i would need to know how concealment works on people who were not sighted to begin with. www.d20srd.org It's all there.
shadzar 08-12-07, 10:48 PM	www.d20srd.org It's all there. this may take a while not only to read the proper sections, but find them in the first place....last time i was there i got annoyed at the organization of it sicne they should have a search feture like the forums and the Gatherer have to find a specific term...like a Windows Help file. i will return if/when i have found something or need clearification on what i am reading.... hey wait this thing is new. i wonder where i was reading the SRD last tiem i tried looking at it. :thinks:
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 10:55 PM	hey wait this thing is new. i wonder where i was reading the SRD last tiem i tried looking at it. :thinks: Yoe were probably looking at this http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome which is the original no frills .rtf files from the Wizards' site. The Hypertext SRD is a fan made thing which I consider a godsend, and actually prefer using to the core books. If I want to know what they mean by "sickened", I just click on the word "sickened" and I jump right to the glossary definition :D
shadzar 08-12-07, 11:19 PM	Yoe were probably looking at this http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome which is the original no frills .rtf files from the Wizards' site. The Hypertext SRD is a fan made thing which I consider a godsend, and actually prefer using to the core books. If I want to know what they mean by "sickened", I just click on the word "sickened" and I jump right to the glossary definition :D good thing the OGL exists or they wouldn't have been able to make it proabably sicne WotC is lax on actually giving some things in a usable format. how many years id it take for them to make a searchable database of Magic cards? :rolleyes: ok after looking at concealment and total concealment then blindness has no real affect on it other than denying line of sight to the target. meaning that it makes no sense why blindness would only grant a 50% chance to miss considering the target not only has no line of sight from the attacker, but the attacker could never see then in the first place. it will take some time to come up with this as i would do things like this way prior to it coming up in game.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 11:30 PM	good thing the OGL exists or they wouldn't have been able to make it proabably sicne WotC is lax on actually giving some things in a usable format. how many years id it take for them to make a searchable database of Magic cards? :rolleyes: I think making the SRD a big clump of .rtf files was intetional, as it's an aid for publishers who want to use Open Game Content, not as a cheap alternative to actually buying the books. (Though coincidentally it is good for that too ;) ) ok after looking at concealment and total concealment then blindness has no real affect on it other than denying line of sight to the target. meaning that it makes no sense why blindness would only grant a 50% chance to miss considering the target not only has no line of sight from the attacker, but the attacker could never see then in the first place. I'm not a hundred percent positive, but I think line of sight only matters with ranged attacks, not melee. So I don't think you could shoot an arrow at someone while blind. You would be able to flail around with your sword in the hope that you might hit your enemy. Which is what the 50% miss means. [/QUOTE]
shadzar 08-12-07, 11:33 PM	I think making the SRD a big clump of .rtf files was intetional, as it's an aid for publishers who want to use Open Game Content, not as a cheap alternative to actually buying the books. (Though coincidentally it is good for that too ;) ) I'm not a hundred percent positive, but I think line of sight only matters with ranged attacks, not melee. So I don't think you could shoot an arrow at someone while blind. You would be able to flail around with your sword in the hope that you might hit your enemy. Which is what the 50% miss means. ok so they got some miniature game mixted in with their RPG. i see it now. then i would say they still get treated as under concealment then as have a 50% chance of hitting something they somehow new to be there. make sense to me. or i may just giv a bigger penalty to hitting. but not having looked over every AC and "THAC0" of 3.x i wouldn't have any idea what penalty to give. probably make it such that the character had better dang well find some way of regaining his sight.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 11:39 PM	ok so they got some miniature game mixted in with their RPG. DnD did originally evolve from the Chainmail miniature game. probably make it such that the character had better dang well find some way of regaining his sight. Oh dear god, yes, I think that's implied. If my character had blindness cast on me the first thing I'd be doing is sucking up to the first Cleric and or Paladin I could find :(
shadzar 08-12-07, 11:47 PM	DnD did originally evolve from the Chainmail miniature game. Oh dear god, yes, I think that's implied. If my character had blindness cast on me the first thing I'd be doing is sucking up to the first Cleric and or Paladin I could find :( yeah i think the white box set is cute, but find i would never actually use it. i prefer Rules Cyclopedia or 2E D&D. i can't really see how these other editions kept the game alive...cause i didn't promote or condone them with my wallet! :evillaugh i remember a time when people hated having to use minis while playing. aside from being a DM and just flat out saying you need to get that whole blindness thing taken care of, as a player i would jsut have my character cower in the corner. i have a hard time seeing and can't stand being in an environment where is is worsened more than it already is. so i would just stick my character in the same mode of thinking. "screw this! get me out of here and get my eyes fixed you morons!" panic stricken PCs are fun!
OravennasBrother 08-13-07, 10:34 AM	panic stricken PCs are fun! Alone this line is possibly true. If I'm running a horror setting because the players want a creepy scary encounter then panic stricken PC's, particularly if it is from the players deciding they've had enough creepy things, probably are exactly what the players had in mind. If OTOH the players wanted resolute heroes with great big ones and the DM decides arbitrarily to consistently make them powerless and "Afraid" then that is not exactly the same. In a horror campaign the DM would be well within their rights to Disallow any mechanic which would prevent Fear Effects - not much point in horror settings if all the characters are immune to fear. But if the campaign is supposed to be Arthurian in style then it would not be unreasonable for ALL the characters to have the option of getting a feat to make them fearless as per the paladin special ability, even if (or perhaps particularly if) the Paladin Class is not allowed. DM's have the right to allow anything they want, but if it is not done in some sort of thematic manner then the game will suffer. Sometimes players are unclear on the thematic element which underlies the DM's decisions, but sometimes Players just refuse to play by the established campaign rules. IN the first case the DM just needs to inform the player of heir error, In the second the DM must expel a troublesome player.
UltimateReality 08-13-07, 12:06 PM	DM's have the right to allow anything they want, but if it is not done in some sort of thematic manner then the game will suffer. Sometimes players are unclear on the thematic element which underlies the DM's decisions, but sometimes Players just refuse to play by the established campaign rules. IN the first case the DM just needs to inform the player of heir error, In the second the DM must expel a troublesome player. I don't have much to add to this beyond a QFT. :) My addition is that flavour is often mutable in my campaigns. If you can make it fit and it's not obviously broken (by the standards of that particular campaign and group), then you can have it.
shadzar 08-14-07, 12:02 AM	This arena is in fact for D&D 3.x and though it is fine to mention other systems within the D&D boards, to insist that they must be discussed, or to talk about them in order to derail a thread is disruption. so would i be correct in saying that Randy Buehler is incorrect? are these forums not a part of Gleemax? if they are not then why is Gleemax part of the URL? We want to give all gamers their own personal pages with tons of features that make it convenient to talk about games, find people to play games with, and get more out of the games they choose to play. We're not just talking about Wizards of the Coast games either. http://www.gleemax.com/articles/announcement001.html will each possible game have its own forum at some point and time where the editions do not collide and every game is given equal number of forums in which to dicuss the various aspects of them? until then since Gleemax has already begun and this is the D&D subforum then would it not mean that subjagating players to just the WotC edition of the game is going against what the purpose of Gleemax is and the community it is trying to create? yes these are serious questions sicne i am on the Gleemax site now and and trying to figure out exactly what Gleemax is if it is contraty to what the Vice President of Digital Gaming described it to be in his announcement.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-14-07, 03:28 AM	so would i be correct in saying that Randy Buehler is incorrect? are these forums not a part of Gleemax? if they are not then why is Gleemax part of the URL? http://www.gleemax.com/articles/announcement001.html will each possible game have its own forum at some point and time where the editions do not collide and every game is given equal number of forums in which to dicuss the various aspects of them? until then since Gleemax has already begun and this is the D&D subforum then would it not mean that subjagating players to just the WotC edition of the game is going against what the purpose of Gleemax is and the community it is trying to create? yes these are serious questions sicne i am on the Gleemax site now and and trying to figure out exactly what Gleemax is if it is contraty to what the Vice President of Digital Gaming described it to be in his announcement. I thought you had question for me? This appears to be directed at the Wizo. A) I'm not entirely sure as to what your babbling about, but I am sure that a thread regarding the DMs power to disallow is not the right place for it. B) I would assume that when the Wizo says that this arena is for the discussion of D&D 3.5, she was referring the what's a player to do form. To wit she is quiet correct discussing non D&D related things is off topic, as this board is for the discussion of D&D, specific were players discuss issues regarding the game. Now you mentioned that you have a question regarding fences. Could please IM it to me, thankx.
Alyri 08-14-07, 10:24 AM	so would i be correct in saying that Randy Buehler is incorrect? more like you're taking his announcement completely out of context... are these forums not a part of Gleemax? until then since Gleemax has already begun and this is the D&D subforum then would it not mean that subjagating players to just the WotC edition of the game is going against what the purpose of Gleemax is and the community it is trying to create? yes these are serious questions sicne i am on the Gleemax site now and and trying to figure out exactly what Gleemax is if it is contraty to what the Vice President of Digital Gaming described it to be in his announcement. ...We want to give all gamers their own personal pages with tons of features that make it convenient to talk about games, find people to play games with, and get more out of the games they choose to play. We're not just talking about Wizards of the Coast games either.... Sounds to me like they are wanting gleemax to be like myspace.
shadzar 08-15-07, 07:22 AM	Now you mentioned that you have a question regarding fences. Could please IM it to me, thankx. it was a meer page back. make up your mind. are you going to stand on the side of using things only and purely as they are written and to the letter of the text they are written as concrete rules? or are you going to accept that things must be changed at times from the RAW for whatever reason, and thus being able to change one thing means that anything else is subject to change as well? so which is it? concrete rules, or general guidelines?
OravennasBrother 08-16-07, 10:17 AM	Wow!!! with the release of 4th edition everyone will HAVE to play Core - at least for a couple of weeks until the first splatbooks come out.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-16-07, 02:13 PM	Wow!!! with the release of 4th edition everyone will HAVE to play Core - at least for a couple of weeks until the first splatbooks come out. Not necessarily. We could always just not upgrade. Continue playing with our 3.5 books, or update them ourselves.
OravennasBrother 08-16-07, 02:49 PM	Not necessarily. We could always just not upgrade. Continue playing with our 3.5 books, or update them ourselves. But in that event you would have to post in out of print games, because only 4th edition will be supported.
UltimateReality 08-16-07, 08:05 PM	But in that event you would have to post in out of print games, because only 4th edition will be supported.I seem to recall a rather lengthy grace period when 3.5 came out where people still talked mainly about 3rd ed. Of course, theoretically a whole new edition should be a bigger change, but I think WotC would do well to maintain at least a separate 3.x board for the first little while. Besides, we can all still post here until whenever they finally bring out the beast....
Alyri 08-17-07, 12:08 AM	This arena is in fact for D&D 3.x and though it is fine to mention other systems within the D&D boards, to insist that they must be discussed, or to talk about them in order to derail a thread is disruption. So everyone, post politely, or at least civilly, or just walk away. To continue this argument will only net you warns. But in that event you would have to post in out of print games, because only 4th edition will be supported. Strangely, I think these forums will be about 3.x -4.x
Holy_Beholder 08-17-07, 12:49 PM	Not that 4th edition(we don't want 4.5, get it right the first time) is coming for another 9 months, and still needs to pick up more books after that.
High Octane 08-17-07, 11:17 PM	I think that the "Main" forums will be 3.5 for a time and 4.0 will have its own forums for a while. Then a few months later when more people have the system and use it they will switch.